By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 09:01 - Apr 10 by Churchman
My view on the broad stance of the advert is that it is correct. The tories are soft on crime, probably because it doesn’t personally affect them. Evidence? My friend at NCA was told 18 months ago to his face as his team numbers reduced that ‘serious crime was not a government priority’.
However, I don’t see why Starmer had to engage in this way at this time. Attack them on their appalling record on literally everything, including massacring the police force, at the next election. In the meantime ask questions and invite debate now. Doing adverts in this way just invites an unnecessary slap in the face back.
They seem to hve doubled down on it this morning, unfortunately.
Stupid, unnecessary mistake which gives opponents a stick to beat them with come GE time, & which I doubt Tory politicians or wavering tory voters will forget.
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 10:23 - Apr 10 by Ryorry
They seem to hve doubled down on it this morning, unfortunately.
Stupid, unnecessary mistake which gives opponents a stick to beat them with come GE time, & which I doubt Tory politicians or wavering tory voters will forget.
If anyone's interested Chris Bryant is hosting lbc now defending the adds while most people phoning in rip him to shreds. Just a shame the had to personalise it - they could have made the same point without the sludge.
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 09:59 - Apr 10 by Darth_Koont
There's still a "We send 350 million pounds a week to the EU. Let's fund the NHS instead" type of dishonesty about it.
Disingenuous and smeary politics is a large part of what brought us here. And it's a race to the bottom that puts progressive politics and the prospect of change (let alone actual debate and facts) to the margins.
Yes, there's certainly very little progressive or positive vision on show from Labour.
One of the issues I have is that the more Labour pander to the agenda of the right-wing press, they more they will be held hostage by the press when in power, assuming they even achieve power, what with boundary changes, voter ID and Sunak managing to improve Tory poll ratings.
[Post edited 10 Apr 2023 11:01]
0
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 11:00 - Apr 10 with 1063 views
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 09:01 - Apr 10 by Churchman
My view on the broad stance of the advert is that it is correct. The tories are soft on crime, probably because it doesn’t personally affect them. Evidence? My friend at NCA was told 18 months ago to his face as his team numbers reduced that ‘serious crime was not a government priority’.
However, I don’t see why Starmer had to engage in this way at this time. Attack them on their appalling record on literally everything, including massacring the police force, at the next election. In the meantime ask questions and invite debate now. Doing adverts in this way just invites an unnecessary slap in the face back.
Agreed, other than I doubt Starmer had much to do with this tweet.
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
0
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 11:05 - Apr 10 with 1033 views
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 10:54 - Apr 10 by leitrimblue
JC nailing it again
They really should be working together, another unnecessary, stupid mistake by both JC & KS not to sort out their differences in the long-term interests of both the LP and the UK as a whole.
You'd have thought that some intelligent analyst/strategist within the LP would have pointed out to both numerous times by now that the only way the tories have been able to dominate electorally in recent years was, unfortunately, by accepting all branches of the party, however much nose-holding had to be done in the process. (Or maybe somebody did point it out but was ignored, which would be even stupider).
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 10:29 - Apr 10 by giant_stow
If anyone's interested Chris Bryant is hosting lbc now defending the adds while most people phoning in rip him to shreds. Just a shame the had to personalise it - they could have made the same point without the sludge.
Defending the indefensible?
0
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 11:07 - Apr 10 with 1010 views
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 09:59 - Apr 10 by Darth_Koont
There's still a "We send 350 million pounds a week to the EU. Let's fund the NHS instead" type of dishonesty about it.
Disingenuous and smeary politics is a large part of what brought us here. And it's a race to the bottom that puts progressive politics and the prospect of change (let alone actual debate and facts) to the margins.
Change the bloody record, your continual smearing of Starmer will only increase the likelihood of the Tories remaining in power, if only you’d be as concerned with the actual damage caused by the people in government now rather than a perceived (prejudiced by blind love of Corbyn) risk of a bloke currently in opposition who isn’t as “left” as your cult hero. Just mind-numbingly dull and repetitive.
0
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 11:24 - Apr 10 with 946 views
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 11:05 - Apr 10 by Ryorry
They really should be working together, another unnecessary, stupid mistake by both JC & KS not to sort out their differences in the long-term interests of both the LP and the UK as a whole.
You'd have thought that some intelligent analyst/strategist within the LP would have pointed out to both numerous times by now that the only way the tories have been able to dominate electorally in recent years was, unfortunately, by accepting all branches of the party, however much nose-holding had to be done in the process. (Or maybe somebody did point it out but was ignored, which would be even stupider).
I posted this on another thread, but this shows those on the right of the party want nothing to do with anyone to the left of them (including me) or their policies.
It's a shame because, whatever Corbyn's failings, some of his policies were popular. Indeed, I saw on the street the mood change in Labour's favour during the 2017 general election campaign (when he was enable to present his case relatively free from media manipulation), with increasing support as the campaign went on from many people in their 20s, 30s and 40s facing things like student debt and high housing costs.
The problem it seems to me is that many such people (including the thousands at Glastonbury) may not be attracted to the Starmer vision, which is much more of the same, and so may well end up not voting or voting for the Greens.
[Post edited 10 Apr 2023 11:43]
1
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 11:30 - Apr 10 with 936 views
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 13:39 - Apr 9 by GlasgowBlue
I thought Labour had the moral high ground over the Tories. The Tories smeared Starmer so it's ok for Labour to smear Sunak isn't the defence that you think it is.
Most people on your side of the political divide have spoken out against this attack ad.
BTW. Sunak disowned Johnson's Savile smear against Starmer.
I'm not condoning it, I'm just highlighting the hypocrisy from the other side of the spectrum
It's okay to play dirty until the opposition do it, then, that isn't allowed
It's the same kind of people who claim to be libertarian until it doesn't suit their agenda any more. They Libertarian until it comes to things like LGBT and workers rights, the disabled, health and safety, political correctness etc.
[Post edited 10 Apr 2023 12:07]
Alcohol is the answer but I can't remember the question!
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 09:01 - Apr 10 by Churchman
My view on the broad stance of the advert is that it is correct. The tories are soft on crime, probably because it doesn’t personally affect them. Evidence? My friend at NCA was told 18 months ago to his face as his team numbers reduced that ‘serious crime was not a government priority’.
However, I don’t see why Starmer had to engage in this way at this time. Attack them on their appalling record on literally everything, including massacring the police force, at the next election. In the meantime ask questions and invite debate now. Doing adverts in this way just invites an unnecessary slap in the face back.
It does amuse me that a party which cut policing numbers by 20k and all the support services alongside it, can ever claim to be tough on crime
It's the same argument with 'stop the boats', 13 years of the Tory austerity programme has led to the backlog of asylum cases
Instead of tackling the problem properly, they'd rather just victimise the asylum seekers and weaponise the issue politically, in reality they have caused the problem
They are knowingly agitating far right elements for their own gains
For me they have gone too far now, this is dangerous, the Tories are playing with fire on this
A lot of what they are doing now would be a red flag in radicalisation type training etc. I don't know how many of you have done it as part of your work but it's madness that the party of government is actively encouraging these elements of society to fester
I hope genuine Tories are genuinely shocked at this now and turn to Starmer
[Post edited 10 Apr 2023 12:34]
Alcohol is the answer but I can't remember the question!
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 11:07 - Apr 10 by Ryorry
Unfortunately he endorsed it this morning (according to BBC R4 news anyway).
Fair enough, although my point was more that I doubt it was originated by him. I guess he has to defend it now it's out there. He could apologise and say it was misjudged but that just leaves him wide open.
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
0
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 12:19 - Apr 10 with 844 views
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 13:39 - Apr 9 by GlasgowBlue
I thought Labour had the moral high ground over the Tories. The Tories smeared Starmer so it's ok for Labour to smear Sunak isn't the defence that you think it is.
Most people on your side of the political divide have spoken out against this attack ad.
BTW. Sunak disowned Johnson's Savile smear against Starmer.
Do you have a link to Sunak disowning the Saville remarks, just because I remember him sitting next to Boris smirking when he made it and subsequently I only was aware of him saying something else linked but didn’t criticise it at all?
0
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 12:26 - Apr 10 with 821 views
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 11:13 - Apr 10 by PassionNotAnger
Change the bloody record, your continual smearing of Starmer will only increase the likelihood of the Tories remaining in power, if only you’d be as concerned with the actual damage caused by the people in government now rather than a perceived (prejudiced by blind love of Corbyn) risk of a bloke currently in opposition who isn’t as “left” as your cult hero. Just mind-numbingly dull and repetitive.
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 12:19 - Apr 10 by PassionNotAnger
Do you have a link to Sunak disowning the Saville remarks, just because I remember him sitting next to Boris smirking when he made it and subsequently I only was aware of him saying something else linked but didn’t criticise it at all?
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 11:00 - Apr 10 by The_Flashing_Smile
Agreed, other than I doubt Starmer had much to do with this tweet.
Perhaps this is part of the problem with Starmer, namely, that he had no political experience prior to becoming an MP (and thus has very little political nous) and so is over-reliant on his advisers.
I would tend to think that Blair would not have let this through, but he had been an MP for about 12 years before he became leader.
[Post edited 10 Apr 2023 12:59]
1
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 13:08 - Apr 10 with 731 views
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 12:53 - Apr 10 by DJR
Perhaps this is part of the problem with Starmer, namely, that he had no political experience prior to becoming an MP (and thus has very little political nous) and so is over-reliant on his advisers.
I would tend to think that Blair would not have let this through, but he had been an MP for about 12 years before he became leader.
[Post edited 10 Apr 2023 12:59]
Blair was more than capable of the same. As he admitted when he left power.
As is always the case with Blair, this appears to me to be a partial mea culpa if you read the article in full, but what he did say in 1993 did tap into a general sentiment at the time (of those who were not Tories) that society had broken down. It was also not a personal attack in the same way the current Labour ads are. And I don't think it attracted any similar backlash (apart from maybe the Tory party and its friends in the media).
In any event, Blair in the early years was clearly a better political operator than Starmer, and probably had better advisers when he was minded to go astray ("we don't do God").
Interestingly, his most effective {but maybe meaningless) slogan on law and order was "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", which itself involved no attack on the Tories.
[Post edited 11 Apr 2023 12:15]
0
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 14:48 - Apr 11 with 534 views
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 12:11 - Apr 11 by DJR
As is always the case with Blair, this appears to me to be a partial mea culpa if you read the article in full, but what he did say in 1993 did tap into a general sentiment at the time (of those who were not Tories) that society had broken down. It was also not a personal attack in the same way the current Labour ads are. And I don't think it attracted any similar backlash (apart from maybe the Tory party and its friends in the media).
In any event, Blair in the early years was clearly a better political operator than Starmer, and probably had better advisers when he was minded to go astray ("we don't do God").
Interestingly, his most effective {but maybe meaningless) slogan on law and order was "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", which itself involved no attack on the Tories.
[Post edited 11 Apr 2023 12:15]
Talking of “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” it would be good to have one of the major parties addressing the poverty and wealth inequality gaps we’ve allowed to develop over the past few decades.
Crime of the UK scale is a symptom of a broken and pretty crap “society”. Not because of a lack of processing and sentencing – that’s bad in another way and mainly for the victims of crime who need resolution.
Pronouns: He/Him
0
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 15:02 - Apr 11 with 524 views
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 14:48 - Apr 11 by Darth_Koont
Talking of “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” it would be good to have one of the major parties addressing the poverty and wealth inequality gaps we’ve allowed to develop over the past few decades.
Crime of the UK scale is a symptom of a broken and pretty crap “society”. Not because of a lack of processing and sentencing – that’s bad in another way and mainly for the victims of crime who need resolution.
I can't remember where I read it but an article in the last couple of days suggested Labour didn't think they would be able to spend money to improve things (and so offer improvements to public services and the like), and so were forced to resort to issues like talking tough on law and order (which doesn't cost anything).
0
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 15:14 - Apr 11 with 508 views
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 15:02 - Apr 11 by DJR
I can't remember where I read it but an article in the last couple of days suggested Labour didn't think they would be able to spend money to improve things (and so offer improvements to public services and the like), and so were forced to resort to issues like talking tough on law and order (which doesn't cost anything).
Sounds about par for the course.
Pronouns: He/Him
0
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 15:26 - Apr 11 with 498 views
This is the sort of attack ad you’d expect to see from the Tories on 12:11 - Apr 11 by DJR
As is always the case with Blair, this appears to me to be a partial mea culpa if you read the article in full, but what he did say in 1993 did tap into a general sentiment at the time (of those who were not Tories) that society had broken down. It was also not a personal attack in the same way the current Labour ads are. And I don't think it attracted any similar backlash (apart from maybe the Tory party and its friends in the media).
In any event, Blair in the early years was clearly a better political operator than Starmer, and probably had better advisers when he was minded to go astray ("we don't do God").
Interestingly, his most effective {but maybe meaningless) slogan on law and order was "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", which itself involved no attack on the Tories.
[Post edited 11 Apr 2023 12:15]
Did the police ever end up marching people to cash points and make them withdraw £100 as “on the spot fines”?
That was a bizarre thing to come up with. But probably sounded good in focus groups.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
