Labour launches London broadcast, see what you think;

Now this is more like it.

Distinctly London, distinctly real and with a strong underlying theme that suggests that Londoners aren’t just better off with Labour, but are naturally Labour supporters.

The switcheroo at the beginning changing from a “boring” talking head by a politician to the voice of the people works, and is a bit of a relief when Ken disappears. Despite what Livingstone says at the beginning, this isn’t a new technique but it’s certainly a strong delivery, on the whole.

A particularly effective part of the style is shooting the various participants in real places that could be anywhere in London. It feels like they live here. That these are the opinions of our neighbours. There’s a number  of things that are going on unsaid here, for example many of the participants are *at work*, *doing things*. It makes them more serious, and re-emphasises the theme that Labour is good for your bank account.

The ethnic diversity is also very clear, it’s lovely to hear so many heavy accents and see so many likable people on what could be a very dry video. It feels rich. A couple of mis-steps though.

That’s a very Jewish Jew there isn’t it? I know it’s meant to reassure us that some of Ken’s best friends are Jews but, for me, it’s like a massive klaxon going off saying *look! there’s a Jew supporting us!*. This simply highlights that Livingstone is dealing with this particular issue in a heavy handy and clunky way. It’s unlikely to make many people think that Ken thinks Jews are just like anyone everyone else and it just gives people who want to offended an excuse to write off the rest of the message.

 

Policy

In terms of policy there is, as you would expect, a focus on fares. You have Livingstone making the very clear pledge that he will resign if the fare cut is not in place by October 7th. This is a powerful way to repel attacks on the policy that the money is not there (which it isn’t) and suggests that should Labour win the Mayoralty the fare cut will happen, no matter what budget that money has to come from.

On the London EMA policy we hear not a jot. Another wise move as it’s a “pledge” that cannot be fulfilled and while some like being promised magic rainbows and unicorns it does rather undermine your credibility if you have a host of policies that rely on money trees and goblin kisses. Sweeping this under the carpet while going on the offensive over fares is an effective way of looking robust about your policies while actually picking your fights.

Some of the policy areas don’t work with me personally, but may well be effective for others. An emphasis on how much money will be in your pocket (in this case from the fare cut)  kind of says to me that “a Labour vote is a selfish vote” and puts me off a bit, but people probably are selfish so it may well work.

Considering that crime as a whole is going down I’m never best pleased to hear politicians emphasising how dangerous the world is. This whole knife crime and robbery rates are rising (which is true I believe) are selectively chosen statistics among a general trend of a falling crime rate. The consequences of highlighting London as a high crime city is to play on people’s fears. It’s extremely debatable whether Ken and Boris’ near identical policing policies, which is to boost uniforms while sacking civilian staff, will do anything to improve knife and robbery rates anyway.

However, playing on people’s fears and selfishness may well work so these are not necessarily mistakes as such – just mistakes for people like me.

 

Core message

If the video was a piece of music there is a core phrase, uttered just the once, at the crucial “bridge” where the tempo changes. We’re told that Ken embodies “Labour values”, which is what the rest of the film is saying but this is the only moment it is actually said. This is definitely the strongest part of the message.

It feeds into the end section where Londoners say “come on Ken” over and over. I mean I didn’t cry or anything. It was a speck of dust, and I stubbed my toe, and I thought of something sad not related too this at all. Those weren’t tears. Oh no.

To say that the candidate embodies the values of ordinary Londoners in all their diversity and in all their day to day troubles at work, at home or in the street is a great touch. Despite some jarring moments this video does its job very effectively.

Having said that, it’s a real shame Livingstone appears again at the end, particularly as he says something smug about people supporting him. The less we see from Livingstone and the more see of people talking about him the more we’re likely to warm to Labour’s candidate and maybe, just maybe, vote for him.

 

4 Comments

  1. Jim,

    I’m sorry again to see you wanting to be positive about something Ken’s campaign has done but hitting a snooty note instead.

    You end by saying that you might ‘maybe, just maybe’ vote for Ken again. Well in a run-off between Ken and Boris I’m sorry but you have to be an idiot not to want to vote for Ken, because he wants to defend Londoners and Boris wants to screw them over. That is quite a simple occasion to make, I’d have thought.

    It’s also disappointing to see you swallowing the line that the 7% fares cut isn’t affordable. This is rubbish. Over at Polly Curtis’ article on the Guardian, in which she adopts a similar tone to you (it would be lovely but it’s not realistic), she has to her credit published a detailed explanation by Ken’s team of where the money is going to come from, and I note that she hasn’t yet worked out how to debunk it.

    Instead of sniping, at this late stage progressive people of all shades and stripes should be saying loudly and proudly that they’re voting for Ken number 1 or 2. That’s all that matters now.

  2. Sorry, don’t know why I said ‘occasion’, I meant calculation. Oops!

  3. Jim Jepps says:

    Hi there, I’m about to whizz out so just a quick comment.

    for those interested the link to the article mentioned is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/apr/11/mayoral-elections-london

    I’m not sure it’s a case of laziness or sniping – I might be wrong of course, that’s always possible.

    I’ve been following this since around January when researchers at the GLA were pulling their hair out trying to work out how on earth Labour was going to fulfill it’s pledge to cut fares. Since then I’ve spent a fair amount of time analysing the various claims and listening to what GLA and TfL people told me.

    Lazy – not on this occasion, despite my natural inclinations.

    In my view Labour are spending money that is already earmarked for specific budget lines. As such it is not lying around doing nothing in the way a number of Labour people have tried to claim to me.

    That probably means that, having raised the stakes, Ken would find a way of making it happen (as I say above) but that it will be coming out of other pots – probably infrastructure projects… something that may well be short termist in the extreme.

    I tore my Labour Party card up some years ago so when they make promises that look fanciful to me I get to criticise them and vote for someone else in good conscience. It’s not out of spite or sniping, it’s a political disagreement. Actually, on this occasion it’s a dispute over facts. More than happy to continue to read/hear the alternative view as I desperately want fares to come down.

  4. Well you’ve certainly made far more of an effort to learn the real facts of the matter than most journalists who have written about it! But apart from the inflormation you’ve been given by TfL and GLA people who work for Boris Johnson, the Tory candidate, what do you make of the details that the Ken campaign have offered Polly Curtis? Do they make sense to you?

    By the way, you seem to be assuming I’m a Labour party member – I’m not.

Leave a Comment