Why the Tories have lost the Election.
Posted by: Tarquin Maynard - Portly on 29 March 2010
1. "Look at him, he's RUBBISH" is not good enough a critique. "Trust us, we'll be OK" is not exactly a powerful or convincing message.
2. Not raising NICs sounds good, until you recall that they do not have any coherant strategy to raise the monies elsewhere. "Further efficiency savings"? That means not giving the lowest paid 2/3rds of Civil Servants a payrise - which not only penalises the (already low paid) lower grades, it by implication feathers the nest of the higher earners.
3. "We'll re-negotiate cotracts": and get sued for Breach of Contract if the result reduces the profit margins of the counterparty.
4. Increase Inheritance Tax thresholds so that c.1000 can benefit is just looking after the old boy network. Most people here, I strongly suspect, have their house as their Nil Rate Band (£325k. )
5. Cameron sounds like an overexcited school boy, and is rapidly losing credibility. His constant habit of calling for the most obvious solution to any problem and either calling Labour "copycats" or "indecisive" is beneath even the 4t Form Debating Society, let alone a man who wants to lead the UK.
6. Nobody seriously believed that Cameron welcomed the recent announcement of the domicility of his most important donor. He did it to avoid the embarrasment of an FoI disclosure. Lord Paul has been an acknowledged non Dom for many years. Its always been known.
7. The state of the economy, and the Government debt, has been caused by greedy banks, not Gordon Brown. The supposed alternative implicit in the Tory polemic is that they'd have let the UK banking system collapse. This would have been economic disaster on a cliched but unprecedented scale.
The Tories are not good enough.
2. Not raising NICs sounds good, until you recall that they do not have any coherant strategy to raise the monies elsewhere. "Further efficiency savings"? That means not giving the lowest paid 2/3rds of Civil Servants a payrise - which not only penalises the (already low paid) lower grades, it by implication feathers the nest of the higher earners.
3. "We'll re-negotiate cotracts": and get sued for Breach of Contract if the result reduces the profit margins of the counterparty.
4. Increase Inheritance Tax thresholds so that c.1000 can benefit is just looking after the old boy network. Most people here, I strongly suspect, have their house as their Nil Rate Band (£325k. )
5. Cameron sounds like an overexcited school boy, and is rapidly losing credibility. His constant habit of calling for the most obvious solution to any problem and either calling Labour "copycats" or "indecisive" is beneath even the 4t Form Debating Society, let alone a man who wants to lead the UK.
6. Nobody seriously believed that Cameron welcomed the recent announcement of the domicility of his most important donor. He did it to avoid the embarrasment of an FoI disclosure. Lord Paul has been an acknowledged non Dom for many years. Its always been known.
7. The state of the economy, and the Government debt, has been caused by greedy banks, not Gordon Brown. The supposed alternative implicit in the Tory polemic is that they'd have let the UK banking system collapse. This would have been economic disaster on a cliched but unprecedented scale.
The Tories are not good enough.
I must say I was disgusted by the cons' posters I saw in Wakefield this week. Interestingly I have not seen them in Leeds, looks like they are targeting the same kind of voters that voted in deprived areas who could be swayed by morons like the BNP.
Anyway here is the poster, by Saatchi and Saatchi, that I found most unpleasant.
I then realised that with a can of paint it could be improved no end.
Must just nip out to the nearest Halfords.
Anyway here is the poster, by Saatchi and Saatchi, that I found most unpleasant.
I then realised that with a can of paint it could be improved no end.
Must just nip out to the nearest Halfords.
thats the best the masters of advertising Saatchi and Saatchi can come up with,absoultly pathetic what sort of morons must they employ.quote:Originally posted by JamieL_v2:
I must say I was disgusted by the cons' posters I saw in Wakefield this week. Interestingly I have not seen them in Leeds, looks like they are targeting the same kind of voters that voted in deprived areas who could be swayed by morons like the BNP.
Anyway here is the poster, by Saatchi and Saatchi, that I found most unpleasant.
I then realised that with a can of paint it could be improved no end.
Must just nip out to the nearest Halfords.
quote:Originally posted by 151:thats the best the masters of advertising Saatchi and Saatchi can come up with,absoultly pathetic what sort of morons must they employ.quote:Originally posted by JamieL_v2:
I must say I was disgusted by the cons' posters I saw in Wakefield this week. Interestingly I have not seen them in Leeds, looks like they are targeting the same kind of voters that voted in deprived areas who could be swayed by morons like the BNP.
Anyway here is the poster, by Saatchi and Saatchi, that I found most unpleasant.
I then realised that with a can of paint it could be improved no end.
Must just nip out to the nearest Halfords.
I would have preferred 'One-eyed, two-faced'. As to the morons employed, people similar to those coming up with the guano for Labour's campaign.
Cheers,
OW
quote:Originally posted by JamieL_v2:
I must say I was disgusted by the cons' posters I saw in Wakefield this week. Interestingly I have not seen them in Leeds, looks like they are targeting the same kind of voters that voted in deprived areas who could be swayed by morons like the BNP.
Anyway here is the poster, by Saatchi and Saatchi, that I found most unpleasant.
I then realised that with a can of paint it could be improved no end.
Must just nip out to the nearest Halfords.
How can this poster be 'disgusting'? and why might it appeal especially to the BNP nutters?
I found it quite amusing.
This looks just as bad. It's going to be a rough six/seven weeks. I just heaved up over my keyboard.
This poster campaign was reported in the Guardian this morning. Did you check the name of the journalist who wrote the story?? 