What's with the Labour party adverts on MN?

[NorkyButNice]

I don't know why but it makes me very uncomfortable - it feels a bit like MN ought to be impartial like the BBC when it comes to party politics (even if the people who frequent it are in the majority Labour voters).

I presume they are paying for their ads? Will the Tories and Liberals get the same opportunities?

Agree with several points that have been made - a) wouldn't have seen the ad unless it had been signposted on here because I never go to that page, but maybe that's a deliberate strategy to engage the more casual MNer; and b) I quite like the ad, as pol ads go. But then I agree with it, so I would like it, wouldn't I - don't know how effective it is at persuading the undecideds.

Actually, the tax credit issue (as I have recently discovered through my new lone-parent status) is a pretty significant one for those on lower/middle-lower incomes. If I earned 31,000, I'd be worried right now.

Agree policy

I have a LOT of friends whose joint income is around 30-35k. I want to shake them all and say THE END IS NIGH because I don't think people really GET IT

OfChimney will result in too much red tape for that

Len, it's on the Talk homepage I think - the link is earlier on this thread.

MP - you have to tell 'em to earn LESS. My income is pathetic, but nevertheless right in the sweet spot for WTC.

The ad doesn't seem to be there right now. I suppose they book certain times, do they? That might suit their needs best?

No I just have some travel ad

COME BACK AD

Tories running a counter ad now - for the record it's in the same place (talk home) and rate.

It's very interesting how the tory ad links straight to a blog. The concept of blog still suggests something individual and less-than-wholly corporate, kind of an 'outside the advert' space. But here it is clearly the meat and drink of an ad campaign.

On the net we have these so-fluid transitions between kinds of discourse that in old media are kept separate by regulation. It makes for illusions of 'real voices' sometimes.

What makes the ads utterly unobjectionable in MN, I think, is that they are clearly in a commercial space. But the link to the blog shows how the campaign is trying to elide that space a little?

All is flux I supppose because the internet is still a novel space. It is interesting. I wonder how and whether it will settle.

"trying to elide that space a little"

-- Elide it at their end, I mean. There is clarity at the MN end.

they lured us in with Teresa May

firefox + "adblock".

The two greatest inventions in the history of the interwebs.

The figures in the blog are different to the ad.

The ad says 50k and the blog says "No families with a combined household income of £40,000 or less will be affected by our policy."

Also the blog doesn't explain how exactly they will make the £400 million in savings quoted by George Osborne

Why don't they just show us how they worked it out? (let's pretend it's homework)

oh manfrom you are missing all the fun

you don't know the joy of watching Active Conversations and seeing some poor woman writhing in labour pains

Just so long as you promise to turn it back on in a couple of days when they've all moved on!

It is amazing how short-term that Labour ad was, and presumably this tory one in response will be a quicky too. Then they will come in with future short-running ads in quick response to particular issues? Is kind of SAS-operation advertising. Quick kill and out again.

It is like a Tory-Labour AIBU? but slower

Isn't it really really oddly stupid for the tory ad to say, of the Labour ad, "It was complete spin"?

Isn't that like saying "It was an advert"?

Which is an advert telling you not to believe another advert because it is an advert.

In a way that is hard to characterise, you seem to have to walk through a hall of mirrors to say or hear anything about politics.

For goodness sake. Mumsnet is a website which accepts advertising to raise revenue. Advertisers choose to buy space on the site because they believe that their target audience views the website. It doesn't imply anything about the website's political affiliations. Just that its audience is sought-after by the political parties.

lol at you all

spin a euph for shit, presumably?
ie.It was complete shit.

I was sort of going with it there, man, until the Theresa May bit kicked in.

What does this mean by the way, from her 'blog' (blog = no more budget for this what shall we do Gus?)

"Our priority is to find a way to get spending under control that is fair and protects the poorest."

OOOh i SEE. I just re-read it and now it makes complete sense. I thought it was two separate thoughts - odd, but that's what blogs do to my eyes.

It really pisses me off that the best advert the Tories can come up with is to call the Labour one spin.

WTF do they think there's is except MORE spin but in the other direction? When the most creative marketing for themselves they can manage is shouting "liar liar pants on fire" at their opponents, it makes me wonder that perhaps they don't have any policies they are proud enough of to make it the point of the advert.

It wouldbe nice if they talked ab out their general ethos as a party, rather than bandying about figures that are
a) not verifiable by the average person on the street and
b) simply an election promise that they can turn their back on at any given time if they so wish (as labour did)

I really think they take us for idiots. Its an insult.

"I think its OK for MN to accept advertising from legitimate political parties, but perhaps they should put a statement underneath each one clarifying that this is a paid-for advertisment and that MN has no political affiliation?"

Surely this isn't necessary? It would make the site look terribly dumbed down, like us poor puree-for-brains mummies can't work out what is an advertisement and what isn't.

Akin to putting "Do not iron clothes while you are wearing them" on iron boxes.