Those posters are just asking for it, but they are very clever psychology: note the way they don't actually declare any policies whatsoever.
Still, apart from the verging-on-facism-shoot-all-the-gypsies thing, who would vote for a party who can't even do joined-up writing? posted by DangerIsMyMiddleName at 10:08 AM on April 17, 2005
i'm a whigger. posted by quonsar at 10:12 AM on April 17, 2005
Yeah, what did they expect?
Actually, both the Tories and Labour marketing people have ignored, at their peril, a cardinal rule of advertising: don't use words to evoke the very concept you don't want to evoke... (I don't know what it's called, I'm sure there's a term for it)
'It's *not racist* to'...
'Britain forward *not back*'...
Ever seen a beer advertised as 'it does *not* taste like crap'? posted by funambulist at 10:22 AM on April 17, 2005
Ah, the term I was looking for (though it's not really what I was looking for) is 'framing'. ie. Don't think of an elephant... posted by funambulist at 10:43 AM on April 17, 2005
I think it's simply horrid how Poodle Tony Blair and his Tory Party got the UK into that pointless Iraq War !
You should definitely vote against the Tories for that!
delmoi: he's leaving anyway, Brown will take over in a couple of years
my bet is that he'll resign the day he exceeds Thatcher's time in office... that's what I would do anyway posted by Kattullus at 11:45 AM on April 17, 2005
Great fun. Try changing the number in the URL to see what others have been writing. Most people are either not changing the immigration text, just playing with the fonts; putting in anti-Tory messages; or going for humorous and nonsensical ideas. posted by senor biggles at 11:51 AM on April 17, 2005
Fun, thanks. Best part has to be the link to the doctored leaflet photo - especially love the justification given for doing it. Hadn't seen that story and it was good for a jaw drop and some head shaking.
Honestly I think some of these modifications play right into Michael Howard's hands. He is arguing that it is impossible to discuss immigration controls without being accused of being racist, and this response makes him look right.
Actually, the reason that it's impossible to discuss immigration controls without accusations of racism flying around is that it is impossible to discuss immigration controls without racist remarks flying around (at least in the current climate in the UK). This is why it would be much better for everyone if this were not made into a high profile election issue.
It's not surprising that the modern response to opinions that would have been considered acceptable a few decades ago makes some people feel persecuted, however, this calculated attempt by the leader of a major political party to appeal to that persecution complex is inflammatory and contemptible. posted by teleskiving at 1:18 PM on April 17, 2005
While you're all very funny, gang, I do have to point out here that the links above to posters don't work, because the posters get deleted after half an hour or so. I do not have unlimited disc space :-)
If your poster is a mastery of wit and repartee, save a copy of it somewhere... posted by Aquarius at 6:15 AM on April 18, 2005
Not that this is either of the above, but here's one from the Fro Gymraeg, where immigration actually is destroying the native culture. posted by ceiriog at 7:23 AM on April 18, 2005
Subscribe
Still, apart from the verging-on-facism-shoot-all-the-gypsies thing, who would vote for a party who can't even do joined-up writing?
posted by DangerIsMyMiddleName at 10:08 AM on April 17, 2005