"Labour ads row is storm in teacup" ('anti-Semetic' posters withdrawn)

[Pert_UK]

"Labour would not have deliberately set out to draw attention to Michael Howard's religion, one source close to the party's advertising machine said hours after controversial posters showing the head of a Conservative leader on a pig were withdrawn...

The party has withdrawn the images from its website and said the posters will not be used in Labour's general election campaign after they were authorised by campaign chief Alan Milburn three weeks ago...

One poster featured the heads of the Tory leader and the shadow chancellor, Oliver Letwin, superimposed upon flying pigs with the strapline, "They say the Tory sums add up". Both Mr Howard and Mr Letwin are Jewish and according to their faith pigs are unclean...

The other poster featured Mr Howard swinging a pocket watch on a chain and the strapline, "I can spend the same money twice." The pose has been likened to that of Jewish pickpocket Fagin from Charles Dickens' Oliver and money lender Shylock from Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice."

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1403170,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704

[Stella_Artois]

1. Certain people are making a meal out of this

Those certain people tending to be Tories.

I'm British, and i didn't even know that Mr Letwin was Jewish until this happened, and i didn't know Mr Howard was until it was mentioned on some forum. It really isn't an issue, religion is not part of politics over here.

They are the shadow chancellor and prospective PM, saying "pigs might fly" regarding their economic proposals is a fair enough point and is addressing them as politicians rather than people of any religion.

[non sociopath skin]

2. But, interestingly, not Howard or Letwin or any other Tory leader ...

It's a Swift Boats for Injustice situation. The matter was raised by an obscure Tory candidate and has been covered at great length in the right-wing tabloid press while the Tory grandees kept a careful distance ...

Most people will ignore it. Whatever its faults (and they are many) "New Labour" is not anti-semitic: indeed, it has an influential jewish section, Paole Zion.

The Skin

[Pert_UK]

3. A kosher meal, I presume.......but I disagree with you.....

I haven't heard much from the Tories about this. Even the article mentions Jewish Labour MPs: "Jewish Labour MPs said they did not believe the posters were deliberately anti-semitic but found them offensive nonetheless...Louise Ellman MP, who is also vice-chairman of Labour Friends of Israel, said the Fagin poster was "very insensitive"."

And here's the point for me - EITHER a) these posters were put together and approved by a bunch of morons who had no idea that some people might view them as anti-Semetic and hugely insensitive. This is not very plausible.

OR b) these posters were put together by a bunch of arseholes who KNEW that these posters could be interpreted as anti-Semetic. They deliberately designed them to get maximum publicity in this way, but are sufficiently vague that Labour could legitimately claim that it was an unfortunate cock-up. This way they get loads of publicity for their campaign against the Tories and can also score points by highlighting the Tories' over-sensitivity when the Tories complain. Labour withdraw the ads (which they never intended to run) to avoid the slightest possibility of offending anyone, even their opponents, and score good-guy points there too. If I were to wear my tinfoil hat, I could also argue that the ads pander to the extreme right by tacitly hinting that Labour are in some way "Jew sceptic", for want of a better phrase....don't think I'd really go that far though.

I just don't believe that nobody involved said, "Hang on, Howard's Jewish and we've just stuck his head on a pig and made him look like an offensive caricature!". These things go through so many reviews it's laughable to claim that this effect was intended in one way or another. Labour just aren't that stupid....

[Stella_Artois]

4. Labour just aren't that stupid....

So what we doing in bed with Bush then ? :P

These ads were dreamt up by their ad agency, but i assume they were approved by someone at Labour head office.

They were not used though, lets make this clear.

They were emailed to Labour party members, and then "leaked"

[Pert_UK]

5. Well exactly.....

They made it as far as being genuine options offered to Labour party members - they'd have gone through a lot of reviews by the Labour management before this stage.

No, they weren't "used" officially, but they were leaked and "used" to create lots of publicity for Labour's attacks on Tory policy / claims.

IMHO something deliberately ambiguous was included so that a big storm blew up and then Labour could say, "Oh, what's the big fuss it's all completely innocent...."

They got the publicity without even having to use the ads.

When I say Labour aren't "stupid", I mean that they aren't naive when it comes to manipulating people and the media.....I didn't say that they weren't morally bankrupt....

[AP]

7. It's quite possible that someone in the ad agency is a Tory and made them

with the intention of creating publicity that was favorable for the Tories.

The Tories are going to work really hard to win the election and basically all they have are a series of mini-scandals like this one.

They are going to chip and chip away with more shit just like this.

[David__77]

6. They should quit whining.

This is quite a stretch of an accusation.