Welcome To Zelo Street!

This is a blog of liberal stance and independent mind

Sunday 22 February 2015

CCHQ - Absolute Shower

Party loyalty can mean many things: being selective with the facts, sticking to the script even when proved wrong, digging dirt on opponents, being creative in order to make your side look better, and if all else fails telling whoppers to the point that you become a parody of yourself. All of these behaviours can be seen by the perpetually shameless crowd at the Conservative Party’s Central Headquarters (CCHQ).
Of course, CCHQ can, when the occasion dictates, display the highest principle, especially when trying to occupy the moral high ground in order to kick their opponents. But the kinds of dirty tricks they deplore in others can come in handy, and here we see the barrel-scraping at its worst. One of those subjects that should be a no-go area in politics is to juxtapose Jewish people and marionettes. Not CCHQ, though.
How low can you go?

There they were last Thursday, depicting Mil The Younger as a marionette. One wonders if they paid Disney for the use of the still from Pinocchio. Given the lack of a credit on that Tweet, probably not. The thought also occurs that there is a difference between union members casting votes, and unions actually buying the Labour leadership, but at CCHQ, one need not be accurate and honest, merely on-message.
Then there is advertising favourable news coverage, and especially news coverage that is not news coverage at all. So the following day came the citing of a Daily Mail piece claiming that Labour was split, because splits are A Very Bad Thing for any party. The article’s sub-headings told “Factionalism is growing in party and the top is bitterly divided into camps … Miliband is surrounded by 'clappers' and they are pitted against ‘Ballsites' … Problem for Ed is that some of his 'clappers' are at war with each other”.
Laugh? I thought I’d never start. The article was written by Andrew Pierce, whose Twitter handle is @ToryBoyPierce. Pierce is an unashamedly proud Tory. The piece, dishonestly claiming that Miliband’s staff used the “Dowler Moment” words - they didn’t - is not news. It is a typically catty opinion piece about some of Labour’s staffers.
But such spin is highly effective, especially when so much of the press leans towards The Blue Team. And so it came to pass that the Murdoch Sunday Times decided to run its own version of Pierce’s “split”, claiming that knives were out for “Auguste” Balls, just as they weren’t for Miliband three weeks ago. There was a Miliband-Balls rift, and it was worse than the one between Tone and Pa Broon, honestly.

What CCHQ did not tell was that their pal Pierce had started the idea rolling before the weekend, possibly with their assistance (Pierce has, in the past, had difficulty producing wholly original copy). But they were sure that Miliband and Balls were called the “Ed aches”, or were at “Logger Eds”. There’s still two and a half months to go, and already the factual information is running out. And the humour ain’t making it.

To push this kind of dishonesty, you really need an absolute shower. And that’s just what CCHQ has got. If only the electorate was taking any notice.


SteveB said...

Talking of buying policies....

before the last election one Johann Cristopherson, multi millionaire hedge fund manager and hunt lobbyist was handing out money to Conservative candiates who might support the hunting cause. One such beneficiary was Edward Timpson, MP for Nantwich and part time photo op in Crewe. In November 2009 when pressed by the local rag (who knew nothing about the money) Timpson said he had no interest in hunting and was neutral on the subject. A few weeks after the election and with a Conservative PM, Timpson wrote to the paper, failed to remind people of previous comments (as did the editor) and said that he was definately in favour of hunting and would vote to repeal the ban if given the chance. Money talks - and the Conservatives prove it!

Dabney said...

The thing is, I really think this constant, neverending harping on about 'splits' will backfire on the Mail, simply because there's only so many times you can run a story before even your own readers get bored?

The first time they ran a story about divisions in the Labour party (which btw are a lot more implausible than the Blair-Brown era; Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper have been friends for decades, they used to share a flat, they're on much better terms than Blair and Brown), it was *interesting* muck-raking. Same for the second and third times. But now it's beginning to sound like a stuck record, and imo some attacks lose their efficiency the more you repeat them. This attack is one of them.