In a change from your regular scheduling (Read: Nothing, and I’m actually writing something for once), today we’re going to have a special game of political spot the difference. I’ll be taken pages from political parties’ policies page, and well.. spotting the differences. Before we start, I just want to say that I used a random number generator to pick which ones I would write about, and then put them in the order I thought would be best. So I haven’t been deliberately picking those which look bad. Kthx.
Before reading my commentary, have a read yourself and try to… spot the difference!
Round One: Crime (Con) V/S Crime, Justice and Immigration (Lab)
As the main focus of this was on crime, I won’t be covering the immigration part of labour’s post, which means you should be ignoring the last paragraph.
The Differences
Well, labour’s is longer, that’s for sure. Labour’s also has a lot of “We have done X” and “X is down Y% since 1997″ (Emphasis on 1997, a lot. One would think they have a rival who was around in 1997…). Despite it being longer, it doesn’t have much about what they’re actually going to do, outside of a few sweeping statements (See the third and fourth paragraphs) – the exception being a few figures dotted around, and actual initiatives that they’ll do – albeit minor ones that are the focus of a lot of media attention. So, some minor kudos, which is immediately lost by hitting small, well-publicised issues and not actual issues.
The conservative’s page is two paragraphs long, and is full of “Labour has done this wrong”. Seriously. The opening sentence is “Violent crime is up under labour.” – they really must have nothing substantial to have that little to say.
Both of them are very focused on the other side’s failures, but labour masks it well.
Round Two: Environment(Lab) v/s Environment(Con)
Lab v/s Con
This should be an interesting one. Another very, very publicised issue. Let’s see.
The differences
Labour’s isn’t bad. It’s not the most substantial thing ever, but neither is it terrible. There are, infact, a few facts and figures in there. For example: We are committed to spending £3.9 billion in the next Rural Development Programme in England and We are spending £1.5 billion on climate assistance to developing countries between 2010 and 2012 - some actual substance! There is a lot of “We’ve done X…” – but all in all, it’s not bad. I mean, it’s a lot of words for what they’re saying, but there is some actual policy if you dig a bit.
The Conservative’s isn’t quite as terrible as their crime article, but it’s pretty bad. They don’t say much. The first sentence is A Conservative Government will make Britain greener by tackling climate change and enhancing our environment – which would be acceptable if they had any substance to back it up, but as it stands is just unsubstantiated. A lot of their main phrases and ideas are bolded to make it seem like they have backed them up in some way, the thing to remember though is that they mostly certainly haven’t: there’s a lot of What and not a lot of How.
Both employ a lot of “buzz words” (which, yes, I know is a “buzz word” in itself, but I can’t find a better way of doing it. Something that looks good and sounds impressive but is very vague).
And finally…
Round 3: Women (Con) V/S Women (Lab)
For some reason, there’s a section on women. Why? I don’t know. Why isn’t there just an “Equality” section? Regardless, the show must go on.
The differences
Yet again, the conservatives’ article uses bolding to emphasise very badly substantiated points. There’s a lot of what and not a lot of how, again. It’s minorly better than the previous two, in virtue of actually having some, albeit bad, reasoning and explanation.
The Labour’s article is a huge wall of text. I mean, seriously. It’s 900 words, and doesn’t say much. At least, the sense-density is low, it does say a few things. For example: We will expand free nursery provision to three and four year olds making 15 hours a week available from this September and we are rolling out free childcare to two year olds so that more than 60,000 will benefit. - “Did they ACTUALLY just say something specific?” I hear you cry.
One final bit of spot the difference:
We believe that the right to choose a lifestyle and a way of life is as important for women in the 21st century as it has ever been…
We want to give women real choice over their own lives – something that remains elusive for too many women in 21st Century Britain.
Spotted it yet?
Me neither.
To Conclude
It seems that the conservatives and the labour party use the same rhetorical devices. They are both focused on eachother’s faults. Labour use a lot of “We have done [Good thing X]” – not that that’s specifically bad, but they seem to neglect the future which is, afterall, what we’re voting for. Right?
The difference can be found in how they employ their rhetoric. The conservatives employ it like a rusty knife to your stomach, particually with their new series of posters which directly attack Gordon Brown. It’s more unsubtle than I ever thought possible. Labour, on the other hand, have veiled theirs and are more subtle about it.
Of course, when it comes down to it, there is very little difference. We’re talking about different methods of using rhetoric to get people’s votes while being as vague as possible to keep the public as badly informed as possible.
I’ve rambled for just under 1,000 words now, so join us next time on Political Spot the Difference!