Topics about the Labour Party
:grinning: 100 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By youngian
Membership Days Posts
#457268
This is a very informative piece on Khan's campaign strategy. They are mainly Ed Miliband's team who had taken a beaten from the Tories but were now learning from their mistakes from last year and turning the tables.
For a man, who until a few months ago was a little-known former transport minister, it has been an incredible transformation. And it is a transformation which comes after one of the nastiest and most bitterly fought election campaigns in living memory.

Many in Labour feared the attacks would cause a collapse in turnout among Labour supporters. In fact, when the results finally came in, Khan had not only won, but had done so on a scale bigger than either Boris Johnson or Ken Livingstone before him. It was a result which clearly vindicated the approach taken by the Labour candidate.

The key to understanding Khan's success is to realise that both Khan and most of his senior lieutenants are former Miliband staffers. Khan, who had previously masterminded Ed's leadership bid, watched in horror last year as the Conservatives successfully defined him as weak, awkward and unfit to be prime minister. It was a brutal experience, which most of those around Khan witnessed first hand. They were all determined not to repeat the same mistakes again.

"The most important lesson from Miliband was that Sadiq needed to define himself before his opponents had a chance to," one ally of Khan told me.

With this in mind, Khan's team sat down, worked out how the Tories were most likely to attack him and then tried to neutralise those attacks in advance. Khan's decision to nominate Jeremy Corbyn for Labour leader (to "broaden the debate") was one obvious weak spot. With this in mind, shortly after being selected, Khan gave an interview to the Mail on Sunday in which he repeatedly laid into his party's new leader.

Long before the Labour anti-semitism row broke, Khan attacked Corbyn for allowing the party to be seen as "anti-Jewish" while savaging him over his connections to Hamas and Hezbollah. Khan also attacked Corbyn for refusing to sing the national anthem and slammed Labour's shadow chancellor John McDonnell for "condoning" the IRA. It was a brutal interview which enraged many Labour activists who had voted for Khan as the 'left' alternative to Tessa Jowell. But it was also highly effective at closing off what could have been the Conservative's best line of attack against him.

The other key line of attack that Khan's team anticipated centred on his previous work as a human rights lawyer in which he represented, in his own words, "some unsavoury characters". Khan's team were right to anticipate this line of attack. Several commentators have suggested that Goldsmith's campaign resorted to these attacks out of desperation. This is not the case. In fact, even before Goldsmith was nominated, a source on his campaign told me that they were likely to attack Khan for his 'extremist' connections. Khan's former brother-in-law Makbool Javaid's previous status as a firebrand was also specifically mentioned to me. Sure enough, a story linking Khan to Javaid was the first 'extremist link' story to appear about Khan on the front page of the Evening Standard earlier this year.

Again, Khan was well prepared for the attack. Knowing it was coming, Khan gave a well-received lunchtime speech to the parliamentary lobby in November last year. He spoke passionately about his own experience of fighting and being subject to attacks from Islamic extremists. In a line clearly targeted to the views of certain newspapers and their readers, Khan argued that British Muslims had a "special role" in tackling Islamic extremes. Again, Khan's speech and its warm reception by 'the Tory press' won grumbles and even outrage from some on the left, but it was highly effective in neutering the attacks which were soon to come in abundance.

Key to the success of Khan's pre-emptive strategy was his chief spinner Patrick Hennessy, a former Telegraph journalist with strong links to Conservative-supporting newspapers. Whereas Goldsmith's team had pretty poor relations with any but the most supportive publications, Hennessy ensured that Khan's messages appeared in exactly the sort of newspapers which the Tories would later seek to use to attack him.

"They made sure that The Sun and Mail readers had already heard from Khan before they heard from the Tories about him," one ally of Khan tells me.

But heading off attacks wasn't going to be enough. Khan's team knew they also had to avoid the biggest mistake made by Miliband, and positively define the Labour candidate with voters. So long before the race properly began, Khan began to wheel out his lines about being "the son of a bus driver" and "the council estate boy who will tackle the housing crisis". Khan followed these lines so religiously that journalists covering the race would often grumble that they could recite them in their sleep. This was another lesson learned from the Miliband years when the Tories endlessly and successfully repeated messages such as Osborne's "long-term economic plan" to the increasing boredom of journalists.

"We had a few simple key messages, which we devised early and keep repeating," one source tells me.

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... og-whistle" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
By bluebellnutter
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#457274
Amazing how often it turns out what worked for Khan was something that "angered activists on the left". Perhaps it's them who need to keep quiet and learn some lessons about elections?
 
By youngian
Membership Days Posts
#457277
There's also Matthew Norman in the Indy and John Rentoul who are arguing that Labour can't learn anything from Sadiq's campaign because London is a left-leaning city (that has had Boris for mayor for eight years). Does that mean Diane Abbot or Tessa Jowell would have achieved the same result? The campaign benefitted from the ineptitude of Zac's campaign but how successfully you exploit its failings that is relevant.
 
By Timbo
Membership Days Posts
#457278
bluebellnutter wrote:Amazing how often it turns out what worked for Khan was something that "angered activists on the left". Perhaps it's them who need to keep quiet and learn some lessons about elections?
To be fair, I'm not entirely sure it's a case of "the left hates things that win elections" so much as "going after the left deliberately" to avoid potential attacks by association. It doesn't really indicate one way or another whether those potential attacks would have any validity.
 
By The Weeping Angel
Membership Days Posts
#457348
Christ on a bike on another forum dealing with one member who doesn't like Khan and is convinced he's shifty. His evidence for this is one video on Youtube. This is his response

They use to call Ed Balls, 'Blinky', because of the amount of times he blinked when being questioned..

Excessive blinking is a sign of some one telling lies. Body language 101.

Also, loosing your 'rag', is a sign that you're loosing the argument...

Of course, this is BBC right wing bias...

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's one of those cynical about all politics types, and thinks Guido Fawkes is a reliable news source.
 
By The Weeping Angel
Membership Days Posts
#459573
John McDonnell being a tit

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... ted-labour" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
At the Labour In For Britain event last night, Mr McDonnell was asked by an audience member whether, like Mr Khan, the party should put aside its differences with Mr Cameron to campaign for a Remain vote.

He replied: "The Europe that the Tories want is not our Europe. Cameron went to negotiate away workers' rights in advance of this referendum. If he could have done it, he would have done.

"If Cameron and his crew are still in power after this referendum they will continue dismantling our welfare state. They will continue to cut benefits, undermine wages and cut public service jobs. This will go on.

"Sharing a platform with them discredits us. It demotivates the very people we are trying to mobilise."
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#459574
Really? A tit?

I'm with him 100%, though I understand why Sadiq shared a platform.

Once again I think you need to give your head a shake.
 
By bluebellnutter
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#459596
Sadiq has an element of lee-way.

A. He's already won his election.
B. He's in a position of power to justify being there with other powerful people.
C. People probably won't alter their voting intentions on what the Mayor of London gets up to, especially outside London.

Again, I see no problem in either Sadiq doing what he did or McDonnell saying what he said. But then I'm not looking to be offended.
 
By youngian
Membership Days Posts
#459602
I like the positive agenda John McDonnell has put forward on the EU referendum and agree with him that sharing platforms with Tories is counter productive but he's wrong to have a dig at Khan who had a very good day with the Cameron invite. He's an executive leader now not just an opposition MP and Cameron was the sheepish guest while Khan was showing a bit class after the disgusting campaign the Tories organised against him, including personal abuse from Cameron. Sadiq made it clear his has little time for Cameron's vision of Europe but can still come together on this serious issue for London. Also, it was easy for Ken to secure the funding he needed in better economic times from a Labour government. Khan has a trickier game to play. And what's was that patronising bullshit from Cameron about him being a proud Muslim. Toe curling stuff.
By mattomac
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#459618
To me it made Cameron look bad, As someone said its not going effect Labour's pull in Scotland anyhow, Labour are generally pro Europe and that comes across in the polling.

Tooting shouldn't be an issue that is hurt by this, and Labour voters switching over this issue post election will be very low if at all.

Hoey allows to be the useful idiot for Labour, in fact Corbyn is the one who needs to be out there, that is shown by the polling that suggests he is the second most trusted and yet about the 8th or 9th most seen.
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#459633
As regards McDonnell, he's got a point, but a fairly useless one. There are only two options on the referendum slip - stay or leave. Not "Stay for the following reasons" - a stay vote from a big businessman wanting to ride roughshod over the workers is the same as a stay from a union rep wanting to protect those workers' rights.
 
By youngian
Membership Days Posts
#459638
Tory and Labour MPs are going to bump into each other at events like Science for EU in Cambridge for example but on the whole, it was a mutual agreement not to share platforms. Activist do mix through Britain Stronger In and also do their respective party campaigns. It isn't difficult for reasonably intelligent grown-ups to work together in this way for a common end. I have appeared to have fallen out with a Brexit knob head in my own CLP ward. Goldman Sachs and the bankers are for Remain so he is voting Leave to stick it to the bread-head suits man.
 
By bluebellnutter
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#459857
Tell him if he's so happy aligning himself with Britain First and Donald Trump to knock himself out. See how properly leftie he is.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10
Jeremy Corbyn.

Headlines.

Lots of project fear about the votes tomorrow. Per[…]

I read some of those tweets. The naysayers are jus[…]

The Sun

It's unforgivable. No scrutiny, no impact assessme[…]