Scrutable

We don't seem to have a thread on this, so I thought I'd start one.

I am going to begin with a harumph. This is the time at which the loyal foot soldiers of the Labour Party, such as myself, get called upon to distribute leaflets. There aren't any seats up for election in my area, so my services will not be called on, and I am rather glad, because the leaflet to be distributed starts like this.
The £2,620 claim is just annoying. It has been repeatedly pointed out that it is based on flawed assumptions. The party must be aware of this, but has decided neither to correct, nor to properly justify the claim. So it's hard to argue that they are making an honest mistake, and it is getting easier to argue that they are lying - in much the same way as the £350 million weekly payment claim made by Brexiteers was a lie.

What's doubly annoying is that it isn't necessary to produce such misleading stuff. If the leaflet said something along the lines of "The average family will be more than £1,000 pounds worse off under the Conservatives," it would probably be just as impactful, without being dishonest. I'd be happy to distribute that. (And if the leaflet made it clear that a substantial contribution to that sum came from a rise in National Insurance - and explained why this is a terrible way to raise money - then I'd happily set it to music and sing it through peoples' letter boxes.)

I am planning to be fairly discrete in my harumphing. It's not the sort of thing I would want to mention to any fellow party members - with the exception of Mrs. S and any comrades on this forum - because I know how arguments about statistics in politics tend to play out. Peoples' attitudes to a misleading statistic depend on how that statistic fits into their world view. Attempts to point out that the £2,620 is an exaggeration would probably just be met with accusations that this was an exercise in splitting of hairs and suppression of debate about an important topic (probably from people who, not long ago, were spitting tacks about the £350 million claim). This is an attitude that drives me up the wall. The leaflet doesn't after all suggest that the hit to local families will be about £2,600. It gives an exact figure without any qualification.

My view is that, if someone throws a number into the debate without any qualification on its accuracy, then they own it. If that number is expressed in large conspicuous font on a leaflet, or internet post, or the side of a bus, then they definitely own it. It's fine to qualify claims like this - for example to point out that some figures cannot be calculated exactly - but only if this is done upfront when the figure is introduced. Falling back on such qualifications only when the figure is queried is the mark of a hypocrite.

Anyway, that's my harumph over. I shall now, as Mrs Snooze likes to say, pack away my soap box. I am sure that the local elections will produce many other things to get annoyed about.

If I was the sort of person that didn't bother reading the leaflets, I'd probably just throw that in the bin, but then complain that "at least the Conservatives sent a leaflet, didn't get anything from Labour, it's like they don't care"

Why doesn't it say "Vote Labour" in big letters? Why is it Tory blue?


(Also, prize to the first misleading graph from the Lib Dems)

monkey wrote: ↑

Tue May 03, 2022 3:45 pm

If I was the sort of person that didn't bother reading the leaflets, I'd probably just throw that in the bin, but then complain that "at least the Conservatives sent a leaflet, didn't get anything from Labour, it's like they don't care"

Why doesn't it say "Vote Labour" in big letters? Why is it Tory blue?


(Also, prize to the first misleading graph from the Lib Dems)

To be fair, that was just one side of the leaflet. The other side looks like this
That side is predominantly red and does say "Vote Labour" in medium sized letters. So maybe the impression left by the leaflet will depend on which side up it lands on the voter's doormat.

TBF at a quick glance it looks it's suggesting Starmer is "bumbling from crisis to crisis".

Yeah that leaflet f.cking sucks - negative campaigning, ineptly executed.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed May 04, 2022 9:26 am

Yeah that leaflet f.cking sucks - negative campaigning, ineptly executed.

Seems to be a lot of it about. Friend in Bury received something about the high cost of Tory rule - in an envelope labelled "Final Demand". Local party couldn't grasp why she was angry.

Does anyone read them? Even if they do, does a leaflet change voting intentions?

I think leaflets just piss people off.

OTOH if parties didn't leaflet folks would complain their vote was being taken for granted.

TopBadger wrote: ↑

Wed May 04, 2022 9:34 am

Does anyone read them? Even if they do, does a leaflet change voting intentions?

I think leaflets just piss people off.

I generally do look at them in the locals to see what various parties are suggesting locally, yeah. Wouldn't be too impressed with a leaflet about Westminster stuff when the election's about bins and potholes. Johnson and Starmer are irrelevant, and local elections aren't gonna do much for your cost of living.

TopBadger wrote: ↑

Wed May 04, 2022 9:34 am

Does anyone read them? Even if they do, does a leaflet change voting intentions?

I think leaflets just piss people off.

OtherHalf won't vote for a party that hasn't at least tried contact in some way. Very much feels being taken for granted in this Labour stronghold. So far we've had nothing from any party.

JQH wrote: ↑

Wed May 04, 2022 9:33 am

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed May 04, 2022 9:26 am

Yeah that leaflet f.cking sucks - negative campaigning, ineptly executed.

Seems to be a lot of it about. Friend in Bury received something about the high cost of Tory rule - in an envelope labelled "Final Demand". Local party couldn't grasp why she was angry.

Holy f.ck. Shaun Bailey pulled that trick for the London mayor elections and rightly got ripped to shreds. Maybe it's a bit London centric to assume they'd know about it but still...

If you are living in the South East you can, I am told by the party, look forward to vans with this on the side.
On close inspection it's a banner complaining about Tory lies, next to something that could count as a lie. On more sketchy inspection, it's all in Tory blue and looks like an invitation to vote Conservative!

Interesting thread from Lewis Goodall about some of the local election leaflets

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/statu ... SbpHzdInPw

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Wed May 04, 2022 4:29 pm

Interesting thread from Lewis Goodall about some of the local election leaflets

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/statu ... SbpHzdInPw

Best leaflet I've seen so far https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/15217960 ... name=small

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed May 04, 2022 9:46 am

local elections aren't gonna do much for your cost of living.

Although if we all went down to the polling stations tomorrow and voted on the basis that the "Local Conservative^TM" ran Council were really good at emptying the bins* then this could only be interpreted in No. 10 as vindication to continue to ignore Partygate, the cost of living, Ukrainian refugees, the melting ice-caps etc. and get back to the real business of seeing how much copper wiring is left to pull out of the walls in Downing Street and carry off to the local scrapyard.




*on the probably erroneous assumption that Conservative councillors are any less of a bunch of halfwitted, evil, corrupt shitehawks than their Westminster counterparts

Little waster wrote: ↑

Wed May 04, 2022 6:45 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed May 04, 2022 9:46 am

local elections aren't gonna do much for your cost of living.

Although if we all went down to the polling stations tomorrow and voted on the basis that the "Local Conservative^TM" ran Council were really good at emptying the bins* then this could only be interpreted in No. 10 as vindication to continue to ignore Partygate, the cost of living, Ukrainian refugees, the melting ice-caps etc. and get back to the real business of seeing how much copper wiring is left to pull out of the walls in Downing Street and carry off to the local scrapyard.




*on the probably erroneous assumption that Conservative councillors are any less of a bunch of halfwitted, evil, corrupt shitehawks than their Westminster counterparts

We know that the Westminster Councillors (Dame Shirley Porter) were even worse. Putting people in buildings with asbestos dust.

I'm not going to vote. There's no point.

Because there isn't an election where you are?

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Thu May 05, 2022 2:18 am

Because there isn't an election where you are?

That's my excuse.

Yes. But it doesn't stop twitter morons from nagging me to vote. Apparently its important and earnest words inside a leftie echo chamber will make a difference.

I thought we all worked out it doesn't back in 2015?

Apparently it's incredibly important for me to know Local Conservatives are just Conservatives. Thanks guys, that's stopped me making an embarrassing mistake.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Thu May 05, 2022 2:18 am

Because there isn't an election where you are?

I was wondering yesterday why my postal vote hadn't turned up. Checked. No election in my UK registered constituency either.

Might just send the polling office a postcard that says TORIES OUT or something.

A few years ago, I got canvassed by a Tory member on the doorstep, explained I was voting Labour, and was accused of wanting the country to go bankrupt.

It turned out we didn't have an election that year.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Thu May 05, 2022 8:52 am

A few years ago, I got canvassed by a Tory member on the doorstep,

An MP, a Councillor, or just a dick?