Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Jeremy Corbyn does becomes Prime Minister he should than
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Jeremy Corbyn does becomes Prime Minister he should thank Zac Goldsmith
When your own sister criticises your campaign and praises your opponent as a good role model, when the media runs a quiz asking Who said it: Britain First or Zac Goldsmith? deep down you must know you’ve run an ignoble, divisive, and poor campaign that may have long lasting consequences.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Who could you possibly be thinking of TSE, I wonder?
The problem is when you can't get them to buy into the premise at all, as was the case here.
"If Jeremy Corbyn does become Prime Minister ....."
Oh do stop TSE .... It far too early for you to be consuming PBers worldwide with gigantic guffawing this early on a Sunday morning ....
Put the flower boy down, Michelle – he’s my husband: How bra tycoon picked up a 'child' in front of 3,000 people in Vietnam before realising he was a married man, aged 46
Michelle Mone was speaking at an entrepreneurs' conference in Vietnam
The founder of Ultimo lingerie chain spotted what she thought was a boy
Red faces all round when the man's WIFE asked her what she was doing
>Danny565
>Khan did not suggest any Muslims were "uncle Toms".
That's an interestingly Nelsonian approach given that:
1 - Khan is on video saying ""You can't just pick and choose who you speak to. You can't just talk to Uncle Toms." while discussing engaging with the Muslim population.
2 - He is on record saying he said it.
3 - He is on record accepting it was an 'offensive racial slur'.
4 - He apologised for saying it.
I think how Corbyn and also Khan deal with these questions is significant - to date Corbyn has bucked and weaved and dissembled imo.
In this case, how are they going to deal with the various forms of traditionalist Islam and those of their values which are at odds with what the Labour Party says it stands for.
If they try to do a Danny565 and bury the bodies under cover of attacking Goldsmith, then the stink will eventually escape.
I don't think Khan will do that (though Corbyn might), but whether Khan will be challenging enough to the traditionalists - I am not sure.
------------------------------
Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/04/labour-plunged-into-fresh-race-row-as-london-mayoral-candidate-s/
During a discussion about Muslim voters, Mr Khan said: "You can't just pick and choose who you speak to. You can't just talk to Uncle Toms."
Speaking to ITV London News, Mr Khan acknowledged that the comment had been an offensive racial slur.
He said: "It is, and I regret using that phrase.
"The context was me trying to encourage everyone to get involved in government consultations.
"I was a minister at the time. It was wrong and I regret it."
Mr Khan's team had earlier said that he "regrets" using the phrase, used against black people to suggest they are subservient to whites.
A spokesman said: "This was a bad choice of phrase and Sadiq regrets using it.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2016/apr/20/london-mayor-cleric-cameron-said-supports-is-confirms-he-backed-conservatives
Yep - good points.
My relatives are in the happy position of living about 250m outside the London boundary so I get a lot of "there but for the grace of God...".
When people bellow abuse, they are often talking about themselves. The foul-mouthed homophobe turns out to be a closet gay. The evangelical preacher is caught in the vice squad raid. Whether it is Donald Trump, Boris Johnson or Nicola Sturgeon, those who insist that everyone else is lying are the biggest liars of all.
http://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2016/may/07/eu-referendum-brexiteers-trust-in-paranoia-and-mendacity-nick-cohen?CMP=share_btn_tw
He is deluded, he dislikes the West because it has power and uses it sometimes. He believes the underdog is always right - unless it's the white working class.
They need to stick to that. Some of his economic ideas do chime with the electorate so don't invent faults.
But they will because it's politics, and like the Labour party, they can't resist it.
It's about 20 Tory MPs and Peers planning to rebel against Whittingdale's 'assault' on the BBC.
This is another potential self inflicted wound by the Tories. Many posters on here dislike the BBC but that's not shared by the public.
It's intersting when the pendulum swings as it has done here how many people forget what happened just a few short days ago. Obviously no one wants to embarrass fellow posters but there are some pretty prominent ones who got everything about the assault on Khan wrong.
Elsewhere Cameron made a very foolish decision which politically and tactically made no sense and which could well become an ignoble part of his legacy. Lets hope that when the referendum campaign gets into full swing he leaves the the tactics to people who understand what they're doing.
For me the argument against an all out assault on them is that it is totally unnecessary. The Tories can win easily without it.
1. Why does negativity usually seem to pay electoral dividends?
I think it links into popular disillusionment with politics - most people think it simply more credible that politician X is a sleazeball than that he has some good ideas. And it's well-documented that it sells papers better, so the media play up an attack where they'll bury a positive message on page 6.
2. Why didn't it work this time?
As EiT observes, voters generally split the difference - if you say X is corrupt or extreme and he denies it, people will decide he's a bit corrupt/extreme - but sometimes they just don't buy the story at all. It was too obvious that the Tories were flinging mud, and that Khan, while not exactly spell-binding or fun, was not an extremist. Being rather dour is a good protection against exaggerated claims.
3. How far should we be comfortable with such strategies if they DO work?
Quite a few of the criticisms have been on the effectiveness rather than the principle. To say "That was a dog-whistle in a city without dogs" is to imply that if the city had had lots of dogs, it would have been a good idea. And on PB we do a lot of that - we wonder why X hasn't reversed his policy on Y in the light of polling evidence, we criticise smears as ineffective rather than immoral. TSE is criticising the principle, and really we need a bit more of that.
For commercial advertising, agencies are all utterly cynical - if someone says their brand washes whiter or that celebrity Z uses it, they don't waste time pondering whether it's true - they just consider whether it's an effective approach. If it's about washing powder, maybe that doesn't matter much. But for deciding the future of the country we should try to set the bar a bit higher.
Mr. Palmer, I'd add something else to why negativity works:
It's the offensive. When one seizes the offensive, they dictate terms of battle (the terrain and time the battle is fought).
A defensive victory just means holding onto what you've got, but an offensive victory means claiming the territory of your adversary.
It's also a lot easier to ask questions of your opponents than to answer them about yourselves. Being positive and saying "Vote Labour [in your case] because of these reasons" opens up the reasons for microscopic scrutiny.
Said it before, but if the media scrutinised policies they way it puts politicians under a microscope, we'd be a lot better governed (and if politicians didn't have the beady eye of Fleet Street crawling all over them, we'd probably have better politicians too).
Still, I got to vote for a winner for only the third time in my life.
My standard reaction to celeb a b c or d using a product is that money spent on the vapid celeb hasn't been spent on the product, so I won't be buying it thanks.
Suspect many here are the same.
It is the same reason I have spent 30 years not driving BMWs or using Apple computers.
"Unsurprisingly, because both struck me as uncharismatic candidates fighting unexciting campaigns."
From an outside view, I thought it was a nonentity vs a career politician.
Khan may share a platform with extremists, but he does it for political advantage. When Jezza and Ken do it, it's because they agree with them.
Cameron and Blair would also do it for the first reason.
I'd be very surprised if Sadiq does much of anything, and as I don't live in London, I'd not particularly bothered. But it's nice to see that the "expert" advisors can get it so wrong.
For our friends claiming yesterday that the Green's will unconditionally support the SNP at Holyrood... http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14477359.Greens_to_demand_SNP_move_on_tax_as_price_for_propping_up_Sturgeon/
This confirms what I wrote last week, Cameron/Crosby (one does what the other tells him) are panicking. The Goldsmith farce has confirmed they've lost their touch and with regard to the EU they are now completely dependent on events, the much touted "grid" has become as much use as Edstone.
Politics is about confidence, the tories have lost theirs.
In Khan's case dodgy platform friends and old statements were seen as part of the political game and didn't relate to the candidate they saw during the campaign. In contrast the negative attacks on Jezza continue to resonate because he is seen as unreconstructed in his views and political friends. That was a strength in winning the leadership of the Labour party with their selectorate but is a distinct disadvantage with the wider electorate.
1) it is used because it works when it is done credibly. This time it wasn't very credible so it didn't work.
2) advertising is far more effective than we like to think, especially on ourselves. If it wasn't, we'd all be buying supermarket own-brands all the time. I hope @Roger writes about this in detail at some point.
3) when two candidates or parties put out rival messages, the public will usually end up believing both. So they may well believe that Sadiq Khan has some murky connections but if they also believe that Zac Goldsmith is an out of touch posho with no ideas how to improve London for the ordinary citizen, they'll probably overlook that.
4) neither Sadiq Khan nor Zac Goldsmith did a very good job of completing the caption competition "I should be next Mayor of London because..." in 15 words or fewer. So the public went on their default settings.
I felt equally uncomfortable with Cameron's behaviour at PMQs last week. It was brutal and effective but does absolutely nothing to enhance our politics.
Dismayed though I am at Nicks revelation that Daz might be being cynical about their whiter than white claim I think he is right that negative often works. That does not make it a good thing and our politics are the worse for it. I hope we see less of it in future and that its complete failure in this campaign gets people thinking of other strategies.
Anyone who votes REMAIN should have their loved ones tortured to death, as well.
All power to Sean Thomas!
Your last line is on the nail.
There's a well known advertising quote "Facts are irrelevant. What matters is what the public believes"
If you're going to suggest that Khan is consorting with terrorists you have to be sure of your ground. I'm not talking about the morality but the negative effects of trying to peddle something the public doesn't believe.
It always struck me as unlikely that Khan a sitting MP would be consorting with terrorists but I found it's almost beyond belief that Zac's campaign team hadn't taken the elementary precaution of researching the public's response to the claim first
I hope there's a thread about this tomorrow, the way things have subsequently panned out.
Sean Thomas comes first, you know.
http://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2016/may/08/jeremy-corbyn-local-election-results-labour-leadership
And Dan Hodges is now advocating SDP mark II as the answer
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3579033/DAN-HODGES-Congratulations-Sadiq-just-proved-Labour-split.html
In the Labour Party there is little hope that the corbynistas and Blairites will come to any agreement anytime soon if ever? As such, there may not be a Labour Party as we presently know it that could be lead into another General election let alone to winning it. The left though just don't seem to care about winning which is what Khan astutely pointed out as his acceptance speech.
On the other hand the Tories with their in/out split over Europe are also divided though not to the point of splitting. Team hugs would not be the first thing at future meetings. They do have an appetite for winning though which would carry them through in the end at least at the 2020 GE.
What is needed is the "Patrick party" overthrown at birth by the brutal and inopportune posting of a new thread by the controlling Aristocracy just as the message was starting to gain traction with the PB electorate
I still think at the next election Labour has a decent chance of getting to the holy grail of 50% in London - let's see how things pan out...
Clinton 41.4 .. Trump 42.3
http://media.beta.wsbtv.com/document_dev/2016/05/06/Statewide Poll Pres May 5th xlsx_4271809_ver1.0.pdf
But from what I've seen I still don't think it was a racist campaign. That would require it to be either made up (with Khan not having a string of links to unsavoury characters) or for a white Labour politician with similar links not to be treated the same (and given that we've seen the start of such a campaign against Corbyn and particularly McDonnell that falls down too).
From indoctrination in schools, to young people fleeing to Syria, to the scores of foiled terror plots in this country, to guards at synagogues and bahmitzvahs.
There is a mountain of evidence that some communities have a big problem.
And what did we have last Wednesday? At leader of the opposition's questions the PM used all 6 of his questions to demand Corbyn disassociate himself for leading terrorist Saddiq Khan. So we know the campaign came from the very top as Cameron used it in the commons.
Corbyn is very effective at getting Cameron to lose his rag at the dispatch box. Throwing quotes at him often helps. So let's picture this week's exchange. Corbyn asks Cameron to disassociate himself from Cameron's quotes about Khan. Corbyn reads quotes from people like Goldsmith's sister and the ex vice-Chair calling the campaign a disgrace. Reads letters from Londoners disgusted by the overt racism shown by Cameron and Crosby.
What does Cameron do? He can either back down and try and deflect it on onto anti-semitism -in which case the row gets worse ("Cameron refused to speak about growing pressure in his own ranks that his campaign was racist"). Or worse goes purple and restates what he said that Khan really is a terrorist.
This will not go away. It's 2016. You cannot run a campaign based on "if you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Labour" and think people will just shrug and move on. It's an absolute disgrace and any Tory with an ounce of understanding of decency would know it.
Ruth's success in Scotland, Kezia's fail, Khan's victory and the many unknown councillors all had very little to do with the national parties.
As a LD, I am pleased to see a considerable bounceback in support in the national predicted voteshare. Locally in Leics we only had the PCC election with a 19.5 % turnout. The LD candidate came third, on 12.7% of first preferences.
What was wrong with being John Major popular. I really hope the next PM realises that winning votes and being liked often go hand in hand.
And now we have a Mayor of our largest and most ethnically diverse city who happens to be a Muslim. This is a real opportunity and a good thing. If the various strands of Muslim thought can be persuaded that they can and should play a full role in British society and that there are no doors closed to them we have a much better chance of living happily together.
Would it be a stepping stone to the UK Party leadership for when Farage really resigns?
However, that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do politically. Being true is only half the equation; the attack also has to be believed. It also has to be seen as not hypocritical, though that wasn't an issue here. Credibility, on the other hand, was. Khan seemed sincere in his apology for inappropriate language and the lack of more recent evidence will have caused many to discount the attacks. Were they relevant to Khan-the-candidate? The electorate gave its answer.
a: MPs / Councillors
b. Members.
c. Public support
These are also the people setting the referendum strategy for REMAIN.....
As has been discussed before, if the SDP could brand themselves as New Labour, they might be in with a shot.
If Momentum keep the Labour brand, they would be the largest in the short term IMHO
It is Leave that is campaigning on the fear of the foreign other. Remain are campaigning on bread and butter issues like the economy.
@pestononsunday: 'Handy' reminder that @louistheroux and @George_Osborne will be live with @Peston tomorrow from 10am. #Peston https://t.co/JwDrQtJxn1
Also just 23 days until postal voting.
Gosh, how many were killed or mutilated for life this time?
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/729055631131459584
[As an aside, in the next tweet he references, wrongly, Caesar. Claudius would've been more accurate
If Zac had won we would instead be reading about a brilliant Conservative election strategy and how justified it was.
The fact is though Zac was never likely to win - London is a Labour majority city and its just had eight years of a Conservative mayor and six years of a Conservative Westminster government.
Boris was fortunate - in 2008 the Conservatives were 20% ahead of Labour and in 2012 he was a successful incumbent facing the right man at the right time (Ken). Zac had none of those advantages and had the extra drawback of continuing pro-Labour demographic change.
It means "this is my opinion, and because we are all Muslims I think you should all agree with me and give me your backing".
See "as a woman I think ..." used by feminists trying to create wider credence for their personal opinions.
It really means something more like "me, my mates Fred and Joe, and my cat, have this opinion, but want to pretend that you all think the same as we do".