Comments on: Labour Party Propaganda, Norwich North and Red Toryism

By: Liberal Conspiracy » How to write a good political leaflet | creating a new liberal-left alliance

Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:09:23 +0000

[...] to write a good political leaflet by Don Paskini July 30, 2009 at 12:08 pm David Semple and Cath Arakelian are both critical of the quality of Labour’s leaflets in the Norwich North [...]

By: Dave Semple

Dave Semple — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:39:34 +0000

I see that something similar to this has popped up on Labour List: http://www.labourlist.org/cant-win-election-labelling-opposition-positive-message-dewison

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:38:09 +0000

No problem, though keep in mind this is something written, albeit only two years ago, at a very early stage of my political thinking (being a councillor has been a leftening experience) and it reads like such. I wouldn’t run the same campaign, or write the same report, in 2009.

However, the point about devolution of the campaigning process still has some validity, I think.

By: Dave Semple

Dave Semple — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:46:54 +0000

If you fancied emailing me that document, I wouldn’t mind reading it.

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:18:45 +0000

On the matter of the election material dross that HQ produces for these events, it never ceases to amaze me how presumably reasonably talented people can produce it and think it’s going to work this time round. It’s as though they don’t have their own letter boxes and receive this stuff themselves, or else they simply think the wider electorate has some kind of different way of reading/interptreting stuff from the way do. Actually, I think it;s more the latter, and reflects a deep patronisation of the general public by Labour spinmeisters (and other parties, of course).

All this reminds me that when I put my mind to it I’m actually quite good at winning elections; as i never tire of reminding people, I increased the labour vote in my little area by 600% when I took it for Labour (for the first time ever) just two years ago. It goes without saying I used not a single piece of nationally/regionally-generated material, but did everything on my PC and an ancient black and white printer which couldn’t really cope with photos.

I did a 10 page report on my success for the regional party, which also involved a turnout in the top 1% nationally that year, but is was never even acknowledged, except when I asked specifically if it had been received, and was told it had been, and was ‘interesting’. Meanwhile, I continued to receive emails inviting me to be trained in successful campaigning methods.

I just recently sent the report to a Labour person in the south of england, who saw it referred to under my details at LibCon, and he said of it:

‘I’ve just read over your report – really really interesting and inspiring. I think it shows the pit-falls of relying too heavily on Party recognition and the pay off that having local knowledge can make. You’re right to add the caveat that the strategy won’t work everywhere, but I think the emphasis on the need for the Labour Party to begin to think in a more devolved manner is spot on.
Really fantastic stuff, I hope even if it was buried that the central party made a few notes before hand.’

This is not a comment aimed at blowing my own trumpet (much!) but just an inidcation of the crass structural stupidity of a Labour hierarchy which still belieives it has found the answer to ‘getting the message out’,and simply unable to conceive of another way of doing things, preferring to blame people like me who go ‘off message’ from time to time, and whose ‘face’ does not fit.

Rant over, thanks for listening.

By: Dave Semple

Dave Semple — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:30:34 +0000

As I said, I think the thing which made it personal was the dogging of the Tory candidates footsteps. Had it been done as a general ploy, the idea that Tories are wealthy, well-coifed dilettantes is one that already has wide currency. It’s simply rendered less effective at whiles because so is half the Labour cabinet – though at least they didn’t attend Eton nor become members of the Bullingdon club.

By: jim jay

jim jay — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:25:00 +0000

I think the key problem with the toff stuff is that it was clearly a wheeze, and one that was a personalised attack on the conservative candidate. It left a bad taste in the mouth.

Whilst tribal Labour supporters might have liked it, if you base your appeal on tribal support (hate him cos he’s a Tory toff) you better have a tribe to mobilise.

It’s the kind of negative campaigning that just doesn’t work because people see there is a big difference between playing the ball or playing the man when it’s done in such a crude way.

By: charliemarks

charliemarks — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:11:57 +0000

Though the softness of the Tories is slipping away – witness all the talk of the necessity in cutting spending…

By: Dave Semple

Dave Semple — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 00:52:27 +0000

I thought the toff thing not a bad idea, all told. After all, it is a fair point that this is not the 1920s: a bunch of white, wealthy, privately schooled men cannot possibly understand the needs of the whole country, which is what the Tory cabinet presumes to do. The only problem is that the point was not made in the right way: the comedy element was fair enough but should have been part of a stand-up act, a one-hit wonder to pull in a crowd in the town centre and make a point, rather than going on tour to harass the Tories.

By: jim jay

jim jay — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 00:02:11 +0000

Good piece. I think the problem with some of the rhetoric about the Tories is that it either seems a bit childish (the by election where Labour fought on an anti-toff ticket and got hammered) or seems to lack traction (Cameron just *is* Thatcher).

I actually think Steve Bell’s depiction of Cameron as a jelly fish with a cycle helmet is quite good in that it ‘resonates’ and gets across the fact that he’s desperately trying not to say anything too distinctive.