Enter the era of dog whistle politics
January 31st, 2005
-
Sending a message that’s only heard by the target audience
The real reflection of the state the Tories are in is that if they make the magic number of 200 seats it will be seen as some kind of victory. Yet even at that level Tony Blair would be returned with an overall majority of more than 70 - sufficient to sustain the party for a full third time.
It’s against this background that the poll moves after last week’s immigration speeches have to be judged. Both the pollsters that carry out very regular surveys so you can spot trends - YouGov and ICM - recorded 2% improvements for the Tories against Labour over the days before and after the announcement.
-
Does this mean that we’ll see more of what is known in in Australia as “dog-whistle politics” - putting out a message which, like a dog whistle that is inaudible to humans, is only heard by the people at which it is aimed.
As Andrew Grice of the Indpendent observed at the weekeend - the dog whistle looks as though it has been imported into British politics.
He wrote: Dog-whistle politics has been used successfully by John Howard, Australia’s conservative Prime Minister. He has played the immigration card without making overtly racist comments. It is no coincidence that the man who ran his four successful election campaigns, Lynton Crosby, is now Michael Howard’s election campaign director. The Tory leader’s carefully chosen words were designed to strike the right chord with his target audience. Labour strategists fear the subconscious message will play well in marginal seats in areas such as the West Midlands and among eurosceptics tempted to vote for the UK Independence Party.
Perhaps this is the first evidence of the impact that Lynton Crosby - described down-under as “the master of the black arts of politics” - could have on the coming election. It looks as though we wil be in for an interesting 13 weeks between now and May 5th.
As we predicted yesterday’s spate of polls have stalled the recent Tory progress on the spread-betting markets where punters bet on how many of the 646 Commons seats at stake each party will win.
Latest IG Index spread prices: LAB 355-362 (nc): CON 189-196 (nc): LDs 70-74 (nc)
Latest Spreadfair prices: LAB 357-359 (nc): CON 189-194 (-1): LDs 71-73.4 (nc)
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
With the Tories implcitly playing the “race card” we now have the latest Labour poster depicting Howard as Fagin. William Rees-Mogg has got it right in the Times today -
..”But Labour wants to destroy Mr Howard as a political leader by using his Jewishness against him. They know to a hair’s breadth what they are doing.
Of course, any anti-Semitism has been denied; the purpose of the operation is to raise the controversy and then withdraw. But the Fagin image will linger on, and those voters who do not like Jews will have been reminded of their prejudice, by modern advertising techniques and, alas, even by this article. But it is a dirty, dirty, dirty business and it disgraces both the Labour Party and the Prime Minister.”
Please note you now need to leave a name and an email address when you post comments. Your browser should store these so it should not be too much of a chore
Yes indeed, DR - as dear old Alan Watkins used to say: “it’s a rough old trade.”
And the dog whistle is made by Vo-Toys… promise me you haven’t been playing with Photoshop, Mike!
A pretty loud whistle though. We all heard it.
Re 1: What a strange thought. What a very strange thought. What a very, very, strange thought. I’m sorry but I just can’t believe there is a modicum of truth behind that line of thinking on why the poster was designed like that - and the media have not really raised that poster either.
On the otherhand, I do believe that the controversy has backfired on the Tories for the reason that it has raised the profile of the posters far above what they would otherwise have been.
As was posted on the Labour councillor’s website along with the posters, for most people under 35, the ‘Fagin’ (nonsense) poster will make them think of Kenny Craig from Little Britain, rather than some character from a 60s musical. Or is this a perfect example of dog-whistle politics?
If they had put Howard in a fez (a la Tommy Cooper) the point would have been made just as well (i.e. financial incompetence), but would that have been offensive to Muslims?
…May be strange (or indeed very very strange, but it is also shared. Robin Cook lambasts against such tactics in to-day’s London Standard, and the news article also quotes the editor of the Jewish Chronicle…
“….Although Labour strongly denies the charge, Ned Temko, editor of the Jewish Chronicle, warned that at their worst the posters were “part of a deliberate pattern of frankly anti-Semitic invective”.
Mr Temko, whose paper is the voice of Britain’s Jewish community, said the posters may have been “an inadvertent mix of insensitivity and cultural illiteracy”, but “a less charitable conclusion is that Labour, or some within it, sees election campaign advantages in subliminally reminding voters that Howard is Jewish….”
The Rees Mogg article also draws attention to Alistair Campbell’s leading role in the campaign team.
Nonethelss, I doubt if these posters will have much of an electoral impact except to further galvanise Tory supporters.
I didn’t see anti-semitism in the Labour posters personally, whereas I did see racism in the Conservative immigration proposals. I think that the Conservative cries of foul are a bit Ali G ‘is it because I is…’, whereas explicitily saying that communities like Bradford have riots because there has been too much immigration is quite explicit.
Graham, We can argue about the Tories on this. But the editor of the Jewish Chronicle? Or is he being too sensitive? The Howard/Fagin poster (which I haven’t seen) sounds far closer to the mark than the flying pigs.
Steve 2 - You say -”the media have not really raised that poster either”. The main part of my comment was a direct quote from William Rees-Mogg’s piece on the main feature page the Times today.
John. I didn’t see Fagin in it. It was Howard as a hypnotist trying to get people to forget the ‘Tory past’. It was only when someone said to me that it could be interpreted as Fagin that I saw that it could be. However, I (and others from both sides of the argument - both racists or anti-racists) did not have to have MH’s immigration policy explained. Keep ‘em out is fairly explicit.
Whether it was deliberate anti-semitism or not - and I incline to believe the latter - the affair has provided an excellent counter for the Tories when critics say their immigration policies are racist.
Is Lytton Crosby behind the Tory move on the posters? It would be interesting to know.
Graham at 9 - even the Government haven’t accused the Tories of “playing the race card” over the immigration policy. And as for not seeing any anti-semitism in the Fagin poster, your spectacles really are very rose coloured today…
If he was Mike it could back-fire for them. If the original immigration policy was intended partly to pull in some ‘farish- right’ voters from the fringes (UKIP, BNP etc.), they could now be scared off again with the prospect of voting for a Jewish led govt. If it was unintentional by Labour, then it may ironically turn out to be a pretty smart move in the gutter end of the phoney war, purely because the Tories cried foul. I think that the Conservative’s mistake in this is that the complaint came from them first. What they should have done is let some running dogs take the issue on. Labour have been clever in letting the CRE, the human rights groups etc. take on the Tory policy. By the end of the week most people thought it was crass politics, even if they shared sympathy with the policy.
The Yougov and ICM polls seemed to be pretty conclusive about the Conservatives’ immigration proposals - more people found them attractive than disapproved of them.
WRT the posters, they do seem to form part of a pattern. McCartney compares Letwin to Fagin, O’Brien says Muslims can’t trust Howard over Palestine, and then the posters.
If the posters really are innocent, presumably Labour will be happy to display them in places like Golders Green and Edgware.
I saw the three posters (pigs, hypnotist watch, blackboard) before I heard/read that anyone had said anything about anti-semitism. So, independently I thought that the pig one might be accused by some people of being anti-semitic. I did not pick up on anything anti-semitic in the hypnotist watch poster, but then I’m not that familiar with Fagin.
I wonder what Mandelson thinks.
Perhaps Graham might wish to reconsider the judiciousness of “running dogs”, particularly in this context. Actually, the offending poster is more Shylock than Fagin, but my point was not so much about Tory reactions to Labour tactics - and you’ll not be surprised that I agree with Sean’s posting - but surely everyone should reflect carefully about the opinion of the Editor of the Jewish Chronicle?
Can I point out that this site is the only place really discussing the posters now - and I have to admit that I don’t count The Times leader page. If that regard, on harm or good for either side, if being honest I have to say the irrelevent is probably the answer.
Steve2, …then look at the London Standard…and Robin Cook’s article headlined ‘Cook Slams Blair’s Black Art Tactics’. Or do those not count either?
John. Point 1. Sorry what is wrong with ‘running dogs’ - isn’t it an expression meaning ‘getting others to do your work for you’? If not I apologise, but that is all I meant.
Point 2. I have only argued that I had seen the posters before the anti-semitic claims came out and I hadn’t interpreted them in that way - in fact I had seen them in a literal sense. i.e. ‘pigs might fly’ (an expression my mother uses all the time) and a ‘hypnotist trying to make people forget something’. I accept that may be that was naive, and that if jewish people find them offensive then perhaps Labour should reconsider them.
It seems to me though that the Conservatives on the site want it both ways i.e. saying that Britain takes too many immigrants and that that causes race riots is ‘not racist’, but that a couple of posters that portray their leaders in a less than flattering light is a serious crime in race relations. Personally, and I don’t like to normally bring in my own political opinions, I thought that the Tory policy is probably the nastiest piece of politics in recent years.
As an aside, I always enjoy reading the musings from an unidentified female Tory ppc here: http://thecandidatespeaks.blogspot.com/ Forthwright, confident, gloriously politically-incorrect … remind you of anyone?
JohnO at 18: I can’t for the life of me see what there is of Shylock in the hypnotist poster. Once someone had pointed out to me that it was being connected to Fagin, I thought, ok, maybe he’s supposed to have picked someone’s pocket for the watch, but neither Fagin nor Shylock are hypnotists - which is the message I got.
6 - Kenny Craig, I love it. ‘Look into my eyes, not around the eyes…’
FWIW, I thought both the posters I’ve seen rather weak - the flying pigs and the hypnotist - rather weak.
James D - that well-known champion of race-relations the Mail had a piece at the weekend showing the Howard poster next to a picture of Fagin from the 60s film swinging a pocket watch. Placed side by side the two look remarkably similar. But if you’d seen the Howard one first, you’d have thought “Hypnotist”.
Re 20: No, not really. Let me know when the Sun & Mirror lead on it.
This is from tonight’s Standard.>>>>>>
Cook slams Blair’s ‘black arts’ tactics
By Paul Waugh Deputy Political Editor, Evening Standard
31 January 2005
Labour came under fresh pressure today over its controversial posters of Michael Howard as Robin Cook warned that “black arts” tactics would switch off voters.
The former foreign secretary and Commons leader said it was time to call a halt to negative and personalised adverts, such as proposed election posters depicting the Tory leader as a flying pig or “Shylock” figure.
Writing in today’s Evening Standard, Mr Cook argues against US-style attack adverts. He says: “We adopt the black arts of negative campaigning because politicians, like everyone else, are too much in awe of the latest US practice.
“But negative campaigning works in the US because there are only two serious parties. In Britain the only party that will benefit from a campaign of hand-to-hand mud wrestling between Labour and Tory will be the Liberal Democrats.”
Mr Cook’s warning came as Tony Blair faced fresh pressure to abandon plans to use two posters that critics have claimed are anti-Semitic. Tory chairman Liam Fox called for the adverts to be withdrawn in the wake of protests from Jewish groups and individuals.
He said criticism had been so strong it was time for Tony Blair to step in and call a halt to the tactics. Although Labour strongly denies the charge, Ned Temko, editor of the Jewish Chronicle, warned that at their worst the posters were “part of a deliberate pattern of frankly anti-Semitic invective”.
Mr Temko, whose paper is the voice of Britain’s Jewish community, said the posters may have been “an inadvertent mix of insensitivity and cultural illiteracy”, but “a less charitable conclusion is that Labour, or some within it, sees election campaign advantages in subliminally reminding voters that Howard is Jewish.”
One senior Tory source said Labour could not get away with the defence that it was mere thoughtlessness. Trade Minister Mike O’Brien was reported to the Commission for Racial Equality for telling an Islamic paper Mr Howard could not represent Muslims properly.
Labour Party chairman Ian McCartney caused uproar after accusing Shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin, who is also Jewish, of behaving like a “21st century Fagin”. The Tory source said “Once is careless, twice is foolish. But three times times? There is no excuse”.
The Standard revealed last week how groups including the Association of Jewish Refugees and Liberal Judaism condemned the ads. Labour admits it wants to target Mr Howard personally. But a Labour source said there was ” absolutely no intention” to attack him because he is Jewish.
Funnily enough Graham, Charles Clarke considers that the way MH raised the immigration issue was “responsible” (although naturally enough he disagrees with some of the proposals).
Might it just be that your world outlook is one in which anything the Conservatives say or do is viewed in the most unfavourable light, whereas everything non-Conservatives say or do is viewed in the most favourable light (to be fair I am guilty of the same thing in reverse?)
Whilst I don’t agree that the Tories having a policy to control immigration or even asylum is racist - their previous effort with the “fantasy island” asylum processing centre was deeply silly. This is the sort of thing they absolutely have to avoid in order to stay a serious party. You can hardly attack the LD’s for having a few loony conference motions whilst simultaneously having OL admitting the island itself hasn’t been located yet…
Not sure that you are Sean, guilty that is.
Cook is totally correct of course - I obviously hope the election campaign turns into a US-style sleaze fest TB vs MH - I’m dreaming of 30£!!
To be honest, I thought the two posters in question were just silly when I first saw them. IMO negative campaigning only really works when the voters have something to fear about the person you’re being negative about (such as the poster showing “Labour’s policy on Arms” in the 1987 campaign). Just as I thought the demon eyes poster was stupid as well - because very few people actually feared a Blair government.
30% even
30% for LDs presumably Jon?
Graham, As usual, looks as if we are going to agree to disagree on this! But I notice you haven’t commented on the expressed opinion of the Editor of one the UK’s leading Jewish newspapers. On a more teasing note, your assertion about rarely entering your personal opinions caused the merest hint of a low chuckle: the headline ‘Graham loathes the Tory Party’ is surely on a par with ‘Small Earthquake in Chile, Not Many Dead’.
Steve….Groan, whimper, now there’s a female Tory candidate whom I would love to de-select! Talk about head communing on brick wall syndrome. The party is polling in the low mid 30%s and she actively wants people to leave!
John O - is this blog for real? To be honest, it comes across as parody. The LD equivalent would have to be someone agonising about which type of Euro-federalism they like best whilst giving ideas for lentil recipes and their favourite sandal shops.
I commented on it because it seems very familiar to one of our regular posters, who I’ve long suspected of being a very clever parody
Sean. No. The immigration policy was designed to appeal to people who have fear of immigration. And their main fear is that these people are not from the same ‘race’ as them. I know this because people with those views have told me that that was the way they interpreted it. The most common expressions that came up were ‘people like us’ and ‘people like them’. The Conservatives know that that is who they are appealing to. It is base and it is racist.
On what other subject have I ever said that I agree / disagree with any of the parties - large or small? I just have strong personal feelings about racism - and I will never buy the Tory line. I know that you are a committed Conservative Sean, but I also respect you for being reasonable and honest in most of what you say. I would urge you personally to reject this particular proposal for being beneath a ‘party of tradtion and principle’
Another Tory has defected to the Lib Dems. This time it is a County Councillor in Suffolk. The link to the local paper is
http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/news/story.asp?datetime=31+Jan+2005+11%3A10&tbrand=EADOnline&tCategory=NEWS&category=News&brand=EADOnline&itemid=IPED31+Jan+2005+11%3A10%3A50%3A250
John. I don’t loathe the Tory Party. I just don’t think that they are doing very well with regards to the next election. But all that happens is that i say that and all the Tories get upset, and start accusing me of all things under the sun.
Considering the nature of the debate - I should have said that some of my best friends are Tories, but….
I don’t really think it is a clever move to criticise ‘political correctness’ on the one hand and then call two posters which are clearly not meant as such ‘anti Semitic’!
Graham 39 - “I do like Conservatives - but I couldn’t eat a whole one.”
I guess by the frequency of your contributions you’ve not yet embarked on the next SW poll fieldwork? Will be interesting to see the results.
Indeed Steve. I believe the blog and poster are one and the same person and she does exist - but I have no direct evidence for that.
Out tomorrow Steve
As I’ve mentioned before I expect the Tory and Labour policies will end up differing only in nuances, i.e. the Tories say they would withdraw from the convention and wouldn’t and Labour won’t bother saying it.
Steve @35, I THINK this must be genuine, and she’s clawed a couple of points back in my favour by opposing Howard’s support for the ID lunacy.
As for your impish provocation; I am a 100% subscriber to the Eleventh Commandment that “No Conservative shall speaketh Ill of Another Conservative on this most majestic Webby-Thinggy Forum”.
Back to the main thread - the “dog-whistle” campaigning does look set to target what has been officially called the “forgotten majority”, but can more puckishly be called the “Millwall Tendency”.
Jon 42 / John 45 - Jon: I’m interested on your theory as to how the two are the same person. Mine was simply by the style!
John O - succinctly put
Graham 43 - clearly you’ve got your minions running round getting it ready then. Any surposes in store? Always good to give the punters a little teaser.
“surposes” - surprises (how I wish there was a spellchecker …)
I actually think that a Kenny Craig-style poster with MH in it would be a great move for Labour…
Not yet Steve. It will take me a couple of days to take out every other Tory voter and exchange them for a lefty
Little Britain provides plenty of scope for electioneering (which I don’t want to go into - but think along the lines of “*I* am the only … ” you get my drift). Having been at (Comprehensive) school in the SW I have nothing but admiration for the accuracy of Matt Lucas’ Vicky Pollard - I can only surmise he went to the same school that I did!
Graham - only chucking out 1 in 2?
Graham @ 50 - if it will take you a couple of days, there must be an awful lot of Tories …..
John O 45 - tangentially, I can sort of see where Blunkett was coming from …
They don’t believe me anyway Steve! If I was to say that they had collapsed lower than Respect in the South West, I think the Tories might have me hauled up before all my professional bodies!
Augustus, No - it’s just hard to find a needle in a hatstack!
To be honest - one of my minions is merging the data at the moment onto one file. I am writing up a focus group!
Graham - I can just imagine you sat in your large swivel chair, diamond ring glistening as you stroke the white cat on your lap: “With one touch of my finger, I can press this button, wipe all the data and consign the Tories to History!!! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-haaaa!”
Actually, Graham, you have raised a point which has concerned me for some time. I have a postal vote in the South West, but there is no way that I (or any other second home owner) is likely to get to be a member of your Focus Group. That’s not a criticism, by the way - it’s just that we must be very difficult to identify, and then contact.
So, if we are “invisible” to the pollsters, what conclusions are made about us? Are we more likely to vote in our “first home” constituencies, or our second home ones? Do we vote at all? I went on the Roll after the Council Tax went up to the full whack, primarily to vote in Parish and District elections; I had not thought about the General Election (or Europe). Are we statistically significant to you?
If you read Marketing Means backwatds it says Blofeld Industries!
backwatds - I meant backwards - Yeah for the spellcheck! (Ben would be with you if he were still around.
Augustus - your question has raised an additional one re absentee votes. I’m sure as we speak the Tories are combing the Costas for “grey swallows” - who determines where these poele vote (ie can they be signed up in marginals rather than safe seats?). This could have a significant impact if carfeully targetted.
Re your GE vote - you can only vote once in a GE - we had a similar debate re students a few months ago (re University seats IIRC). I’d be interested to see the number oif second homes in the SW, could be as many as 10%.
AC at 56 - I would imagine not, given that you have at best a 50% statistical likelihood of voting in that constituency. Also as a regular PB.C contributor I somehow doubt you’re politically typical of your average second-home owner in the SW.
It is a problem, but statistically the overseas vote is unlikely to impact on any given seat, except the most marginal of marginals.
Did I once read that there are 4 million UK “subjects” living abroad who are eligible to vote?
Let’s suppose that Tabman and Cllr. Iain are both right(!):- 10% of homes in the South West are second homes, and 50% of them vote. That’s 5% of the electorate, which is bigger than the majority in many seats. And Graham and the other pollsters cannot find them. Accepting that people can only vote once, how do they choose where to vote? For example, I have a choice: I can either vote in a Labour seat where the Tories are the challenger, or in a Tory seat which is a Lib Dem marginal.
It’s an interesting question, and one that deserves more thought. I don’t think it is as big an effect as you make out, however. First of all, I imagine a large proportion of second-home owners aren’t registered to vote in their second-home area. Secondly, a considerable number won’t vote at all. Thirdly, if they do vote, I would imagine they’d be more likely to vote in their “home” area unless they were particularly switched-on politically (which most aren’t). Even if they were, some would probably live in more marginal seats in their first homes.
Iain, I think you are right, but I am surprised that no work seems to have been done on this subject, especially in the light of all the concerns about poor turn-out. I have never seen the subject discussed, except as a sub-set of the “Student Voter” debate.
Incidentally, one other reason for not going on the Roll in the first place is the danger of Jury Service!
AC 63 - I hope that’s a no-brainer in your case
Statistically Iain’s probably nearer the truth.
AC at 65, that’s a very interesting point wrt turnout. I wonder how many people (students and second-home owners being the two obvious examples) depress the turnout because whilst they technically can vote, they choose to vote elsewhere.
I know I got two ballot papers in June, one for Yorkshire and one for the North-West (I only returned the North-West one). So statistically turnout in Yorkshire & Humber dropped by one, even though I wasn’t legally entitled to vote there.
Iain @ 67, I think you mean that you WERE legally entitled to vote there! If you were on the Roll, that is the only authority you need. But, you did what I will have to do: you decided where your vote would be more powerful, and cast it accordingly. Alternatively, you felt some sort of attachment to what you regard as your “home” constituency, which helped you to reach a decision.
I was legally entitled to vote there until I returned my ballot paper for the North-West, at which point voting in Yorkshire & Humber would have been illegal.
I voted in the North-West because after a few discussions it was felt marginally more, erm, marginal than Yorkshire & Humber, and I had a local ballot to fill in anyway. Voting for myself seemed like a good idea.
The posters are up on http://www.order-order.com - which was the the first place to push the story - before the Tories even knew about the posters.
Iain, I appreciate the elegant legal distinction!
It is rather ridiculous. I was legally entitled to two ballots papers but could only fill one of them in… I would how many people don’t realise and vote twice - quite a few I’d figure.
Iain, Suppose they did fill in and return two ballot papers? Would anybody object? I mean, anyone in authority over the electoral process, not a few grandstanding candidates who were upset at having lost? The turnout would have gone up, which seems to be all anyone is interested in these days. See how little interest has been shown in the (alleged) Postal Vote frauds: here, a few people have fudged a large number of votes (again I say, allegedly!) so Plod and the Home Office (or is it Deputy Prime Minister?) have a cursory look. But one over-enthusiastic individual sending back two Ballot Papers he had been sent would probably not merit much attention.
What you would probably need, to get caught, is for both elections you voted in to go to court. Then they might possibly do a check on the postal votes if they were under doubt, they might possibly connect both cases - but even then it would be unlikely unless both cases were dealt with by the same firm of solicitors or something.
Graham - support for your theories form the unlikely source of George Gove, Tory ppc for Surrey mid:
“Gove has no time for Tories who advocate a strategy aimed at merely reducing Blair’s majority. “You’ve got to focus on trying to win, because once you believe, going into an election, that you won’t win, that communicates itself to everyone. Football teams that play for a draw are more likely to get beaten.” At the moment, he says, there’s a Tory “virility test” - a prevalent idea that only a narrow set of views counts as true Conservatism - and it needs to be abandoned for the party to have any hope of governing. It’s either that, or go the way of the coelophysis. “
Apologies - Michael not George
Thanks Steve. What or who is a coelophysis - some sort of pre dinosaur thingy? I know it is trite, but couldn’t they have said ‘dodo’ or something? (this could be my comprehensive school / second string University education showing up again)
Or is it George Michael?
Graham - it’s really Michael (not George -obviously some Freudian thing going on there!) Gove’s brain the size of a planet at work! So, not relying on my comprehensive school / ancient University (including Geology) education at all, but on trusty Google, I get:
Name
Coelophysis
Meaning
hollow form
How to say it
seel-OH-fie-sis
Where found
USA
Length
3 m
Height
2
Mass (weight)
27 kg
How it moved
on 2 legs
Teeth
small and sharp
Type of feeder
CARNIVOROUS
Food
vertebrates
Period
Upper Triassic
When it lived
225-220 mya
Type of hip
lizard-hipped
Dinosaur group
Theropoda
Other info
One of the earliest known dinosaurs.
I do him a disservice - it’s the Grauniad journo.
I was right then! Hey look all you people who want ‘choice’ in education. Comp boy gets it right (without resorting to google - although if I had shown more proactive intelligence I would have)!
I think he is all three of those things. A tory ppc, a Grauniad Journo and one of the earliest forms of dinosaur. However, can I claim this for my quote cricket score? At least 2 of the pads.
Anyway, for what it’s worth, I think that he is right. The problem for the conservatives is that they have that dilemma (something they now share with LDs) if they go around saying they are going to win, people scoff (Paxman tones) ’surely your not telling me you can actually win…’. However, if they go in with this attitude they get stuffed anyway. I’m sure the Greeks had a myth that would sum up the dilemma, but again my unprivileged education lets me down. Surely there must be a properly educated old boy on the site who speaks fluent Greek and latin.
ac at 73 - the chances of being discovered may be slight, but they are real. In any given constituency there are quite a lot of people who will be aware of which postal votes have been returned. If any of these are “memorable” or are celebs (like MPs or PPCs
), it is possible mischievous people might compare notes.
No bu’ Oi speak proper Wil’shire …
Your “choice” remark reminded me of Fry & Laurie sketch where Laurie is a diner (and minister) who has his silver cutlery forcibly removed by Fry (the waiter) in a restaurant, and has a bag load of plastic cutlery dumped on him with the words “There’s choice for you Minister!”
I tried to find the script - didn’t, but found this highly partisan piece instead. Ah, the early ’90s …
http://www.geocities.com/mmemym/bits4/fal0175.htm
TS [85] - it reads even better now the Tories have a leader called Michael
Thanks Steve. Half the speech could now be NewLab as well. I actually remember the sketch. I became disappointed with Fry and Laurie in the end - all the ads they did. Although Fry seems to be settling in to a new roll as the Grand old Dame of British comedy. I think he has become a little bit ‘pipe (literally having won the pipe smoker of the year award) and slippers’ and could be in danger of ’seriously regretting some of those things I said in my youth’ if slips further towards that comfort zone. But he is still witty
IA - yes, was MH Home Secretary then? Probably!
Graham - they did go off the boil a bit. I have a soft spot for both, ex-Tabs that they are (Laurie was a Boat Raace oarsman if you didn’t know). Perhaps Stephen Fry has taken a subscription to The Chap http://www.thechapmagazine.com/
Laurie is Eton, Cambridge and the Blue Boat. Trying to be Ben Elton was always a mistake.
I think he and Emma Thompson went out for a while at Cambridge (don’t know what the relevance of that is…)
Ironically - I think New Labour did for all of them really. It’s hard to be against something that you called for. The most disappointing of all is Alexi Sayle. I still think the best line of all time came from one of his Christmas specials. “Father Christmas, why is 98 percent of the world’s wealth owned 3% of the world’s population?’ “Well cindy…the means of production are …blah blah’. The juxtaposition was truly beautiful.
Off Message - Ben’s uncle, Sir Geoffrey, was Emeritus Professor of History at my alma mater. So he was pretty “establishment” too.
Graham 82 - cunningly the LDs now claim they want to become the “real opposition”. What this constitutes is not specified.
Re 91: Does this make the Tories the Provisional Opposition?
Very good Steve, very, very good.
Don’t know if this link will work:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4223761.stm
Imagine if a Tory had said that!
Indeed… as I think I mentioned before there are a whole host of Green types who are anti-immigration too though not from a race relations standpoint.
Sorry guys - half a dozen posts have been deleted accidently in a spam clean-up. They are the ones that have been put on in the past hour.
This piece is headlined dog-whistle politics but it seems we have drifted away from what turns the election or not. Of course the Tories will say “we can win” otherwise why bother to put in all the effort. I used the saying “Winning is not everything - It’s the only thing” at a sales conference in the 80’s (I don’t claim it was totally original - but what is?) and that is what drives the Tories now. Lynton Crosby is very astute and his strategy will deliver some considerable gains. The real question is whether the Tories will want to take over when all the indications are that the economy is in for a rough ride! Give me a Labour majority of 25 - 30 and let TB cope with a bunch of rebel backbenchers during an economic slowdown - then the fun starts. Anyone who thinks we are on course for another four years of real economic growth should think again. A solid Tory win in say, 2007 should give us a good three terms in power!
Personally i am really concerned for my younger friends who finish university next year. If the economy goes any more awry they are in for a very bad start in the real world!
Look, the economy will continue to grow. If the RoI can manage 4.5+ and the US can managed 3.7+ then we can manage 3+ (esp since we’re much poorer than either). The worst estimate is the IFS with 2.7+. Frankly, that is BS, I would expect (as an economist) growth to hit 3.5-4%, with Prescott liberalising planning restrictions (which have been holding us back) we could be in for a real boom.
RE99: The restrictions being lifted on housing will not come into effect for another couple of years, as it will take time to get planning permission to build more houses. As for the economy, things look reasonable on the surface. There are however deeper underlying issues that could trouble labour in its third term. These could be: The rate of taxation, public borrowing, a housing crash, a major recession elsewhere in the world. The problem for any British Government these days, is the knock on any major recession in Europe, America or the Far East could have.
Well MP I remember many people talking along those lines in the mid ’90’s about the dotcom era. A never ending booming economy. The reality is what we have in the UK now - administrators administrating administrators. Makes a change from “education, education, education”.
I agree with McHack this will be a very good election to lose, and the Tories are possibly playing to lose by a miniscule amount, which would I’m sure be their idea of heaven. The electorate are so volatile though (bet anyone half-a-crown RKS wins wherever he stands) it’s a dangerous game and any result is possible.
MP - don’t really think the US or RoI are especially relevant. US is living on borrowed money, a situation just like the dotcom boom which cannot and will not continue. RoI functions as a kind of offshore tax haven - not really open to us as we are too big.
I fully expect the economy to go pear-shaped before the next election which will be 2010 as a consequence.
I had always thought the Tories would win it but now I think there is a very strong chance there will be a hung parliament.
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:1-hWfm_768IJ:www.varsity.co.uk/mambo/index2.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26do_pdf%3D1%26id%3D7748+do+the+british+public+want+a+jewish+prime+minister&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
And with an ICM poll showing that 20 per cent of the British public would object to having a Jewish Prime Minister,
Mr.
Howard, the son of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, may find that the bigotry stoked by political manipulation of
the asylum issue does his own aspirations more harm than good.
Do we want a jewish part romanian prime minister, i for one do not!!
The main problem with this world are muslim fanatics and suicide bombers,
most of these fanatics are groomed because of there hatred of the jews.
Britain is a catholic, christian country by majourity,
I for one do not want too see a jewish or muslim leader in this country,
It is not bad enough with the americans undermining peace in the middle east by constantly taking israels side and never reinging in there puppy dog israel,
without having a Jewish Prime Minister in this country who would follow the american way of supporting israel.
I have no love for muslims in britain but i do not want to see a jewish prime minister
in this country that would be absolute folly.
104. Mike, I’m not a tory, but can’t you stop this sort of thing?
azgzimzg…
vqlcpren pqvayzfxq zikwcnou eaosjkskq …
Cialis injury attorney ohio….
Cialis injury attorney ohio. Cialis attorney ohio….