Dave the Chameleon et al

[undyingking]

I got an email from Labour yesterday boasting about their new Dave the Chameleon advert, so proud are they of it. On the site you can buy Dave mugs, T-shirts, posters etc. The idea, if you've managed to avoid it so far, is that David Cameron is inconsistent in his political opinions, changing them to suit the audience.

Is this a rather misconceived tactic?

• For a start, the chameleon is rather cute and appealing. Wouldn't a monstrous / demonic-looking one, harking back to the days when Cameron was Norman Lamont's right-hand man, have been better? Or maybe a zombie one that sucked out people's brains with its long, sticky tongue.
  
• Secondly, I'm sure there are quite a few people who rather like the idea that Cameron will change his policies according to what he thinks people will want to hear and thus will vote for. After all, it worked for Blair. Saying "Warning, this man is not a die-hard ideologue!" might not be all that clever.
• Most importantly though, I thought this was supposed to be a local election coming up, not a referendum on the character of the current party leaders. What about attacking bad Tory councils and saying how Labour ones can do better? This compulsion to reduce everything to a game of presidential personalities is profoundly weakening to the wider democracy of the country. It's not surprising that hardly anyone can be bothered to vote in local elections -- the results of which can still actually make quite a bit of difference to your everyday life -- if they're treated in this way.
• And, let's face it, if Labour are really keen to get into a "your leader's a bit of a gitl" contest, they're not exactly standing on firm ground themselves. Blair has more things about him that can be criticized, and much more serious ones.

On another note, I also got a letter from them saying that the membership fee is going up. I suppose now that the honours-for-loans thing has been blown out, they have to scrape up more money somehow. I feel though that in exchange for renewing membership, people ought to at least get a trust school or two to run -- if it's good enough for plutocrats, it ought to be good enough for ordinary folk too. Or maybe a few of us could club together for a vote in the House of Lords?

Our local Labour party has set up a Co-op account, so that when you shop there you can choose to give your divi to them, rather than either keeping it yourself or giving it to charity. I guess Ipswich is a bit short of ambitious millionaires to help out -- although I doubt they very often shop in the Co-op, anyway.

Comments

[ar-gemlad.livejournal.com]

I was a bit surprised by the Tory election broadcast yesterday, which seemed to be reading off the pamphlet that the Lib Dem candidate in East Oxford has been handing out!

Campaigns which just slag off the opposition annoy me. I don't see that they are constructive democracy at all.

I don't see that they are constructive democracy at all.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Mm, it suggests a pretty poor attitude both to the electorate and to one's own policies etc.

[celestialweasel.livejournal.com]

By definition a national party political broadcast cannot discuss local issues, which will vary from place to place. Neither Labour nor the Tories can say 'we support strong local government' because they don't.
At best they could do 'these are the few things that the 27 years of Labourtory government still lets local councils do that we have specific policies on' which would frankly be a big yawn.

I agree that the chamelon was too cute and I also think that
the Labour broadcast did not make a good case (or any case really) that the things Cameron said (about being the heir to Tony, having core Tory values, being a liberal Conservative and being committed to the environment) are necessarily particularly incompatible - obviously you know what I personally think, but that's not the issue.

The most sensible comment I have seen suggests that the chameleon can best be seen as Labour laying the ground-work for an attack that might pay off in the future, if it doesn't stick or resonate then they haven't lost very much.

The most sensible comment I have seen

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Mm, I can buy that I guess, but if that sort of vague lashing about's what they're spending the membership money on, then good grief...

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

Secondly, I'm sure there are quite a few people who rather like the idea that Cameron will change his policies according to what he thinks people will want to hear

I'd like that (although I still wouldn't vote for him) but that's not what he does. What he and many other politicians do is to change what they say according to the audience. The policies remain absolutely fixed.

The policies remain absolutely fixed

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Mm, I'm not 100% sure about that. People used to say that about Blair -- but as it turned out, he really was into all that right-wing stuff that he was spouting, and he really has reversed many traditional Labour policies.

I think plenty of poeple will be prepared to believe the same of Cameron, and they may not find out they're wrong until it's too late.

[bluedevi.livejournal.com]

It reminds me uncomfortably of the "don't vote for John Kerry because he flip-flops" stuff put out by the Republicans in the last US election. I failed to see what was so bad about him changing his mind based on new information once in a while.

Then again, I fear bateleur is right.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

I fear so too, but then I hoped so with Blair and was disappointed, so it seems a bit paranoid to think the opposite is true of Cameron.

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

I think going for a cute chameleon rather than a demon makes sense - avoids the negativism that was associated with the disastrous "demon eyes" campaign. However, I don't think it makes its point - as others have said, it confuses the viewer by conflating 'I am not an ideologue, I have flexible views' with 'I have no opinion and will just say whatever you want to hear'.

What I can't understand is why they didn't just replicate the "Are you thinking what we're thinking" slogan and add "author David Cameron". That's his biggest weakness - that just recently he was espousing very right-wing ideas and now seems to have had an about face. I suppose it would risk giving undue publicity to Cameron himself, but they're kinda doing that anyway.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Mmm -- although 'Are you thinking' got a good kicking in the press etc, maybe they're worried that it may have been quite popular among some of the electorate.

[al-fruitbat.livejournal.com]

A gitl? Is that like an axolotl?

I fear I'm mixing up my newts and lizards though...

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

It's a litl like a 'lotl. Although if he turns out to be fireproof we may have to call him salamander.

[vicarage.livejournal.com]

I trust you are aware of the Flanders and Swann song on exactly this theme.
I can send the mp3 if not.

Sorry to hear about the car and house woes. At least the delay to one takes pressure off the other, but I doubt that's much consolation.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

"With Tories blue, with reds vermilion / And chequered when he meets MacMillian", yes indeed! I wonder if they knew of it.

T's already spotted a new car, which hopefully we'll buy at the weekend, although goodness knows where we're going to keep it until we move.

[jackfirecat.livejournal.com]

agree the chameleon is cute, and a stupid 'negative' campaign that isn't particularly negative, as you suggest it may turn out to be quite culty positive. What was Tony in his first election if not all things to all voters. Reminds me of 'demon eyes' the last Tory government's ad campaign at the election they lost. No content, clearly ad-wank idea, therefore ignored or laughed at. So, no, a demonic one wouldn't be better, just even sillier. What would be better would be adressing some real issues. Looks like they reckon they've lost that fight before they even start. Oh dear.

Bad advice, bad ad.

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Having actually watched[1] the ad, I have to say it's a lot clearer in its message than I thought. It specifically says (I paraphrase) "Dave decided that instead of telling people what he really thought, he'd say whatever they wanted to hear". Pretty accurate message, if you ask me, and playing to what a lot of people think about Cameron.

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

[1] listened to, actually - am having software probs at the mo with my laptop. Would you believe the Labour party only publishes the ad in quicktime format?

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Yes, but if the viewer in their mind extends that to "in that case maybe he'll also do what I want to hear, rather than doing whatever his own beliefs might be", that could be seen as a positive thing.