« madam secretary, we have david miliband on the line | Main | risky balls »

September 27, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Charlesbarry

Another brilliantly incisive analysis. Cuts straight through the bullshit.

Scott

Everyone knew what Obama meant when he used the word "hope" - and yet, for God's sake, we all hope! Even suicidal depressives "hope!" And "change"? What the hell is "change"?! You couldn't get an emptier buzzword. The test is - try to say the opposite. "Elect me and I won't change a thing". "Elect me and despair". "I am campaigning on a retreat from Labour values". Yet different races charge different words with different meanings.

"Values" meant something in this race. It was the most explicit way of addressing Labour's lurch to the right.

Scott

(I should add that if Ed is still banging on about values to the wider electorate, he is doomed)

Ian Leslie

Why thank-you Charles.

Scott - yes, it worked in the race, because the party weren't in the mood for thinking hard about the future, and because none of the others were good at this stuff either. But as you suggest, it won't work in the real world.

The comments to this entry are closed.

brain food

american politics

british politics

diversions

my other places

ads