Brutal response ? (wait for it)
⏩ https://t.co/aBfHF3Y85D#GE2017 #BBCQT pic.twitter.com/468E3sMaqv— Momentum (@PeoplesMomentum) June 2, 2017
I don’t know a lot about British politics, but this ad is genius and Democrats (or better, some well-financed SuperPAC) should make their own version. And, consistent with the theme of the ad, it’s good to see that Labour isn’t holding back in making the Tories (and May in particular) feel the heat for their cuts in policing.
BREAKING: @jeremycorbyn tells me Theresa May should resign as Prime Minister over her record regarding police funding
— rachel younger (@rachyoungeritv) June 5, 2017
(Ad via LGM)
Baud
That is an enjoyable ad. I honestly don’t know if it would be effective here, but it made me happy.
ThresherK
Sarcasm is underused.
It appears my sense of humour has been Anglicized since I was in grade school.
BruceFromOhio
‘Obviously!‘
Wow, that is one cold smirk.
Iowa Old Lady
That made me laugh.
Balconesfault
I could certainly see that directed at 23 years of Republican led government down here in Texas. When I went to grad school in the 80s tuition and fees at a State University were about $200 a semester. Now a university in the Texas system will cost you about $5,000 per semester.
ThresherK
@Baud: If Karl Rove ran something like this (but of course not fact-based), Tweety and Cilizza would be knobslobbering this ad like they were thousand-dollar-a-night call girls. The R candidate wouldn’t even have to win. It’d be a classic pundit game of “draw the curve, plot the points” to make this the best ad since Saint Ronnie was alive.
I say, Run it in a race a Dem is going to win.
zhena gogolia
Of course, we’re already living in the dystopian future depicted here. Thanks to the GOP.
SFAW
For the Luddites among us, for whom the vid will not play on Firefox nor Chrome, can we get a synopsis (or quickie transcript)?
SFAW
@SFAW:
Never mind, I used that Googly thing to find it in Beta format, so I’m good.
unknown known
@SFAW: dad looking at photos with his little girl in Tory britain 2030
“why is your hair funny there”
“that’s how we used to wear it”
“Why is that class so small. Mine has 40 students”
“We can’t afford Teachers now.
“What clothes are you wearing there”
“I graduated university”
“Can I do that?”
“It will cost a lot more.”
“Why can’t I have all these things that you had”
“Because I voted for Theresa May.”
“Dad, do you hate me?”
“[beat] [smile] Obviously.”
Another Scott
@SFAW: “2030”
(very roughly)
Dad and young teen daughter sitting on couch. He’s showing her some old pictures.
“Why does your hair look like that?” “It seemed like a good idea at the time.”
“Why are there so few pupils in your class room? We could fit 40 in my class.” “Well, we can’t afford to pay as much for school now.”
“What’s that thing on your head?” “That’s when I graduated from college.”
“Will I be able to go to college?” “Well sure, but you’ll have to pay a lot more than I did.”
…
“Why did things change so much?” “It’s because I voted for Theresa May.”
“Do you hate me dad?” “Obviously. (big smirk)”
HTH.
(It’s really well done. Hit them hard. Politics ain’t bean bag.)
Cheers,
Scott.
Jeffro
Love.
It.
And so easy to make 1 million variations on the million different ways that the Republicans want to hate on anyone but the 1%
eric
that ad would kill the democrat that ran it because it is so unfair to the GOP, suggesting that they dont love our children and it ignores that the Democrat party has ignored and demeaned the white working class voters whose tax dollars were being redirected to the failing inner-cities. s/FYNYT
SFAW
@unknown known: @Another Scott:
Thanks very much!
dr. bloor
@eric: Yahtzee. Fournier, Wolfie, Cillizard and all the rest would be clutching their pearls with reckless abandon over something like this.
Another Scott
@dr. bloor: True. But so what?
Someone like Franken should run it, and show how it’s done. When the world doesn’t fall in around him, and when the attacks backfire and are shown to be toothless, then it opens the field for other (more vulnerable) Democrats.
Cheers,
Scott.
cintibud
@eric: Oh jeez, another democrats are so screwed we could never win post. Screw that. Run the ad
Jon Rudd
@Balconesfault: Part of the Student-To-Serf program.
schrodingers_cat
@Another Scott: Exactly, so what? MSM bots are R water carriers, why do we care what they think?
eric
@cintibud: not at all. that is what would happen. then, you have to launch the stage two rocket and explain on the merits exactly why the ad is true. It is not enough to put the snark out there and appeal to the base that will approve of the “fight” in the ad. That is the very disease that infects the Right. If you are fighting hard, then you are winning, and anything less is surrender.
You can run the ad, but the ad is not enough. It can get you free media, but then you have to go the next step and explain exactly how gutting Medicaid and allowing block grants will mean that the lives of Americans will get worse and not better. You need to explain that gutting climate change policies means that we are becoming less competitive and EVEN IF anthropomorphic climate change is wrong, because that is where the next generate of jobs will come from we have to go there too. You need to fight on the ideas behind the snark or you will get stampeded by the tut-tutting media.
eric
@schrodingers_cat: because they dictate what the mushy-middle thinks in purple districts. Should they matter? No, but they do. So you have to choose rhetorical devices that get around this. Frank Luntz understands this from the Right, we need to do a better job from the left. It is political malpractice for democrats not to use word like “opportunity” and “freedom” and “success” and “security” in every ad. We are the party striving to expand opportunity for every working American. We will enact policies that reward hard work and success. We will allow all Americans the freedom to live their lives in peace and to enjoy the prosperity of what will truly be the American Century.
It is not hard, but you have to go the next step.
schrodingers_cat
@eric: You exaggerate their importance, but Democrats need to take them on, instead of cowering before them.
cintibud
@eric: Well that is certainly more nuanced than the simple “that ad would kill the democrat that ran it because it is so unfair to the GOP”. That sounded to me like preemptive surrender. I agree that more than running the ad would be necessary. I also agree that there would be pearl clutching by pundits. I took your original response to mean that the Dems should simply never run anything so “divisive” (pearl clutching) because that meant automatic defeat.
ETA – wouldn’t that be pearl clutching because of pearl clutching?
eric
@cintibud: i understand your response and share in your ethos. If democrats dont care enough to fight for people in their ads, why should we expect them to fight for people in their elected offices?!
cintibud
@eric: Fully agree!
p.a.
Americanize it. Add an eagle with a tear in its eye and some f35’s flying. Dad, do you hate me? Oh honey, I hate everyone…
mike toreno
I don’t like the do you hate me at the end that much. Maybe as a title at the beginning. I think let him say Teresa may, and spend all the remaining time letting it sink in.
Uncle Ebeneezer
I would love to see a US version of this. Maybe make the girl into a woman who found out that every dude in her dept makes more $ than she does despite the same title and/or less experience. Dad, of course has always wanted “what’s best” for his daughter but has to explain why he votes against wage equality.
Not sure it would do much though, considering the cognitive dissonance and utter lack of shame that Republican voters seem to possess.
satby
@cintibud: pretty sure eric was being sarcastic
Edit: never mind, he clarified.
Citizen_X
That would be a good ad against Betsy Devos, and Republican educational polices in general, with very little tweaking.
Uncle Cholmondeley
@eric:
Perhaps stage two could actually use the completely predictable pearl-clutching to further push the compaign. The ad starts, but then cuts (perhaps as if an old-fashioned tape is turned off and the sound slows and stops). “You’ve seen this ad, but let’s check the facts behind these claims.”
Facts are checked — they’re all true.
Tape grinds back up to normal speed again to the end of the original ad.
The Moar You Know
Dems will never, ever, ever run an ad like this. We are too afraid, as a party, to tell the truth about the people destroying the nation.
Kenneth Kohl
@ThresherK:
You mean they aren’t?
trollhattan
In case folks don’t know, the ad was made by filmmaker Ken Loach, partly explaining how dead perfect it is. I love that absence of dun-dun-dun-dun….dramatic soundtrack American attack ads are required to have, punctuated with the gravelly deep drama voiceover:”Teresa May, bad for children, bad for Britain!”
TenguPhule
@Uncle Ebeneezer:
It moves the window.
Making Republican the new “dirty fucking liberal” in politics.
TenguPhule
@Uncle Cholmondeley:
Get this man onto the DNC’s ad committee! Stat!
Unknown known
@TenguPhule: Motion seconded and carried. That’s some quality thinking right there.
goblue72
@schrodingers_cat: If anything, the electorate rewards spine. For too many Democrats, the urge to pearl-clutch is at this point a muscle memory. The pearls get clutched so often, they just default to it.
Its a muscle memory that needs to be un-learned and retrained into a muscle memory that instinctively knows how to make a fist. To learn how to show some GRIT for once.
Democrats *would* need to provide a “step two” if they ran something like this only because Democrats don’t actually have a coherent story – and 6 months after losing to Donald Trump, they still don’t want to do the hard work of resolving their internal fights and come up with one. Leading up to this election, Labour spent last 18 months or so having a drag out fight between the its left wing (Momentum) and its centrist Blaireite wing (Parliamentary Labour Party). Its left wing won, twice survived leadership challenge, and Jezza is now firmly in control. They’ve adopted a vigorously populist people’s party message as the theme of their campaign – “For the Many. Not the Few.” They released a stridently pro-worker, pro-welfare state manifesto. (UK Labour party version of a party platform.) Jezza has been hitting the hustings with a fury, and while he has long clearlybeen a man of his own skin on the campaign trail, he is now finally learning how to communicate more effectively via the mass media. (See Jezza’s quick appearance at a Libertines concert a few weeks ago. The kids went nuts for the old socialist.)
And NOW, the marketing/ads are rolling out in force. Following all that, not attempting to lead. (See in contrast to the Dems, who think winning is all about messaging and brand first, and not about coherency of substance.)
The election is still the Tories to lose. And odds are still well in their favor. But polls now showing Tories to fail to have an outright majority and to fare worse than Cameron. So Tories will need to coalition with UKIP and the Ulster Unionist Party. (Labour could coalition with Lib-Dems and Greens but doesnt appear that would get them over the hump to a majority coalition at this point.)
Labour winning would be a shock to everyone. But even if they lose, Corbyn has completely up-ended his critics, arse over tip. The Tories keep screaming “TROT!” and Jezza keeps smiling back demanding “tell me precisely why we can afford tax cuts for the swells, but gran in her wheelchair gets the streets and our kids get the moldy bread?”
goblue72
@trollhattan: Loved Wind That Shakes the Barley.
TenguPhule
@goblue72: It has been a pleasure to watch Corbyn beat his critics like a gentlemen.
Camembert
@eric: Uh our POC base is pretty clear on what “security” means right now. Plus “liberty”. I don’t think we should keep telling our voters we like white supremacists more than we like them.
mellowjohn
love the “Because your children deserve worse” tagline.
goblue72
@TenguPhule: Part of this I can’t help but think is that his critics (including the Blaireites) just can’t stand the fact that while Corbyn did attend what we would call private day schools, he did not attend university & instead became a union organizer. (He took a course or two at the UK equivalent of a city college, but nothing more.) Gets the goat of all those Oxford and Cambridge grads infesting Parliament that the leader of the opposition is just one step removed from a common prole.