[Philip Marlow]

"Yebutt, so what?" is not the crass level of posting we expect on here, but I am simply not able to get my knickers in a twist over this. Marina Hyde going into a meltdown, the press still holding this story close to the top of the agenda, and everyone but me clutching their pearls this weekend rather than rolling cheeses.

I must be missing something. Sure, I see it as rather clumsy but it far from heralds a paradigm shift. So fucking what?

It's not really 'meltdown' though, is it? That's just a sufficiently belittling way of putting it, by way of suggesting that she's thrown an unreasoning tantrum and can thus be ignored. She's certainly taking the piss, but if you're going to frame your opponent's position as 'Child rapists; a cracking bunch of lads' then you can hardly complain too much when people start pointing out that you're full of it.

[The Weeping Angel]

I'll say this mentioning Sunka by name was a mistake of they'd under the Tories 4,500 adults convicted of sexual offences have served no prison time then that would have been fine. But the reaction to it was way, way, way over the top.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I think that would have been an improvement, certainly.

[Abernathy]

There is a coherent line of argument that runs : Rishi Sunak is Prime Minister, leader of the Conservative Party, and head of the government. As such, it is entirely legitimate to hold him personally accountable for his government’s actions and failings during its time in office. Statistics on the conviction of child sex offenders are part and parcel of that, and completely fair game for criticism by the opposition.

The collective fit of the vapours being declaimed by some media outlets, Tory MPs and others does rather seem more than just a little confected.

Whatever impact, positive or negative, it may have had will, I dare say, become apparent with the next published set of opinion polls, or, indeed, next month’s local elections.

One thing I do wonder is whether the tactic may have arisen from a perceived need to target Sunak more on an individual basis and tie him down more emphatically to responsibility for his bin-fire of a party. He has of late, with the success of his NI Windsor framework, relatively stable budget that didn’t cause massive market panic, and other minor successes been seen to have possibly regained some degree of personal popularity. This might have given Labour’s strategists cause to act, given its potential adverse impact on Labour’s planned path to power.

[Tubby Isaacs]

A fairly small number of non-custodial sentences over 13 years doesn’t mean « Sunak doesn’t think they should be jailed », does it?

[Abernathy]

And the fact that we never ever gave £350 million a week to the EU or were ever in a position to spend that much extra on the NHS (and which was highlighted multiple times as an outright lie) didn't mean that Boris Johnson actually believed that we did, did it?

There simply isn't a world - especially in today's political and news media climate - in which Labour can afford loftily to disdain all attacking campaigning techniques and drift serenely above the fray to certain victory at the election. We cannot afford to let Sunak off the hook, in any way, for the record of the government he leads - and we shouldn't. Bluntly, Labour HAS to win the coming election. There is no room for nicely nicely. Keir Starmer is absolutely correct today not to be buffeted into an apology for these ads.

[davidjay]

And anyone who says it shows Labour and the Tories are the same should be made to live another five years under these fraudsters.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The £350m a week lie is a big part of where the government are now, in the shit and despised. They would have probably won by using the correct figure. It’s not something to see as a model.

By all means, argue for mandatory jail for sexual assault if you like. But the advert has had more attention than the policy.

[Abernathy]

The £350m a week lie is a big part of where the government are now, in the shit and despised. They would have probably won by using the correct figure. It’s not something to see as a model.

Who's saying it should be used as a model? Nobody. What it is is an indicative precedent, illustrating a key point about this "debate"., which is about the kind of political and news media climate in which Labour is obliged to fight and win this election. I repeat, there is no room for nicely nicely. Distasteful as it might be to some, it's reality.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

We've got to stop being so fucking squeamish. They aren't.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The £350m a week lie is a big part of where the government are now, in the shit and despised. They would have probably won by using the correct figure. It’s not something to see as a model.

Who's saying it should be used as a model? Nobody. What it is is an indicative precedent, illustrating a key point about this "debate"., which is about the kind of political and news media climate in which Labour is obliged to fight and win this election. I repeat, there is no room for nicely nicely. Distasteful as it might be to some, it's reality.

It was a real advert but I don’t see why you’re mentioning it. What’s the relevance? It was unnecessary (the real net figure was something like £170m a week, perfectly good rhetorically). There are plenty of other effective lines v Sunak than this advert.

There are problems with Labour doing this stuff in terms of its own support. That’s the issue.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Any evidence for that? It doesn't seem to be reflected in the polls.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

[Tubby Isaacs]

Any evidence for that? It doesn't seem to be reflected in the polls.

You couldn’t show it worked either from polls. But it’s wasted a considerable amount of time explaining when other attacks on the crime record wouldn’t have done.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

I completely disagree.
A very welcome marker has been laid down.

[Abernathy]

It was a real advert but I don’t see why you’re mentioning it. What’s the relevance?

I literally just explained the relevance of it and why I mentioned it in this context. Do you really need me to explain it to you again?

There are plenty of other effective lines v Sunak than this advert.

Indeed there are, and I expect Labour to make use of them all.

There are problems with Labour doing this stuff in terms of its own support. That’s the issue.

Beyond a few episodes of what increasingly look like engineered pearl-clutching fits of the vapours that will be forgotten within a week, I see very little evidence to support that assertion.

I very much agree with Armsteen. This is a welcome marker.

[Watchman]

I’m totally on board with “fight fire with fire”, but my main concern is the messenger, how do you counter the Mail, Torygraph etc printing Starmer thinks you’re all peado’s, on the front page every day until polling day

[Tubby Isaacs]

Sure, most people won't have seen the advert and wouldn't have cared anyway. But enough people have seen it to put Labour on the defensive about putting it out. See Yvette Cooper, who clearly could have done without it. Some anonymous spad twats saying of one of Labour's best performers "Cooper knows where the door is" is not helpful.

It doesn't look like "engineered pearl clutching" to me. It looks like lots of liberal-left commentators who can't be dismissed as hardcore Jez fans didn't like it at all, and won't like more of the same, and nor will lots of Labour's support.

[Tubby Isaacs]

There's also too much assumption in all this that what works for Tories getting voters works for Labour. That's to say the least unproven.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

I've never been in favour of the 'lying in a darkened room and waiting until it's over in fear I might upset somebody' strategy for fighting elections.

My pearls remain, and will remain, unclutched.