Hi Adam, I completely agree with you on every point. But the critical one is that almost any of us could come up with a better-targeted ad than this. "Believe in locking up paedophiles? The Conservatives have underfunded the Police and Courts so we can't. Labour will fund the justice system properly so it works again".
That's literally off the top of my head, and it's *still* better than the faux-Crosby effort they put out. Hopefully, the backlash will force a rethink.
The argument seems to be "the Tories lie and keep winning elections, so why can't we?". Which seems to ignore the large number of people ready to vote Labour again precisely because they're sick of the lies, drama and corruption. Hopefully the rethink will be very soon and very distinct?
Well there has been a bit of distancing from Starmer's office in terms of who was responsible for it, but at the same time his team seem to have given identical briefings to the Times and Huffpo suggesting there will be much more of this sort of thing. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. Expect more aggressive attacks but probably not as hamfisted and poorly targeted as this one was.
Aggressive is fine, and they need to show something more than "we're not the Tories". But I'd hope they learn from this and make it more forensic and policy-based. There's a huge amount of ammunition that can be fired, but on pure policy grounds alone. The idea that "people don't like detail" and want simple messages, I think, underestimates people's willingness to listen. The idea that "you can never lose by underestimating the average voter" seems to me to be very, very wrong. The average voters is way more intelligent than parties give them (us) credit for, and it's not simply a "what's best for me" calculation.
Starmer is all bout who he’s not: not a Tory party member (although that’s debatable) and not Jeremy Corbyn. Who then, is he? When he’s perhaps consulted a few focus groups, we will know at last.
As a Labour Party member I'm embarrassed by this cynical and misleading strategy. It also plays into personality politics, which I can't stand, framing Sunak as some kind of Super Sheriff.
If you're working to aid Keir, highlighting personalities probably isn't the way forward.
Yes very much agreed. It's making the mistake of trying to fight on your enemy's turf. Labour should lean into the idea that he's dull but competent and will do popular things rather than trying to win a popularity contest, which even with Sunak's flaws, would be difficult for him to win
I think you’re right but when I hear you saying: “The second reason the ad is a mistake is that it merely discredits and distracts from what would otherwise have been a decent attack line for Labour, which is that cuts to the criminal justice system and frontline policing have made tackling these kinds of crimes significantly harder under this Government. It is this basic argument, which Labour’s ad appear to clumsily be making. However, this reasonable argument is lost in the outrage over Labour’s “gutter politics”. ‘ I wonder how the Labour ad creatives turn this into a simple, digestible message that’s acceptable to those who care about this topic? I note that once again, Tories are blaming local councils (Labour controlled, naturally) for the problem. I can see how those messages, however wrong headed, will stick with local audiences. In all of this, I recall with horror the Big Red Bus Lie that chimed with enough people to influence the Brexit vote. Try as they might, the Remain group had no convincing answer that could be distilled into a simple catchphrase. Perhaps it’s better for Labour to anticipate Tory attack lines and language so they can develop good counter punches. It worked for Ali as a strategy, why not Labour?
Hi Den, good points. My feeling is that voters are sick of the lies and bullshit and divisive messages, which is why they're turning away from the Crosby-model of campaigning. Given the messages that Labour could so easily put out, why are they taking dreadful advice on these attack ads? Is the calculation that they serve the Dominic Cummings purpose of keeping an awkward issue fir the opponent front and centre? If so, that seems unwise, and distinctly jarring.
What we are now seeing - I think - is a clever way to characterise Sunak as exactly the opposite to what he claims. I’d go further. When he took over from Truss I hoped he’d be a steady pair of hands with enough integrity to relieve us all of the previous 3 years of madness. It turns out that actually, he is weak. For too long, Starmer has appeared weak, now he’s showing us his pit bull side. I’m OK with that.
Agreed, he has been very weak in his internal party management, particularly appointments, to try placating his extreme right wing. That said, I think Labour can and should exploit this better.
Hi Adam, I completely agree with you on every point. But the critical one is that almost any of us could come up with a better-targeted ad than this. "Believe in locking up paedophiles? The Conservatives have underfunded the Police and Courts so we can't. Labour will fund the justice system properly so it works again".
That's literally off the top of my head, and it's *still* better than the faux-Crosby effort they put out. Hopefully, the backlash will force a rethink.
The argument seems to be "the Tories lie and keep winning elections, so why can't we?". Which seems to ignore the large number of people ready to vote Labour again precisely because they're sick of the lies, drama and corruption. Hopefully the rethink will be very soon and very distinct?
Well there has been a bit of distancing from Starmer's office in terms of who was responsible for it, but at the same time his team seem to have given identical briefings to the Times and Huffpo suggesting there will be much more of this sort of thing. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. Expect more aggressive attacks but probably not as hamfisted and poorly targeted as this one was.
Aggressive is fine, and they need to show something more than "we're not the Tories". But I'd hope they learn from this and make it more forensic and policy-based. There's a huge amount of ammunition that can be fired, but on pure policy grounds alone. The idea that "people don't like detail" and want simple messages, I think, underestimates people's willingness to listen. The idea that "you can never lose by underestimating the average voter" seems to me to be very, very wrong. The average voters is way more intelligent than parties give them (us) credit for, and it's not simply a "what's best for me" calculation.
Starmer is all bout who he’s not: not a Tory party member (although that’s debatable) and not Jeremy Corbyn. Who then, is he? When he’s perhaps consulted a few focus groups, we will know at last.
As a Labour Party member I'm embarrassed by this cynical and misleading strategy. It also plays into personality politics, which I can't stand, framing Sunak as some kind of Super Sheriff.
If you're working to aid Keir, highlighting personalities probably isn't the way forward.
Yes very much agreed. It's making the mistake of trying to fight on your enemy's turf. Labour should lean into the idea that he's dull but competent and will do popular things rather than trying to win a popularity contest, which even with Sunak's flaws, would be difficult for him to win
I think you’re right but when I hear you saying: “The second reason the ad is a mistake is that it merely discredits and distracts from what would otherwise have been a decent attack line for Labour, which is that cuts to the criminal justice system and frontline policing have made tackling these kinds of crimes significantly harder under this Government. It is this basic argument, which Labour’s ad appear to clumsily be making. However, this reasonable argument is lost in the outrage over Labour’s “gutter politics”. ‘ I wonder how the Labour ad creatives turn this into a simple, digestible message that’s acceptable to those who care about this topic? I note that once again, Tories are blaming local councils (Labour controlled, naturally) for the problem. I can see how those messages, however wrong headed, will stick with local audiences. In all of this, I recall with horror the Big Red Bus Lie that chimed with enough people to influence the Brexit vote. Try as they might, the Remain group had no convincing answer that could be distilled into a simple catchphrase. Perhaps it’s better for Labour to anticipate Tory attack lines and language so they can develop good counter punches. It worked for Ali as a strategy, why not Labour?
Hi Den, good points. My feeling is that voters are sick of the lies and bullshit and divisive messages, which is why they're turning away from the Crosby-model of campaigning. Given the messages that Labour could so easily put out, why are they taking dreadful advice on these attack ads? Is the calculation that they serve the Dominic Cummings purpose of keeping an awkward issue fir the opponent front and centre? If so, that seems unwise, and distinctly jarring.
What we are now seeing - I think - is a clever way to characterise Sunak as exactly the opposite to what he claims. I’d go further. When he took over from Truss I hoped he’d be a steady pair of hands with enough integrity to relieve us all of the previous 3 years of madness. It turns out that actually, he is weak. For too long, Starmer has appeared weak, now he’s showing us his pit bull side. I’m OK with that.
Agreed, he has been very weak in his internal party management, particularly appointments, to try placating his extreme right wing. That said, I think Labour can and should exploit this better.