ELECTIONWATCH 2005: Hove
As I’ve been travelling the leafy highways and byways of Hove, or at least staggering from one drinking establishment to the next, I’ve kept a running total of the election campaign posters I see. The count so far runs at:
Conservatives: 9
New Labour: 1
I also notice from the one other piece of New Labour campaign material I’ve seen, the glossy takeaway menu-alike that came through the letterbox, that New Labour - at least in Hove - have dropped the “New” and are now merely “Labour” again. Whatever can it mean?
Posted on March 23rd, 2005 at 12:42 pm
| See also • ELECTIONWATCH 2005: Hove • ELECTIONWATCH 2005: Hove • ELECTIONWATCH 2005: Hove |
Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe By Email • Print This Post • • • |
|
Filed under 2005 General Election, UK politics |
I haven’t seen as many posters as you, but what it tells me is that the Tories are desperate to win a seat they once assumed they needn’t even bother campaigning in, and also that they have lots of money, which is undeniably true.
Obvious difference between the Celia Barlow leaflet - if that is what you received - and a takeaway menu is the distinct lack of pizzas and kebabs on the cover, though I admit the colour is a little garish. Glossy? I’m holding one up to the light and it isn’t really.
As for the lack of “New” in Labour, the name of our party is, after all, Labour. The views expressed within the leaflet are also unequivocally “Labour” and (I hope) address the same needs and issues that have always concerned the party. I wouldn’t try to find an “angle”.
Hove Labour 2005
Well, we could argue about the exact metaphysics of the leaflet all day, I suppose. Not glossy? Definitely shiny then. And like a takeaway menu it’s clearly selling something that might not agree with one.
Boom boom.
Moving on. If only your glorious leader was unequivocally “Labour”. In this speech he gave on January 13, he used the term “New Labour” 16 times and the word “Labour” in isolation only five.
He said a third term would be “unremittingly New Labour” which I found pretty chilling. I mean, what’s left to privatise? Where to bomb next?
“…we have succeeded most when most holding true to New Labour principles.”
“We will continue to govern as New Labour.”
You see, I think there is an angle in the dropping of the “New” from local campaign literature. For one, many party activists and members, and traditional Labour voters are sick of New Labour - why else are they deserting in droves? So maybe an unofficial local rebranding would go some way to making them feel better?
You say the “Tories are desperate to win a seat they once assumed they needn’t even bother campaigning in”, well New Labour seem to have a sweat on as well. Visits from Peter Hain and Tony Blair in the last month? Apparently Hain has had the shock of his life while touring New Labour marginals recently.
Which reminds me - could you ask Celia who foots the bill for the laughably OTT security that shielded Blair in Portslade a few weeks ago? If it’s the likes of me via my council tax (as when New Labour have their conference in Brighton), why wasn’t I invited to the meeting? More taxpayers money spent on party campaigning?