New Poster Art, continued.....

The Guardian has an article on how dismal the posters in this campaign have been ( I would exempt the "two-horse race" poster in my headline from that accusation..). Anyway, they have commissioned a number of artists to do their best to produce new ideas and better targetted posters.

All the posters are very good and thought provoking.

My favourite is this one....




...which seems to me to do exactly what a poster should do: it gets its message across quickly and with point and humour.

And it embodies an essential truth, i.e. that the Murdoch empire wants to destroy the BBC, and has Tory agreement that it will do so. Murdoch benefits from the weakening of a rival and, whatever the Tories think of the BBC, they consider its destrucyion a price worth paying for Murdoch's support.

Murdoch would also wish to dictate how a Tory government behaves, and impose its own, (the Sun's, Fox News'), social  and political "morality" on the Tories. A nighmare if ever.....

The Reverend IM Jolly Speaks.....

Alex Salmond is out and about decrying the "dismal" choice between Labour and Tory. Not that Mr Salmond himself seems full of cheer. In fact he sounds a bit like ricky Fulton in his TV character as the Rev. IM Jolly (who is of course anything but jolly).

Here's Eck  ": Hulllooo... Reverend IM Jolly here.... it's misserabul intit? Evrythin'. It's aw missarabul... Ah wis saying tae Effie, Effie, dae ye no think it's aw missarabul....An' Effie said,...."
 
Oh dear four more weeks of nationalist miserableism and Tory tax bribes.

"Ah don't think ma system can take it, Effie...."

Me neither.

Clear Blue Water...? or Policy U-Turn?

Until today, the Conservatives had made a great priority of the need for deep and quick cuts to the deficit, indeed they plan to cut more deeply and more quickly than many economists and the IMF think is wise. Now they have announced that they would only partially implement the proposed 1p NI increase. This is a traditional Tory tax-cutting move if not an open bribe, and the opposite of deficit cutting: it will increase any deficit calculation. So, whither cutting the deficit? Has the Tory strategy changed? Are we back in buying votes mode?

Tories are claiming that this produces "clear blue water" between the main parties. Now, I'm no economist, and  Faisal Islam has a good analysis on his blog, but it seems to me that Osborne has made, if not a U-Turn, at least a right-turn off the previously mapped out Tory highway.
 
The claim is being made that seven out of ten workers would be better off if Osborne's move is implemented, but that seems to ignore a number of factors.

1. The move will cost £5billion, and that money has to be found somewhere. The most likely target will be public sector jobs and wages. So, if you are a doctor or nurse or teacher and you find yourself out of work, or has your contract hours cut, or suffers a wage freeze, would you be "better off"? Probably not.

2. If the real need, as the Conservatives have told us constantly and insistently, is to cut the deficit deeply and quickly, then there will be adverse effects to the recovery. And if the recovery is delayed or goes into a "double dip", will seven out of ten be better off? Seems unlikely.

Another issue that Faisal Islam touches on is credibility: not just with the public, who will see this as a u-turn but still might buy the bribe, but with the markets. A lot of Tory confidence has been in the belief that the markets would welcome, or at least not oppose,  a Tory government. But if the Conservatives are so willing to abandon a long-held strategy for a few headlines and a tax bribe, what then? Will they be willing to give the Tories support, grudging or otherwise, now?

And if not, could Osborne's tax U-Turn be a turning point in the election, even before the campaign is under way?

The Character Thing.....

Conventional wisdom has so far been that the election will be a battle between the "popular" Dave, with his easy personality and communications skill, but light on policys, versus "unpopular" Gordon, with his lack of personal skills, but with experience and ability, plus policy advantage. That may be changing.

Yesterday, during a rowdy PMQs, the character question, while not exactly dominant, made its public debut as a battlefield embraced by both sides. The interesting thing is that Gordon Brown raised the character issue and he seemed to relish the battle it implies. The question is: what is the calculation behind Gordon Brown's change of tactics and is it wise for him to get into a beauty contest with Dave?

It seems to me that Brown reckons that he can win the battle of policy: the majority of economists, the IMF and the British people seem to buy his/Alasdair Darling's recipe for economic recovery and to reject George Osborne's. Given that the Tories are still ahead in the polls, the battle has to be carried to them, to take them on, on what the regard as their strengths.

And it's not such a gamble as it might have been six months ago. In that time, the Tories have swung this way and that on a number of policy and presentation issues. This is of course important for policy, but it also shows that Cameron is not on top of his agenda or his shadow spokesmen. George Osborne is also a weak link: he's not impressive personally and his policies are not clear or clearly expressed. Today Politics Home is reporting that the City would prefer Osborne's deputy, Ken Clark as Chancellor. Other Tory shadows have made gaffes and outright mistakes. Andrew Lansdley was supposedly untouchable as Health Spokesman until he suggested that health records should be transferred to Google. Chris Grayling was rebuked by the head of UK Statistics after sending dodgy crime statistics to Tory PPCs for use in the election campaign. And of course even Ken Clark is liable to shoot off at the mouth, and he is a euro-enthusiast, which is not popular in the modern Tory party.

Gordon has also benefitted from the sheer nastiness of some of the attacks on him, notably from the Sun and from Tory Generals. This has had the effect of getting more people "on his side" out of sympathy at the injustice of the attacks and the strength of Conservative bile directed at him. He has also worked at lightening his public persona and delivery and improving public perceptions of his personality. And the sheer doggedness of his determination in pursuing economic solutions, leading international opinion and opposing the forces that attack him, has induced a kind of respect for his strength and determination, qualities that are not negligible in the current climate.

So, in attacking on all sides, policy, presentation and personality, GB is challenging Cameron to fight on all fronts as well. And given that the Tory machine doesn't seem to be as well geared as it should be with all the cash they have spent on it, or as they boasted it would be, and that policy is a battle they do not want, there may indeed be profit for Brown in the strategy.

With the persistent Tory lead he has to do something, and forcing your opponents to change their tactics can be a profitable move for any successful general.