Back Door Strategy?
Mini Comment
New Labour are claiming that the Tories are running a strategy that is "devious", "underhand" and "back door". Blair said that this strategy is imported from Australia with Lynton Crosby.
They are referring to Michael Howard's latest calls for voters to "send a message to Tony Blair".
This phrase, they say, is a cleverly crafted admission of defeat, designed specifically to induce complacency amongst the Labour core vote whilst giving those who are unimpressed with Blair the confidence that they can register their disapproval without electing the Tories.
As former Labour MP recently turned LibDem supporter put it, voters can "give Blair a bloody nose", this, presumably in safe in the knowledge that he won't die from it.
It's a compelling theory, but strip away the sensationalism and surely what we are left with is that Labour are accusing the Tories of campaigning like the LibDems. The LibDems have long presented themselves as the protest vote option.
It would seem that the imported strategy that Blair and New Labour suddenly fear so is not the "back door"/"play dead" route, but the very front door, very alive localised and targeted campaigning that the American VoterVault technology has enabled.
The Tories localised strategy is under the main polling radar. VoterVault has access to millions upon millions of items of personal information, obtained from credit agencies, banks, marketing strategists and advertisers. The numbers are crunched and a localised strategy is developed for each target seat. Effectively, it's doing what the LibDems have been doing for years, but on a mega-industrialised scale.
Blair and Co. have belatedly picked this up and panicked and bizarre efforts to convince us all that the Tories are trying to win by default reflect how seriously they've been caught out.
New Labour are claiming that the Tories are running a strategy that is "devious", "underhand" and "back door". Blair said that this strategy is imported from Australia with Lynton Crosby.
They are referring to Michael Howard's latest calls for voters to "send a message to Tony Blair".
This phrase, they say, is a cleverly crafted admission of defeat, designed specifically to induce complacency amongst the Labour core vote whilst giving those who are unimpressed with Blair the confidence that they can register their disapproval without electing the Tories.
As former Labour MP recently turned LibDem supporter put it, voters can "give Blair a bloody nose", this, presumably in safe in the knowledge that he won't die from it.
It's a compelling theory, but strip away the sensationalism and surely what we are left with is that Labour are accusing the Tories of campaigning like the LibDems. The LibDems have long presented themselves as the protest vote option.
It would seem that the imported strategy that Blair and New Labour suddenly fear so is not the "back door"/"play dead" route, but the very front door, very alive localised and targeted campaigning that the American VoterVault technology has enabled.
The Tories localised strategy is under the main polling radar. VoterVault has access to millions upon millions of items of personal information, obtained from credit agencies, banks, marketing strategists and advertisers. The numbers are crunched and a localised strategy is developed for each target seat. Effectively, it's doing what the LibDems have been doing for years, but on a mega-industrialised scale.
Blair and Co. have belatedly picked this up and panicked and bizarre efforts to convince us all that the Tories are trying to win by default reflect how seriously they've been caught out.
Nonsense. In marketing, that's what you do - you find the people you want to speak to and tell them what you want to tell them. I'm amazed it wasn't being used in 2001, it's really nothing new. The 'vote for us, we probably won't get in' idea is utterly pathetic, but probably their most effective way of campaigning, considering how charismatic Howard is. After all, no one votes for their local candidate, they vote for the party, and thus the party's leader.
I would have thought with household by household demographics, politics can become more localised, not globalised. It's not as if they're asking for votes for Bush, just using the system that worked for him. It's like accusing the microchip of being a corporation.
There is something spook yabout how much people can know about you without having to ask you personally. Not so much "Are you thinking what we're thinking?" but "we know what you're thinking, what you're buying, what you're reading, what you're watching and what you're eating!"
Posted by
Matt |
Tue May 03, 01:08:00 pm