Albeit on another fairly recent thread:
Nobby Reserve Stated:
"It's the task of Labour, the Lib Dems and SNP to work their socks off to pin the blame for every last bit of bad news on Brexit and this hard-right version of the Tory Party choosing to go down the hard Brexit route.
Even if something isn't the fault of Brexit, weave the narrative.
Of course, the majority of the mainstream media is either pro-Brexit/pro-Tory or been gelded into compliance by Tory threats, so they're going to be running a counter-narrative.
It's a full-on propaganda war, and so far, the hard-right have pissed all over both the left and the centrists."
SP Replied...
"There is a huge mistake here. The better course of action it to blame everything on the Tory implementation of Brexit, and on the decisions that Johnson has taken. You don't attack the decision to Brexit, because many voters are emotionally invested in that. You attack Johnson and his competence, because the voting public is fair less emotionally invested in him.
Brexit is an issue that the people will [sic] come around on. Even if it is via a path of Johnson fucking up so badly, rejoin is the only viable option left.
If you battle on Brexit, Johnson will use vacuous sound bites. If you target Johnson personally, he is far more vulnerable."
Nobby Reserve Conceded...
"That's a very well made point.
Me letting emotion rule head"
And I guess my point of retort, and also concern about these avenues of thought is this:
Does the notion of weaving a counter Brexit narrative on the basis of "fighting fire with fire" which in lieu of Tory party contortions of truth, (lies).... somehow makes such a counter-narrative acceptable?
In the above exchange, a wise "tweak" to the fundamental motivation for attack
as it ought to be perceived was introduced, on the basis that there is voter investment for Brexit, and that Johnson himself ought to be targeted on the basis of his competence to implement...etc
I guess my concern is this.
It's that those who feel strongly about Brexit sort of KNOW that the above kind of thoughts have already been kindled in opposition to it. Sort of KNOW that there is an emotional counter-narrative hard at work in a bid to unsettle the pro-Brexit stance, which in many ways, is an opinion which is just as equally susceptible to a set of unwavering emotions.
I honestly think that (within each camp) there are absolutely no elements of surprise left whatsoever, when it comes to attributing a motive to any methodologies being sought to influence a shift.
When it comes to Brexit, nobody will be "cunningly" creeping up on each-other with their cudgel in hand, and their true motivations veiled or masked.
The statement:
"Even if something isn't the fault of Brexit, weave the narrative..."
Is a tad naive I feel.....but NOT because it's strategically unsound in and of itself, but mainly because it's precisely what many in the pro-Brexit camp are expecting to occur which means that even if and when significant events unfold which might legitimately force some Brexiteers into an honest state of review, many more are likely to remain emotionally resistant if they have been continuously bombarded with disingenuous narratives which are nought but the blatant progeny of emotional resistance and the desire to undermine.
I genuinely feel that (current crisis notwithstanding) this is going to be this country's next biggest test.
Namely, separating "agenda" from brutal reality, and being in a fit state to steer itself on it's wisest future course.
