| |
|
Interesting response here from Polly Toynbee, with whom I normally disagree:
quote:Labour's casual attitude towards commercial sponsorship at its conference is just one more sign that this supposedly greatest-spin-machine-on-earth has lost its grip. Politics is all about symbolism. That was why the red rose worked - a sweet-smelling, gentle (if somewhat vulgar) new symbol to destroy any lingering aroma of the hammer and sickle. By the same token, the symbolism of accepting sponsorship of the gala reception from McDonald's is a branding disaster. It is, first of all, plain naff, as was the notorious Somerfield branding on all Labour delegates passes. As for the document acquired by the Guardian, soliciting sponsorship opportunities with the ambulance service or the "unique branding opportunity for a captive audience" in a "New!" relaxation zone, it is cheap and demeans not just the Labour party but the government of the day. It resonates with all Naomi Klein's observations in No Logo about the creeping branding of those things most citizens instinctively feel should be beyond and above commerce - hospitals, schools, colleges, universities, the BBC, public services and spaces - and politics. This is not really sleaze (McDonald's doesn't buy much of the prime ministerial ear for a pathetic £15,000), but it is seedy and undignified.
...
The Guardian's story was derided yesterday by Labour apparatchiks who just don't get it. So what? We've always done it, they said. McDonald's has sponsored us for several years, what's the problem? It is a sign of the deep culture - or lack of it - inside the bowels of the Labour machine that they seem so unembarrassed. |
|
|
