| My latest ramblings on 16:25 - Jun 5 with 573 views | J2BLUE |
I would read it but i'd probably interpret it wrong so i'll give it a miss. |  |
|  |
| My latest ramblings on 16:31 - Jun 5 with 568 views | tractordownsouth |
| My latest ramblings on 16:25 - Jun 5 by J2BLUE |
I would read it but i'd probably interpret it wrong so i'll give it a miss. |
There’s always the chance to redeem yourself a few months later 😉 |  |
| |
| My latest ramblings on 17:13 - Jun 5 with 544 views | Darth_Koont |
Serious question: why is it just about branding and messaging? What about actual policies?
It feels Cummings-esque. |  |
| |
| My latest ramblings on 19:21 - Jun 5 with 489 views | tractordownsouth |
| My latest ramblings on 17:13 - Jun 5 by Darth_Koont |
Serious question: why is it just about branding and messaging? What about actual policies?
It feels Cummings-esque. |
Yeah, that's a fair challenge. Policy should obviously be the most important thing and does play a part, but I feel that Labour does best without the 'eat the rich' or doom and gloom rhtetoric, which the last couple of campaigns sometimes strayed into.
For example, the 1997 manifesto contained progressive policies such as the windfall tax and minimum wage but more was made of how they would lift people out of poverty and raise their wages rather than the current state of affairs. Of course these things need highlighting but by talking more about the outcome rather than the starting point, it means the opposition lose the right to accuse the party of "doing the country down" etc.
Obviously we have different views on the New Labour period and they had more of the media on their side, just used that as an example of progressive policies branded differently. | |
| |
| My latest ramblings on 19:44 - Jun 5 with 466 views | Darth_Koont |
| My latest ramblings on 19:21 - Jun 5 by tractordownsouth |
Yeah, that's a fair challenge. Policy should obviously be the most important thing and does play a part, but I feel that Labour does best without the 'eat the rich' or doom and gloom rhtetoric, which the last couple of campaigns sometimes strayed into.
For example, the 1997 manifesto contained progressive policies such as the windfall tax and minimum wage but more was made of how they would lift people out of poverty and raise their wages rather than the current state of affairs. Of course these things need highlighting but by talking more about the outcome rather than the starting point, it means the opposition lose the right to accuse the party of "doing the country down" etc.
Obviously we have different views on the New Labour period and they had more of the media on their side, just used that as an example of progressive policies branded differently. |
Good post and the point about outcome rather than starting point or necessary policy is a valid one.
I think my problem with it is that the Tories play the brand and message game better, being able to stoop lower and with the sloping media giving them the advantage too. The Leave campaign won through messaging, values etc but there was no policy or even realistic outcome behind it. I worry that Labour gets trapped in a game where the odds are against them.
Ultimately the Tories don’t want change. If they can also get an opposition that doesn’t want change then it’s win-win. But Labour has a few years to concentrate on shifting the debate to an area where the Tories can’t win: objective assessments of the best policies and what a 21st Century developed country needs to be talking about. “Patriotism” is way down the list on that score, let’s bring that in as the cherry on top rather than anything big and important on its own. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
