From: The Unit
To: GB
Subject: Europe/Funding
So, everyone's feeling upbeat. Finally feels like we're back on track - after obviously, previously, being totally on track. But now there is a sense that we are all once again totally, seriously on track.
Also think the fact that you are remaining almost totally silent in all private encounters is worrying people less. The line we are pushing, just so you know, is that it is a "quirk". It is charming, and it may even have religious overtones. Like meditating. But with your trademark moans of anguish.
So, think everything is fine re: not talking to your colleagues. However, the rumour that you are quite voluble when alone is probably something we should address. We might claim that you are still really, really angry about all of England's recent sporting humiliations. And keep railing about these in private. Good?
So, on other tactics:
1) Europe referendum. This is the biggie, obviously. Think there is a big chance that the strategy we formulated - aggressive ostriching, head in sand plus shitting on opponents - might pull through.
Polling suggests that people have an interesting reaction when shown the pro-referendum ads. As we know, the majority feel this sharp resentment and irritation at anything "Europe-y", but the interesting part is that the largest segment of these seem to be more annoyed at having to think about the issues at all. We categorise these 43 per cent of people as the "Yes, shut up, all right, no, yes, no, what, shut up" camp.
So, seems possible we may gain some residual voter affection by not talking about it at all. One thing we definitely shouldn't do is get involved in the "arguments". Polling suggests that when floaters start to hear the debate about percentages of the constitution contained in the treaty, along with the words Commission and Council of Ministers, they become a mixture of bored and angry and want to hit or hurt whatever they encounter next - regardless of political flavour or physical form.
2) Funding and the legal case of the will leaving £8m to the Tories. As you'll remember, the judge ruled that the man in question was not in full possession of his faculties when he left the money, and it thus reverted to his son.
Given our spending disparity, is there an argument for looking again at funding laws? One idea is that we might re-angle them in such a way that saying you want to give money to the Conservatives is in itself prima facie evidence of unsoundness of mind?
3) Non-election. This is still hurting us. Think we need to front-foot. Could we say the whole farrago was a phoney war to scare the Tories and it worked perfectly? They responded by announcing a tranche of popular policies and shot to a poll lead on the back of focused campaigning.
Think it would be great if we could say this is exactly what, for some reason, we wanted to happen. Not sure why yet. But for now we should just push that and act mysterious/knowing when challenged. Yes?
Let us know your thoughts.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
