The 2017 General Election campaign

[mikey mikey]

!

 

[billy_bob]

I was within feet of the fucker today

Must remember to go armed at all times. You never know.

 

[Who PhD]

I'm too late!

 

[SpookyFrank]

Strong and stable leadership. Coalition of chaos. Strong and stable leadership. Coalition of chaos. Strong and stable leadership. Coalition of chaos.

The lack of content in everything May says is quite bizarre.

 

[killer b]

it isn't bizarre, it's an effective strategy

 

[bi0boy]

Exactly, who wants weak and unstable government?

 

[chilango]

it isn't bizarre, it's an effective strategy

...although people are beginning to notice.

Two comments made to me yesterday:

"May isn't saying anything, is she?"

"Actually Corbyn's policies aren't as crazy left-wing as I expected"

I think there is a shift, a tilt, happening. But I doubt it's enough.

 

[killer b]

They've had a good couple if days - blanket coverage of their manifesto on Thursday, and the Chatham house speech yesterday seems to have been well received. But it wont be enough - the Tory lead is so big, May just needs to hold the line, avoid any real debate and repeat the mantra.

 

[J Ed]

it isn't bizarre, it's an effective strategy

Yes, it is the strategy which was employed very successfully by Obama, Trudeau, Cameron and Clegg.

 

[killer b]

Worked out well for trump too.

 

[killer b]

What's bizarre is that after a decade of election after election won using this exact technique, anyone finds it even mildly surprising.

 

[J Ed]

What's bizarre is that after a decade of election after election won using this exact technique, anyone finds it even mildly surprising.

I think that some of the people who are continually pointing it out recognise that it is an effective strategy but are trying to nullify it by trying to make more people aware of it, which makes some sense. Others do seem genuinely surprised by it though.

 

[Libertad]

Exactly, who wants weak and unstable government?

*Raises hand*

 

[bimble]

Overheard in pub last night: lots of young people who are going to be enthusiastically 'voting for Jeremy' , in Lambeth.

 

[ViolentPanda]

*Raises hand*

Also raises hand.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Overheard in pub last night: lots of young people who are going to be enthusiastically 'voting for Jeremy' , in Lambeth.

Which - sadly - will mean Chuka, Helen Hayes or Hoey getting returned.

 

[Pickman's model]

Which - sadly - will mean Chuka, Helen Hayes or Hoey getting returned.

Can we still return hoey under consumer law?

 

[Pickman's model]

Overheard in pub last night: lots of young people who are going to be enthusiastically 'voting for Jeremy' , in Lambeth.

Yeh. Check the candidates. May be a different jeremy.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Can we still return hoey under consumer law?

Nope, well past the 28-day statutory "return your faulty goods" date.

 

[brogdale]

Good effort.

 

[MightyTibberton]

I'm in a Lab/Lib marginal.

I just got a Lib Dem leaflet and it's all about Brexit - with a prominent picture of JC wearing his communist hat. I think it's a national rather than a local one. That argument may be somewhat blunted as my MP - Jo Stevens - was one of those who resigned from the Shadow Cabinet over the Brexit vote in Parliament.

I've been door-knocked only by Labour so far. That was also true for the local elections - two seats, one went to Lab one to Libs. It's all anecdotal nonsense, but Labour do seem to have quite an impressively large team of local members where I am.

 

[03gills]

Worked out well for trump too.

Didn't Hilary outpoll Trump by about 3 million votes though? And UK general elections aren't exactly a great indicator either, since they allow political parties to secure a majority of seats on a minority of votes. In countries where more proportional voting systems are used, being 'on message' it means diddly squat, since there are no 'marginal' constituencies were a few hundred people can decide an election.

 

[killer b]

Didn't Hilary outpoll Trump by about 3 million votes though? And UK general elections aren't exactly a great indicator either, since they allow political parties to secure a majority of seats on a minority of votes. In countries where more proportional voting systems are used, being 'on message' it means diddly squat, since there are no 'marginal' constituencies were a few hundred people can decide an election.

That's right - neither we nor the united states have proportional systems, so relentless messaging in marginal constituencies really yields results.

 

[magneze]

Probably worth cross posting this:

The NHS is thought to have been particularly hard hit because of the antiquated nature of its IT infrastructure. A large part of the organization's systems are still using Windows XP, which is no longer supported by Microsoft, and Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt cancelled a pricey support package in 2015 as a cost-saving measure.

74 countries hit by NSA-powered WannaCrypt ransomware backdoor: Emergency fixes emitted by Microsoft for WinXP+

How significant could this be as part of the election?

 

[teqniq]

Probably worth cross posting this:
74 countries hit by NSA-powered WannaCrypt ransomware backdoor: Emergency fixes emitted by Microsoft for WinXP+

How significant could this be as part of the election?

Probably not as much as it ought to be unfortunately.

 

[magneze]

Probably not as much as it ought to be unfortunately.

Guardian headline: May says 'no evidence' NHS patient records compromised
BBC headline: NHS 'must' learn from cyber attack

Yeah, there you go. Nothing to see here. Not the governments fault.

 

[teqniq]

Guardian headline: May says 'no evidence' NHS patient records compromised
BBC headline: NHS 'must' learn from cyber attack

Yeah, there you go. Nothing to see here. Not the governments fault.

Actually thanks for posting that story, I wasn't aware it was due to Hunt cancelling a support package, and the BBC goes with the story that the NHS 'must learn' whilst the NHS is deliberately starved of funds. Still think they should be using a Unix variant though lol.

 

[teqniq]

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Personality-based "presidential-style" campaigns have been common for ages of course, encouraged by the media as it lets them personalise things and ignore all that boring and difficult policy stuff, but IMO this one is unusual in that (a) it's based all around May - they're actively trying to de-emphasise the rest of the Tory party, and (b) normally there's at least _something_ else, some sort of flagship policy that they can talk about, or a candidate who has some charisma. All that May has is a completely unearned reputation as some sort of tough capable reliable sort i.e. strong and stable - she's fucking awful in interviews, can't speak off-the-cuff or publicly and is actually scared of the public, and can't debate (every other party leader would wipe the floor with her).

Arguably it's all that Tory strategists can try given the material that they have to work with, but without any fallback, a personality-based campaign is vulnerable to people turning it around and making it look hollow and ridiculous. Labour are running a very policy-based campaign now - they're sensibly not emphasising JC, he's there for people who like him but there are other things if you don't. The May reputation still seems strong but reputations on their own are fragile and can break or be broken easily.

 

[bimble]

ah but you're missing the deep subconscious eroticism of May as warrior queen, apparently.