Courtesy of Benedict Pringle from politicaladvertising.co.uk and and using this week’s Economist front cover, the ad accuses the Prime Minister of taking a reckless gamble with Britain’s future (click on the image to get a closer look):
This poster does the opposite of what’s intended. It makes Dave look like a football player or supporter. FFS, He is an out of touch posh boy; this picture gives him a bit of working class cool!
That’s what I thought on seeing this picture – makes him look sort of cool, which the real Dave isn’t at all. For goodness sake don’t use this as an advert!
Not to us old dears it doesn’t!
You don’t write like an ‘old dear’. But I agree, cool is in the eye of the beholder. I guess I was thinking of the ‘tattooed boy from Birkenhead’ style of thing, from the Smiths song.
Yes. Remember the poster of Dave as Gene Hunt and the Quattro? totally backfired
I actually thought he was smoking a spliff when I first saw the picture. We won’t refer that unfortunate incident at Eton that nearly got him expelled.
I suspect if his mum hadn’t been a magistrate, and the whole incident would have been extremely embarrassing for her (local paper would have made a meal of it), he probably would have been expelled. And his life might well have been very different. He’d never have become PM for one thing. [Sigh]
I agree with the other posters. This gives Cameron a cred he really doesn’t have. A bit like the disasterous Gene Hunt poster.
Spot on, Emma. If this were to be used it would demonstrate just how out of touch Labour are with popular perception. Or that Pringle has mates on the inside.
It would be much better to have him in full ascot dress gambling on the gee gees. But then I guess that would be class warfare?
I really hope you didn’t pay someone money for this because I guarantee I can do a better photoshop job for a lot less.
Here’s an idea, instead of pissing money away paying for childish nonsense, how about you concentrate on coming up with some policies? We need – and deserve – better than this.
I know politics is regarded as a game these days, often descending into farce (the Blair “red eyes” poster, the Hague wearing a Mrs Thatcher wig, and now this example), but while politicians play their little games and their PR and advertising boys come up with “funny” wheezes it might be better to concentrate on the devastation politicians can bring to ordinary people.
One example for you. Last week “Blockbusters” went into administration. In the North East a 28 year old man, newly married, committed suicide because he had learnt he would lose his job. It was a story heavilly featured in the press early in the week, mainly ignored because of the EU referendum brouhaha:
To my knowledge no LL writer mentioned this case – they were far too busy deciding who would be more damaged by the referendum – Conservatives or themselves, when the truth is for ordinary people it is THEY who are damaged – the politicians, even if they lose their jobs usually manage to crawl into another one PDQ
Alright, this was a sad one-off (we hope). We know of people who have killed themselves failing the ATOS assessment. The point is politicians (all parties) wield power without responsibility – they can dismiss the damage they do, even if they know about it.
To then turn round and start puerile advertising gimmicks – which both main parties do, is crass, and it just reinforces the opinion held by many people of all parties and none that politics is just another branch of entertainment, and a very masturbatory branch at that.
A couple of points 1) you never mentioned the awful and tragic suicide case either 2) The Green Party is also not beyond creating idiotic and puerile posters with nil political content as well:
Does your anxiety to reply to every comment I make cause you not to use your brains?
First off, I said ” politicians play their little games and their PR and advertising boys come up with “funny” wheezes”
Politicians, you notice, I wrote: I did not exempt ANY party. Actually the example you give is a pretty mild one compared to some.
As for the suicide of the Blockbusters worker – well, what a childish remark (” you never mentioned the awful and tragic suicide case either”). Well, I have done now – somebody has to be first. I knew you wouldn’t you would be far too busy waiting for what “the party” had to say about it to give you your cue. As they had nothing to say, neither did you – QED.
Honestly Bill do you have to be so pathetic. You must be a very sad lonely little person. You didn’t even give us the 160th outing of your “hilarious” ‘Fib-Dems’ joke to leven the bitterness you so clearly feel.
Thanks for the abuse.Life wouldn’t be the same without it.
‘To then turn round and start puerile advertising gimmicks – which both main parties do’……….- this is the main parties and not all parties right? As you have said all parties play this game and not just the main ones.
I don’t know if you are naturally naive, or if you tke evening classes for it, but both the main parties have massive advertising budgets, so it follows that they will have far wider coverage, but I did say “politicians” and of course UKIP, BNP, etc etc are included. If you consider the rather feeble example you showed from the Greens, I’d point out that this dates to just after the 2010 General election, was a regional campaign for that area, when, of course, the Greens took Brighton Pavillion from “the party”. How terrible of them to do such a terrible thing. It has certainly made you very bitter and twisted towards the Greens.
A lot of Greens have far more in common with traditional Labour than some of the Oxbridge Johnny-come-lately’s the Labour party currently has on it’s books and back benches. Say what you like about the Greens, but they will never have the stench of Iraq and ATOS hanging obver them.
‘some of the Oxbridge Johnny-come-lately’s the Labour party currently has on it’s books and back benches’…….but not the candidate for Great Yarmouth presumably?
‘Say what you like about the Greens, but they will never have the stench of Iraq and ATOS hanging obver them.’………well no, but they do have the bankruptcy of the Irish economy (and keeping a bunch of speculators in power there for 5 years) to account for…but of course that doesn’t count because it was in Ireland does it?
You may have a point AG about how LL could have covered the Blockbusters and the young man’s suicide story. However, criticising LL for running an article about whether a satirical picture would make a good advert because they ‘should’ be writing about something more newsworthy misses the point a bit.
Labour have to address strategy matters such as this and ask readers about how effective they think it could be (in this case, not at all). It’s no good wringing our hands about how awful the Tories are if we don’t focus on how we re-establish trust with the electorate.
But then again, I get the impression you think Labour are just as bad as the Tories. We’ll have to agree to differ on that one.
” criticising LL for running an article about whether a satirical
picture would make a good advert because they ‘should’ be writing about
something more newsworthy misses the point a bit.
Labour have to address strategy…”
Thanks Gabrielle. With respect you have just made my point for me.
Politics is not a game of chess or any other sport or passtime. “Strategy” and all the Punch and Judy trash is fine for football teams, but we are talking about peoples lives and how they can be quite literally destroyed by unthinking and naive politicians.
Perhaps all parties should think more about the CONSEQUENCES of their actions (Purnell and Brown not to mention Duncan-Smith over the victims of ATOS, Blair and his warmongering that led to the deaths of so many of our service personell and innocent civilans, to name but a few).
As regards your final paragraph: yes in many ways I DO think the last Labour administration was as bad as the Tories. Purnell in embracing Freud (by then already a Conservative peer) made the bullets for the dreadful Smith and Grayling to fire. Ask Sue Marsh on here.
Stupid posters and silly slogans will not resume the trust of the ex labour voters. They were not taken in by “a future fair for all” in 2010 and a repeat of the 19th Century “one nation” mantra by well-heeled Labour junior politicians doesn’t seem very inspiring in 2013. It’s just a worthless expression that will come to nothing. They might fool enough of the electorate, to scrape by, but if anybody truly believes that we will ever be “one nation” – while we have politicians who think rules are for everybody else except them – then they are in for a great disappointment, and it will become just another broken promise to be entered into the ledger of all the other broken promises.
You mention Sue Marsh. I regularly read her blog, Diary of a Benefits Scrounger. Sue is right that there was plenty to criticise about Labour’s record with people receiving DLA. I think Labour have learnt from that.
However, once the Tory-led government came in, a more sinister element came into force. Right-wing papers like the Sun upped the ante on stories about so-called benefits cheats – and lo and behold, disabled ‘hate crime’ increased in 2011 to its highest level since records began. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/aug/14/disability-hate-crime-increase-reported-incidents-data
While the poorest and most vulnerable in our society get poorer and more frightened, this government decide to give a tax cut to the very richest. How do they get away with this? By divide and rule. Divide and rule means getting people, who are poor themselves, to hate someone who’s even poorer, and piling all the blame on them – instead of actually blaming the real culprits.
This is what Miliband is trying to convey by ‘One Nation’ – it’s the opposite of ‘divide and rule’. And part of the ‘divide and rule’ strategy is just what you’re doing – arguing that all politicans are just as bad as each other, lumping them all together as if they’re all the same. They are not. I expect you know the phrase that the way evil triumphs is when good men do nothing. Just carping on the sidelines and cynically denouncing those who are trying to do good is really doing worse than nothing.
But the point is the seeds of this demonisation of those on benefirs started DURING Labour’s period in office – from the bitchy comments of Frank Field at any and every opportunity, right up to (especially) Purnell, supported by ligttle stories fed to the tabloids like expenses cheat par excellence Hazel Blears – remember her little story abt canvassing on a weekday midday and allegedly finding a whole family in their night attire watching daytime TV? (probably as true as some of her more wild expense claims).
We had Hain starting to dismantle Remploy back in 2008 – we had Purnell commissioning ATOS, so don’t be too surprised when Smkith takes the next step of closing Remploy altogether and ATOS, the pit-bull bounty hunters getting ever more extreme – it’s not what is right or wrong it is what you can get away with (all in the name of austerity, of course).
Just to listen to Liam Byrne wittering on trying to point both ways at once is one of the most embarrassing sights and sounds in British politics.
More ‘whataboutery’. And Hain wasn’t dismantling Remploy.
If you remember, the Tories back in the 80s and 90s massaged unemployment figures by putting people on sickness benefits. This is the situation Labour were trying to sort out. The Tories were trying to paint Labour as being a party who wanted to bribe people to vote for them by promising them a life on benefits. Labour have always been in favour of people working where possible – the clue’s in the name.
What Duncan Smith has been doing is on a whole new level. Divide and rule, which you’re happily playing along with.
” And Hain wasn’t dismantling Remploy. ”
Was he not?. Authorising the closure of over 20 of their factories. There are those who would disagree with you, Gabrielle:
I think Hain’s modernisation plan was a different kettle of fish to IDS’s contemptuous attitude that all Remploy employees were doing was standing around making coffee.
The Remploy Modernisation plan will give a fair deal to the disabled workforce, with fewer factory closures and many more disabled people supported in mainstream employment, Peter Hain, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced today (Thursday 29 November).
Giving the green light for the plan, which will see 55 factories remain open – 15 more than originally proposed – Peter Hain urged the company and the unions to continue working together to make the plan work for disabled people across the country.
Mr Hain said: “I have today agreed the final proposals that the Remploy Board submitted to me on 12th November. The proposals will mean many more disabled people supported in mainstream employment, fewer factory closures than previously planned and steady improvements in value-for-money.
“I can guarantee that in those factories which are proposed for closure there will be no compulsory redundancies for disabled workers. Furthermore, all those disabled workers who move into new employment will have all their terms and conditions, including membership of their final salary pension scheme, protected.
“The Remploy Board will also look at any third party interest in running these factories. I have been made aware of interest Remploy has received in keeping some form of production or training which could well involve existing Remploy workers at five of the sites due for closure: Lydney, Glasgow Hillington, St Helens, Ystradgynlais and Brynamman. At four other sites – Mansfield, Pinxton, Plymouth and York – there is the prospect of staff transfers to nearby, and mostly local authority supported plants.
“The sooner the process of modernisation begins, the greater the opportunity to maximise the number of additional factories that can be kept open. I have made clear my commitment to working within Government to help bring reliable, good quality public contracts into supported factories and businesses, including Remploy, using European procurement rules.
“It is now up to Remploy to make these plans work. I want to see the company and the unions continue to work together, to make sure we get a fair settlement for existing Remploy workers while opening up opportunities for thousands more disabled people to move into jobs.”
IDS and Remploy:
I wonder if Hain really believed that contradictory nonsense when he said it?
There’s different sorts of disability. Some people with physical disabilities would perhaps prefer employment within the mainstream, with support. Others, with a learning disability, would struggle with that. That’s what Hain’s nuaunced approach was about.
Of course you have defended the Green Party on a number of occasions but when it comes to making promises that can’t be kept this party beats everyone else hands down- the Fibs, BNP and UKIP (maybe) excepted. They have promised to limit incomes to a maximum of £200,000 per year. How in the world could that policy be put into practice?
I have said, to the point of repletion, that there are certain aspects of the Greens I agree with, and they interest me. There are, however, certain things that are impractical. I have said so – I am a pragmatist. You cannot have zero growth, or make people return to days when they didn’t have cars, but there are many things you CAN do which ARE practical. For example, have you ever considered how little we harness the power of the sea, considering we live on an island?.
All parties get some things wrong. Some of us, however, are honest enough to admit it, and are capable of thinking for ourselves, not merely parrotting what “the party” tells you you should think, even if you don’t believe it. It’s called free will – you should try it sometime for yourself.
Did you vote for Dave, then, thinking he was going to deliver ‘the greenest government ever’? That’s turned out well, hasn’t it? Anyone for fracking?
A cynic might suggest you are a closet Tory, Alan …. hence the reason why instead of criticising this omnishambolic government (you complained recently that ‘omnishambles’ was being over-used) instead you go on and on about the big bad bogeymen (and women) in Labour.
“Did you vote for Dave, then, thinking he was going to deliver ‘the
greenest government ever’? That’s turned out well, hasn’t it?”
I am starting to think you are Bill (“aracataca”) in drag with your love of making irritating comments.
For the record I have NEVER voted Conservative, and I didn’t believe Cameron’s “greenest government ever” anymore than I believe Miliband’s balderdash about “one nation”
Like Bill you like to keep up with “the party” so you use this made-up word “omnishambolic”. Must keep in, musn’t we?
Well, I am sorry but i have lived long enough to know that you cannot believe every word every politician says. To achieve “one nation” (which we never have had) would require a complete change of mindset throughout the population. On the whole, people are self-interested and anxious to retain their status (financial and otherwise) – not least politicians. One nation – it would take more than the spinless greedy politicians we have today to bring that state about.
As for Hain and REmploy – I notice, just like BIll, you turn cartwheels to try to make his position look somehow humane. I put it to you that Labour started the dismantling of Remploy, and it was they who introduced Freud – AFTER – let me remind you again – AFTER Freud became a Tory peer.
Do you really think that was done for humanitarian reasons?. If you really believe this sort of stuff then frankly please go off and argue with somebody who appreciates all this “my party right or wrong” garbage. Sorry to be so frank, but there it is.
Unfortunately we don’t live in an ideal world where politicians of whatever colour meet your exacting criteria.
I never said Labour were perfect, but compared with the bunch of spivs and nutcases we’ve got in government now they definitely look preferable.
I don’t know what this cartwheeling business about Hain is about, it’s quite clear to anyone without a massive grudge against Labour that what he was doing fell well short of the destructive actions of IDS.
That’s my final word on the subject you’ll be relieved to hear.
Is it “exacting” to expect politicians to not fiddle their expenses, at the same time as they complain about benefit claimants “playing the system”?
Is it “exacting” to expect them to think about the consequences of their actions
Is it “exacting” to expect politicians not to make silly promises that will be impossible to keep?
The Greens poster was issued locally in Brighton, shortly after they gained the seat from Labour (Brighton Pavillion). It merely says “Labour is old news”, which, in the context of that election win was true. It’s not a work of art, but it is hardly offensive
It is a long way from portraying Cameron in his undershirt or Blair with red demon eyes. The point is it is the two major parties who spend most on advertising because they have the money to do so. Smaller parties tend not to have such wilder flights of fancy. I know the Greens frighten and upset you terribly but there is a world of difference between the poster you highlight with your faux outrage and the sort of trash Conservative and Labour get up to – and, as others have pointed out, this sort of knockabout stuff is often self defeating.
It seems you feel you should have cart-blanche to say what you like about everybody else, Bill, but you are very sensitive when anybody pays you back in your own coin. I hope having my original post deleted caused you some mild satisfaction
No satisfaction at all. Let’s have a constructive debate- not sling abuse about.
From close information, I know that the Crisis Team in the Leicester NHS cannot respond to all the demands being made on it right now. Europe is a distraction and a fetish.
Cameron as hard drinking, smoking, working-class hero is not what one expects on Labour List !!!!
Ha, ha, ha……..
The Labour front bench are have a nightmare trying to come up with a response to the EU referndum, why? Because the public want a say, they want the issue solved and labour find themselves on the wrong side of the argument trying to keep devision going in the Tory party for Labours political gain rather than having a good argument against the referndum itself. They will end up supporting the referndum, its enevatable and has been since the opportunistic vote in the HOC to cut the EU budget.
Ed Miliband is playing to many games for short term gain and it may be good for the troops but in the end all he will be left with is games and no policy or principle.
So the poster caption is about Cameron, but is n’t that Blair in the photo..or is it Clegg??
Everything Labour. Every weekday morning