Re: The U.K. Election thread

[Lindsay no.2]

Considering how on top of propaganda they've been in general during this government the Tories' campaign has been so woeful and badly judged a part of me is wondering if they're deliberately trying to chuck this election (as quietly as possible of course) because they suspect we're due another big crash in the next five years (nothing that caused the last one has really been fixed) and would rather not be in charge while it happens. Either that or they just genuinely are so out of touch they think this is actually the best way to get into power.

That thought occurred to me more with Farage, and his many ham-fistedly self-inflicted wounds during the campaign! ....

I think it's more the "dead cat" strategy that BoJo explained as a key tactic of Lynton Crosby's strategy.

(Anybody not heard what the "dead cat" is? No? Good. Let's move on then, to its application ... )

It amounts to causing misdirection, bewilderment and distraction in the Election campaign.

The bottom line being that oppositions are denigrated, ridiculed and backbitten to the point where confused voters think (a) "What the hell is really going on? I can't work it out!", b) "There's "no smoke without fire" with all them stories and rumours and sleaze allegations that's going round about the other parties and individuals (yes, isn't he ugly!!!) - not sure I can rely on any of them tbh" .... and the intended clincher, the grand payoff:

c)  "All politicians and all parties are basically completely the bloody same, cynical corrupt rotten manipulators, all in it for themselves, etc. - so I might as well just follow suit, look after my own short-term economic interests - and bugger everything and everyone else to hell."

That last is a classic ploy in the electioneering of of the more grimly-inclined Conservative parties and politicians worldwide through the last 30 years:

If you pitch across the political spectrum as bleakly pessimistic a view of society, civilisation, human nature, etc as possible, then (it is calculated) enough people will sooner or later give up and plump for their own profit (narrowly-perceived, short-term, but under-informed even about their own longer-term and the society's interests, and as far as humanly possible, free of conscience too). And so vote for your party.

Of course you also have to throw in quite a lot of (big, vague, burstable, expedient) boasts & promises, so as to not sound like a cynic or manipulator, .....

Pack that all together, and you've essentially got Crosby Productions.The rest depends on constant uniform-message repetition & bombardment (hence the clicking of heels to "commanding performance" etc. - see above), until enough of the electorate either believes it, or at least gives up working it out, sees a conflagration of imaginary fire in the dense smokescreens created, .... and in this case, votes for Crosby's employer, in sufficient numbers to return them to power.

Interesting, if bleak.

Points a, b and c are all true in terms of electioneering tactics. But given the last few decades of how all parties have performed, both in and out of government, then the public probably think like that most of the time anyway and are not so swayed by it in the run-up to the vote. We've had a constant diet of sleaze...by all of them, false promises...by all of them, confused and confusing U-turns...by all of them. End result - increased voter apathy.

Ultimately, don't voters generally vote for the crew that they think is likely to be the most beneficial to them/their own back pocket/personal future interests? Or am I doing the majority of the electorate a huge disservice in assuming that?

[Basil]

So, the Royal Baby must be good for the Tories?

How does that work?

"I was going to vote Labour, but shit-a-brick, I'm going to vote Tory because I'm so chuffed about the royal baby"

100 years ago, maybe. But not now.

[LeFromage]

So, the Royal Baby must be good for the Tories?

No, but it's a good distraction for Murdoch - The Times have admitted making up a front-page scaremongering story about Labour planning to tax families an extra £1000.

They can bury that retraction on page 37 of their Royal Baby Special Edition tomorrow.

[lardbucket]

Fifteen pages of conjecture over the name (we all know it'll be Diana Elizabeth or vice versa) and 12 photos of the infant, Kate smiling wanly, Pippa's arse, and something that might be the placenta on page 36?

[JGK]

So, the Royal Baby must be good for the Tories?

How does that work?

"I was going to vote Labour, but shit-a-brick, I'm going to vote Tory because I'm so chuffed about the royal baby"

100 years ago, maybe. But not now.

Good to hear. Unfortunately it could make a difference in Oz (although we have compulsory voting).

[OP Tipping]

Dunno whether there is a tipping competition but ...


I'll go out there right now and say that Labour will form a minority government but that they will need at least _two_ other parties' help. Labour + SNP will be less than the required.

[Lindsay no.2]

Well, well.

Has Eddie baby just Kinnocked it?

Whomever came up with the idea to enshrine Labour's manifesto in an 8 foot high stone tablet and suggest it be laid in 10 Downing Street's garden, if Labour win, is off the charts mental. And Ed showing massive hubris or naivety in approving said idea (unless he of course came up with it himself).

Talk about giving everyone all the ammo they need to portray you as a nutjob - I can only imagine Crosby and co shat themselves with excitement when they saw what Ed Mosesband had done.

Jawdropping. Even The Guardian cannot muster a defence for it.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/03/ed-milibands-carved-pledges-could-sink-like-a-stone

[Merlin]

Jawdropping. Even The Guardian cannot muster a defence for it.

I understand that Russell Brand did though!

Eddie = A Nutjob personified!

[JGK]

Is this thing on tomorrow?

[taipan]

Thursday

[JGK]

Fifteen pages of conjecture over the name (we all know it'll be Diana Elizabeth or vice versa) and 12 photos of the infant, Kate smiling wanly, Pippa's arse, and something that might be the placenta on page 36?

Not bad at all Lardy.

Charlotte Elizabeth Diana it is.

[WideWally]

Fifteen pages of conjecture over the name (we all know it'll be Diana Elizabeth or vice versa) and 12 photos of the infant, Kate smiling wanly, Pippa's arse, and something that might be the placenta on page 36?

Not bad at all Lardy.

Charlotte Elizabeth Diana it is.

I don't think I would ever consider naming my daughter Charlotte.

...... for obvious reasons.

[taipan]

Fifteen pages of conjecture over the name (we all know it'll be Diana Elizabeth or vice versa) and 12 photos of the infant, Kate smiling wanly, Pippa's arse, and something that might be the placenta on page 36?

Not bad at all Lardy.

Charlotte Elizabeth Diana it is.

I don't think I would ever consider naming my daughter Charlotte.

...... for obvious reasons.

Alice. Likewise.

[lardbucket]

Fifteen pages of conjecture over the name (we all know it'll be Diana Elizabeth or vice versa) and 12 photos of the infant, Kate smiling wanly, Pippa's arse, and something that might be the placenta on page 36?

Not bad at all Lardy.

They are predictable.

[JGK]

Fifteen pages of conjecture over the name (we all know it'll be Diana Elizabeth or vice versa) and 12 photos of the infant, Kate smiling wanly, Pippa's arse, and something that might be the placenta on page 36?

Not bad at all Lardy.

Charlotte Elizabeth Diana it is.

I don't think I would ever consider naming my daughter Charlotte.

...... for obvious reasons.

Aye. It's a Red Top headline in 20 years if she doesn't behave.

[skully]

Fifteen pages of conjecture over the name (we all know it'll be Diana Elizabeth or vice versa) and 12 photos of the infant, Kate smiling wanly, Pippa's arse, and something that might be the placenta on page 36?

Not bad at all Lardy.

Charlotte Elizabeth Diana it is.

Other than the obvious Charlotte the Harlot misnomer, I really like the name. And she's cute as a button.

[horace]

geebers Skully...a bit early to move on from Miss A to the new bane...oops bairn

[skully]

"How much for the little girl?"

[JGK]

Fifteen pages of conjecture over the name (we all know it'll be Diana Elizabeth or vice versa) and 12 photos of the infant, Kate smiling wanly, Pippa's arse, and something that might be the placenta on page 36?

Not bad at all Lardy.

Charlotte Elizabeth Diana it is.

Other than the obvious Charlotte the Harlot misnomer, I really like the name. And she's cute as a button.

Aye. She's been named twice after her paternal grandmother.

[PeterCS]

Well, well.

Has Eddie baby just Kinnocked it?

Whomever came up with the idea to enshrine Labour's manifesto in an 8 foot high stone tablet and suggest it be laid in 10 Downing Street's garden, if Labour win, is off the charts mental. And Ed showing massive hubris or naivety in approving said idea (unless he of course came up with it himself).

Talk about giving everyone all the ammo they need to portray you as a nutjob - I can only imagine Crosby and co shat themselves with excitement when they saw what Ed Mosesband had done.

Jawdropping. Even The Guardian cannot muster a defence for it.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/03/ed-milibands-carved-pledges-could-sink-like-a-stone

Well, that's another flamboyant show, L#2. But, I'd suggest, rather more sensation than substance.

You can be sure the ToryHQ propaganda machine, and its media hunting pack, (indeed) pounced on a chance, with a high-pitched View-Halloo. Representing the stone exactly on the lines you suggest. (As some massive wank of hybris on the part of Labour.)

I have to say, for me the idea is pretty much a meh. Not really a major incident or issue either way.

More risible than the stone, however, may be the desperation of Tory squires, their red-in-tooth-and-claw career hunters, paid pack jackals and various mangy hyenas to blow it out of all proportion.

IF the plan were, say, to erect a HUGE, LAVISH NEON OBELISK IN THE MIDDLE OF TRAFALGAR SQUARE, bearing the glorious names of the Labour front bench (perhaps with a few LibDem guests-of- honour), before which visitors were to kneel ... then I would agree it was a big vanity project, and worse: a bizarre and out-of-place act of boastfulness more naturally associated with the entitled elite of this country.

What however is actually proposed? Unless I've misheard, a plain column, 8 feet high, just large enough to have a number of stated core values inscribed on it: to be placed at Downing St.

So that, every day,  if given an opportunity to form a government, senior ministers (plus calling colleagues and civil servants) can be reminded of what,they had undertaken to pursue as their top priorities. In a form (simple inscriptions, set in stone) that is not so easily ignored by those in such positions.

Forgive me if I've got this wrong: but isn't that in some ways a useful sort of serious reminder of heavy responsibilities accepted?

And isn't - on the other hand - pillorying it more like a misrepresentation: whether innocently following media suggestions; or rather worse, a twisting manipulation by the deeply cynical?

Again, I agree, it's pretty meh. You can argue any such self-reminders offer hostages to misrepresentation - and anyway should never be needed. After all, the outgoing government didn't need any such stones - it missed a huge number of its core goals/solemn promises without any such help. (Though Crosby Cameron Osborne etc. have tried energetically to cover these fails with a mixture of myth, misrepresentation, & added vilification. ...)


PS: Today's latest is that, even if Lab were to form a government, the thing would probs not get planning permission anyway! Before guffawing at that, it's not quite what it seems. Westminster Council is Tory-dominated .... so the rumbling of stumbling blocks is not exactly on the basis of "aesthetic taste" ... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/ed-milibands-stone-monolith-probably-wont-get-planning-permission-from-westminster-council-10223498.html

[PeterCS]

Okay, Merls, back as promised to your fusillade of the other day.

To repeat: I can't field all the scattergun bits of shrapnel you fired off. (Certainly not in this one place, anyhow. If you would like me to counter, say, your repeat of ToryHQ's braying propaganda about a "coalition of chaos", I will, gladly. ...)

So one central, basic myth. The belief - widespread, & understandably popular in straitened times of years of recession, so a generally successful ploy of the Conservatives - that "Brown (or is it "Ed"?) crashed the economy", that "Labour massively overborrowed", "...wrecked the UK", and a few variations on that objection-silencing theme.

Briefly to deal with Liam Byrne's ill-advised, facetious quip - whipped up by CrosbyCamOs into a venomous-but-deadly-serious bank statement (!). (Did you know, by the way, it's a convention of outgoing Treasury ministers to leave such a joke as a humorous parting shot? Insiders - like expenses cheat David Laws and also Geo Osborne - DO know this: and know what they do.)


Unlike yourself, I'll refer to a variety of sources. All well-informed, with sourced, authoritative info (mostly from official statistics) - and none spiced up. No Crosby figures then... no quotes from the Mule, the loyalist Telegraph or Murdoch's organs.

Also, I've tried to arrange this - again - in short, readable paragraphs. I found your (Horace-beating) long, not always well digested paragraphs a bit heavy going.

Since you declared yourself reluctant to challenge prejudices with reading or hard info - you appeared to want to turn that into a virtue, as if information input was contamination - I'll precis the content of each.

So: if you disagree, please at least check the summaries, so you see what the objections may be to the unending snowstorm of "expedient" Conservative HQ explanations.

> (next post for the "stuff")

[PeterCS]

Any of these is instructive. I wouldn't advise them all at one sitting ....

1. *Conservative*-minded economist, Huffington Post 2012.

Explodes 3 connected myths of UK Conservative propaganda: (a) Labour left a massive black hole of debt; (b) Labour vastly overspent, & thus caused the biggest deficit in the developed world; (c) a hardline Austerity course (supposedly justified by a and b) instilled confidence and boosted investment in the UK. The author argues precisely the opposite: the Tories proclaiming "a Labour mess", indulging in an extended "blame game", and going hard for Austerity, served rather to *destabilise* the UK economy, and *lower* confidence of investors in the UK.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html

2. Article by the New Economics Foundation, 2013 (independent think tank - see the page on their income sources - dedicated to investigating viable ways to long-term, sustainable economic growth)

Includes various quotes by top Tory reps/propagandists, and counters them with authoritative facts and figures.

Argues, against the propaganda lines, that: (a) Lab did NOT borrow excessively, (b) it was the BANKS caused the deep, long recession, (c) Brown's measures in fact REDUCED the otherwise far worse severity of the downturn in the UK.

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/mythbusters-excessive-government-borrowing-got-us-into-this-mess

3. Conclusions of the current Permanent Secretary to the Treasury:

Debunks the myth that it was supposed "Labour overspending" which caused the crisis: the crash was due to "a banking crisis, pure and simple", and those countries with the biggest financial sectors were most affected by it. (He also rubbishes any comparison with the economic situation in Greece.)

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/03/senior-tory-financial-crash-was-purely-a-banking-crisis-not-labour-overspend

4. "Economics help" analysis. Easy-to-follow identification of levels of public sector debt under Labour 1997-2010 (and other eras), by a teacher and independent analyst of economics.

Using official UK Treasury statistics, disputes the party political propaganda claim that "it was debt that got us into this mess", and its desire to pin Labour for the banking crash and its consequences. (Also points out that - in the teeth of its propaganda claims - public debt has been RISING under the Coalition.)

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/7568/debt/government-debt-under-labour-1997-2010/

5. April 2015, article by Economics editor of the Guardian - before you hiss at the source, read a clear, well-backed and -evidenced argument, :

a) the "Labour's economic firestorm" line touted by Cameron & Co (and for a time parroted by Clegg) is a myth; b) the economy was ON THE MEND in 2010, after the banking crash from America 2007-08 & its catastrophic economic effects, c) the coalition "overdosed on Austerity", setting back the recovery of the UK economy.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/16/nick-clegg-2010-britain-economic-firestorm

6. "Economics help" again - see 4. - this time using ONS figures to demonstrate the fall in wages of approx. 3% (real terms), UK 2010-13

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6994/economics/uk-wage-growth/

7. Article from the Independent, yesterday - citing official ONS output., One more politically committed voice. (But again, check the argument before jumping to conclusions.) Economics professor,  Economics Ed of the New Statesman, etc. etc.

Essential points: the Coalition's economic policy has actually left the UK worse off, not better: including a 3.4% real terms pay cut 2010-2015 (and rise in VAT), a step-by-step decline in GDP growth over the past year (in May 2010 it had been rising again). Other details: nuff said, you'd have to read the article!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/david-blanchflower/david-blanchflower-the-coalitions-economic-legacy-is-plain--it-has-leftus-worse-off-10223276.html

[taipan]

Lies, damned lies and economics?

[Merlin]

Pete,

Much as I admire your attempts to belittle and berate the Conservative cause, may I politely point out
that serving up titbits from the HuffnPuff Post, the I'mdependent and the Grauniad -
all organs with liberal/left leanings (a couple heavily left) - doesn't exactly do your cause justice!

Nice try though!

So why don't we just leave it that we will agree to disagree, and for the wee time left,
keep a polite distance apart until May 8th !

[Brass Monkey]

SHIT!!!! I didn't get here in time to do :

[Merlin] Agree to disagree. Moving on... [/Merlin]

It was always going to be so.

Can't speak for two of them, but my mate was political editor for the Huffington Post for about 18 months - doubtful he'd call it leftist. Very doubtful.

[Sponsored content]