advertisement


Next Labour Leader: Keir Starmer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seeker_UK said:
"Get Brexit Done" worked because it used the simplest, most effective, worst-kept secret in advertising and public messaging: the rule of three. "Education, Education, Education", "Liberté, égalité, fraternité", "Dig for Victory", "Freedom is Slavery", you get the idea. Whilst we like to think we're all above such obvious manipulation, we're not. It works.

You're seeing it used more and more now because one of the people behind the messaging coming out of No 10 used it to great effect in 2016 with "Take Back Control" again, a three word slogan and bland enough to tap into many people's thoughts that, "yep, I have little control over my lot in life, this is the answer, obvs" and memorable enough (rule of three) to stick. As I stated elsewhere, this seems to be the only tool in the public messaging toolbox at the moment. Perhaps it's because the speed that messages need to be generated at the moment to deal with the changing circumstances of Covid preclude a more considered approach, only time will tell. What will happen if the a**e is kicked out of it, it will lose some of its effectiveness as people will see it for what it is and ridicule it (look at the meme generator that came out after the 'Stay Alert' message came out).
Click to expand...
I agree with the general point about three word slogans but this, in itself, does not explain the contrasting results of the 2017 and 2019 elections.

Theresa May had "Strong and Stable" and repeated it ad nauseam. It didn't work even though, in theory, it aligned perfectly with May's public image, and with the apparent weakness of the Labour Party.

Nor was Boris Johnson's campaign notably less shambolic than May's in 2017: he hid in a fridge, grabbed a reporters phone in an interview, and dodged scrutiny by Andrew Neil, among other things.

The idea that Labour did relatively well in 2017 but failed in 2019 because May's campaign was uniquely weak and Johnson's campaign was strong does not hold water.
 
ciderglider said:
I sense a reluctance here to identify a "left Labour government". Is that because there has never been one?
Click to expand...

I guess the last 'left Labour government' was Wilson's 1966 government, which ended (gasp) 50 years ago. Though Wilson won the 1974 General Election, Labour was essentially a minority government, torn by internal divisions, and Wilson himself was losing his grip almost from the outset. Dewy-eyed left-wingers can only hark back to the late John Smith, and think of what might have been.
 
droodzilla said:
The idea that Labour did relatively well in 2017 but failed in 2019 because May's campaign was uniquely weak and Johnson's campaign was strong does not hold water.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you work that out. Johnson was much more popular than May. Any of his many and obvious shortcomings were put down to him being 'a character'. You are not seriously suggesting that if May had run the moronic "Get Brexit Done" slogan she would have won by eighty seats are you? They needed Johnson more than the message, blind optimisim will prove very popular - until it fails.
 
SteveS1 said:
I'm not sure how you work that out. Johnson was much more popular than May and any of his many and obvious shortcomings were put down to him being 'a character'. You are not seriously suggesting that if May had run the moronic "Get Brexit Done" slogan she would have won by eighty seats are you?
Click to expand...
Yes. Why not? By 2019, the political landscape, mood of the country etc. was very different to 2017.

Edit: The GBD slogan would not have worked so well, coming from Theresa May in 2019 since, by then, she was pegged as soft on the EU and maybe even "a secret remainer".
 
Joe Hutch said:
I guess the last 'left Labour government' was Wilson's 1966 government, which ended (gasp) 50 years ago. Though Wilson won the 1974 General Election, Labour was essentially a minority government, torn by internal divisions, and Wilson himself was losing his grip almost from the outset. Dewy-eyed left-wingers can only hark back to the late John Smith, and think of what might have been.
Click to expand...

A dead dog would have beaten Major by a landslide in 1997 and said dead dog would have held the next elections too if it had been more competent than Major's shower, which wasn't difficult. Perhaps a dead dog wouldn't have started an illegal war and nearly blown the 2005 election either. People have read too much into the Soft Left deal with Bliar and the ditching of Clause IV as the reason for winning in 1997, it was entirely unnecessary. The whole country was needing a change from the corruption and sleaze of the preceeding years.
 
gavreid said:
A dead dog would have beaten Major by a landslide in 1997 and said dead dog would have held the next elections too if it had been more competent than Major's shower, which wasn't difficult. Perhaps a dead dog wouldn't have started an illegal war and nearly blown the 2005 election either. People have read too much into the Soft Left deal with Bliar and the ditching of Clause IV as the reason for winning in 1997, it was entirely unnecessary. The whole country was needing a change from the corruption and sleaze of the preceeding years.
Click to expand...


That's about as deluded as it gets, '97 was all about Blair. Besides Labour have run better than dead dogs against unpopular Tories and still managed to lose.
 
gavreid said:
There's the delusion my friend, of course it became that, but my dead dog would have been just as popular. Look at the opinion polls from that era, in fact Blair in 1997 was no more popular than Smith had been in 94 (less so in all probability)

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1992-1997
Click to expand...

You're projecting again, Smith's poll ratings were good and Labour's improved with the attention his untimely death brought. There is also no reason to think Smith's platform would have been radically different. The trouble is Gav, stand on the kind of platform you think will deliver and you and I will vote for it, but with nowhere near enough others in support.

I have my doubts as to whether they can count on your vote if you feel it's not left enough, which is fine. But just recognise which course of action the Tories will enjoy most.
 
SteveS1 said:
Why not? Because you are choosing to ignore the vast difference in the popularity of those two.
Click to expand...

You forget that May was riding quite high until May 2017, when her net approval rating was 10%, more or less the same as Boris Johnson's before the 2019 election. It certainly wasn't vastly different:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...esa-mays-favourability-score-plummets-new-low

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/boris-johnson-approval-rating

It's true that there was a dip in May's popularity in the run up to the 2017 election but, according to the article above, this was largely due to Leave voters losing confidence in her. This supports my assertion that, had May been able to say (convincingly) in 2019, "Get Brexit Done", she could have easily won a majority. I'm 90% certain she would have, given the mood of the country.

Of course May's popularity nose-dived after the 2017 election, and the rest is history.
 
ks.234 said:
Of course, what people feel politically is manipulated by the right wing media, but then the right wing media is just a reflection of what in this country is broadly speaking a right wing electorate
Click to expand...

Very true. Particularly socially and even economically to an extent greater than the days of yore.
 
SteveS1 said:
...I have my doubts as to whether they can count on your vote if you feel it's not left enough, which is fine. But just recognise which course of action the Tories will enjoy most.
Click to expand...

To take a random poll in 93 long before Smith's death

Gallup/Telegraph 1993-09-21 CON 23.5 LAB 44 LD 26.5

And no need for knobbery, I've had to vote for some pretty nasty Labour MPs in my time, racists, anti-abortionists, you name it...
 
droodzilla said:
I agree with the general point about three word slogans but this, in itself, does not explain the contrasting results of the 2017 and 2019 elections.

Theresa May had "Strong and Stable" and repeated it ad nauseam. It didn't work even though, in theory, it aligned perfectly with May's public image, and with the apparent weakness of the Labour Party.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that loss of two elections could be down to something as simplistic that; it was a more general observation of how a simple tool that was of some use is now seen as a panacea.

Remember, "strong and stable" was countered by "weak and wobbly" and like "take back control" tapped into a latent thought in many's mind and exploited it with that simple three word tool

droodzilla said:
Nor was Boris Johnson's campaign notably less shambolic than May's in 2017: he hid in a fridge, grabbed a reporters phone in an interview, and dodged scrutiny by Andrew Neil, among other things.
Click to expand...

Well, you highlight that, but ISTM that having him avoiding interviews where he was almost certainly going to drop a b*llock, paid dividends. So in terms of managing any risk to the campaign from the prospective PM's behaviour, more effective than Theresa May's where she shot herself in the foot several times.
 
gavreid said:
No need for knobbery, I've had to vote for some pretty nasty Labour MPs in my time, racists, anti-abortionists, you name it...
Click to expand...

Well I hope you don't have to do that again, can't say I've had much of a dilemma when I see a ballot paper. Unless I've been faced with a tactical vote in a no hope scenario, which has happened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top