Thursday, April 02, 2009

Jury Team Launches Attack Ad Against Jacqui Smith




The new party, the Jury Team, has launched quite an effective attack advert against Jacqui Smith. It's going to run on the Redditch Observer website and will be placed as adverts all over the blogosphere in the coming days. While it is quite a good ad, doesn't it rather go against their desire for a new type of politics? It gives the impression that they are the same as all the others if they are this willing to launch personal attacks.

The pose the question themselves: "Why are attacking Jacqui Smith?" This is the answer they give...

We think that it is disgusting that a politician should seek to maximise the cash they can claim, whilst voting to keep that information private.

We think it is wrong for politicians to feather their nests at our expense, protected by the hierarchies of the political parties.

We think that politics would be better and cleaner if real people from outside of the political class became our elected representatives.


I suspect this will get them quite a bit of coverage, but no one really knows what the Jury Team stand for except anti-politics. They are full of easy soundbites, but that's about it, as far as I can see.

28 comments:

Plato said...

A speck of anti-politics sounds good to me right now.

Until the expenses boil is lanced [hopefully starting this weekend with a feast of exposures], there can be little trust.

And without trust - what point is there in anything than the white-suit brigade?

jailhouselawyer said...

If they are anti-politics, surely they are also against themselves?

Cato said...

Surely they are attacking the 'status quo' and that can't be bad.

Old Holborn said...

Anti Politics

I like the sound of that

Victor, NW Kent said...

Seems like a good advert to me. I still would not give Jury my vote but anything that saps Labour is fine by me.

Tom said...

It's a good message but parodying Mastercard adverts got old years ago.

martin day said...

The only way to defeat Labour is vote Tory!

Whilst the Jury Team are well intentioned they are on a hiding to nothing!

Martin said...

What the Tories, Liebour and the Lib Dems are NOT full of empty soundbites as well?

Dick the Prick said...

Home Secs are fair game - irrelevant of administration, majority, record, ability, charisma, length of service etc etc.

If you get the chance to take them out, you take them out - cardinal rule of politics.

Don't wait for another opportunity, don't judge the landscape or how the wind blows or consequences - you take them out.

Simon Gardner said...

“Home Secs are fair game - irrelevant of administration, majority, record, ability, charisma, length of service etc etc... ...Don't wait for another opportunity, don't judge the landscape or how the wind blows or consequences - you take them out.”

That seems very fair.

killemallletgodsortemout said...

Good luck to them. If their ad stops my thieving MP from pocketing over £156,000 + travelling expenses again, or if it helps to stop Labour or LimpDem "honourable" members rubber-dicking us in the same way, then that's got to be good, hasn't it?

canvas said...

Nothing wrong with promoting public awareness...

Are the facts correct?

They appear to be...

slipX said...

Isn't 'The Jury Team' some state sponsored BNP spoiler outfit?

Thatsnews said...

The Jury Team? Sounds like the name of one of those cheaply made daytime TV shows. "Now on the Jury Team we let the specially selected panel of viewers decide if an idiot chav is guilty of not showing enough respect, init, to his girlfriend's 10 children by 10 other chav blokes."

Helen said...

Being anti-politics would make more sense if they knew what politics consists of but, mostly, they say they don't really know. Even Edmund Burke gets misunderstood. What on earth makes anyone think that people who are arrogant enough to think they should be in the European Parliament without ever bothering to find out what that institution does or does not do are the ones we want to be claiming expenses?

Simon Gardner said...

Thatsnews said... “..."Now on the Jury Team we let the specially selected panel of viewers decide if an idiot chav is guilty of not showing enough respect, init, to his girlfriend's 10 children by 10 other chav blokes."”

You watch way too much daytime TV (like any).

mark said...

All parties are full of easy soundbites...surely?

Maybe there is some irony in their ad? Or maybe not..

Either way, someone has to tell it like it is. Officially - so to speak.
Like Mr Hannan did recently. More of it, more often please. :)

mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jailhouselawyer said...

I think the jury are still out on this one.

Morus said...

We've got a promise to do a lot of things differently, Iain - open primaries, no whipping, decentralised politics - but I've got no problem with attack ads when an attack is justified.

The fact is that for all the negative campaigning, there is a somewhat cosy consensus amongst the parties on sleaze - "we'll won't hit Jacqui Smith too hard in return for you guys not gunning for Caroline Spelman"

I would love to see the opposition parties laying into Tony McNulty, Dawn Butler, Nigel Griffiths, Jacqui Smith, Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper, Don Touhig, ann and Alan Keen etc ad nauseaum, but that would leave Caroline Spelman, Nicholas and Ann Winterton, Andrew Rosindell and similar scoundrels exposed.

All the parties are at it, and it doesn't behove them to make a big deal out of these ever-more-common cases.

I can't promise that Independent MPs will be better, but I've been pleased with the ones who are there (check out Dr Richard Taylor's expenses for comparison), and I think there's a logic to the fact that if you don't have a party to protect you whether you're right-or-wrong, you might think a little more carefully about thieving from the taxpayer.

There is a massive anti-politics feeling in this country, because the political parties have disengaged and betrayed the vast majority of the people that they claim to represent.

Many of those will end up in the pockets of smaller parties or not voting at all - we think there should be somewhere for people to lend their votes which doesn't include slavish loyalty to a party agenda and might just provide an avenue for candidates from outside of the political class.

I don't know how effective this will be, but I'd like to at least have the conversation.

Malcolm Redfellow said...

Michael White in the New Statesman:
"... we can safely debate parliament’s role. Nothing will have happened this week to change the fundamentals. With the politicians away, nothing much will happen next week, either, unless it is true that a mole is waiting to detonate an MPs’ expenses dossier. The video bill for the woman the tabs call 'the Porn Minister', Jacqui Smith? You ain’t seen nothing yet."

The ever-delightful "Tamzin Lightwater" in the Spectator:
"... Our new Expenses Helpline is completely jammed. We’re not even scratching the surface of the demand. Had an MP on this morning hysterical about his Sky subscription. Something about ‘buxom babes’ and ‘essential research into Broken Britain’. Another backbencher demanding to know what to do about his hunting fees — ‘Are they saying I can’t claim them back now? Ridiculous! It’s only £115 a month for a full subscription including field money.’ I said I thought it probably best if he didn’t, just until the fuss dies down."

Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

M. said...

Most commentators are missing the point of what the Jury Team is: it imposes a moral code on its candidates, but apart from that, candidates are independent. They are not even selected by the Jury Team, they are selected by the public. In other words, Jury Team is offering us a way to get people elected who are not career politicians. People who will put the Nation first, not their party, or their pockets.
If the BNP got a seat in the EU, the far-right antics of the Tory Party in Europe in the last few days, would possibly make them ideal bedmates. Certainly, some of the groups the Tories are holding preliminary talks with are as far right as the BNP, in their own way.

Westminster, in particular, needs far more independent MP's; then perhaps it would function a bit more like the House of Lords, and do its job of scrutinising the government. Each Jury Team candidate has to be viewed on their own merits. We will know who those people are after 24 April. I suspect they will represent a wide range of political views.
I am one of those independents putting myself forward for nomination. You can see my website here:
http://portsoken.ning.com

AProlefrom1984 said...

Private Eye has an article about the founder of Jury Team and his wife and expenses.

AProlefrom1984 said...

Having a load of MPs with no party programme or manifesto is a recipe for anarchy. There's nothing wrong with having parties, it's just the 3 lame parties stand for nothing and spend their time discussing trivia and only appeal to a narrow electorate - floating voters in marginal seats.

Thatsnews said...

Simon, I saw an hour when I had a day off work. It was more than enough, believe me!

pop said...

Ian

You are wrong.

Jury team as a 'party' are a-political - they just provide support to independent candidates.

Jury team as an organisation aren't promoting a set of political beliefs, they are supporting a new system of representative democracy.

In conclusion, I would just say vote for me

text pauper01 to 86837

Full SP at
http://www.juryteam.org/candidate-profile.php?id=10146

Shirking From Home said...

You are wrong. You have an axe to grind.

M. said...

Westminster functioned very well for several hundred years without the present rigid political party system. What we have now has emasculated parliament. Most actual scrutiny appears to take place in the Lords these days. Why? It has a good number of cross benchers, who are swayed by reasoned argument.
Having a parliament with more independent members can only be good, as it would introduce more scrutiny. Independent members would align and vote together on certain issues, but these alliances would constantly be shifting, and there would be more room for reason and proper argument.