Lisbon Campaigners reach out to the Laydeez

MissFlitworth

in quite a bizarre fashion, honest to feckin god 'Yes in the City', what?! what's that even supposed to mean? 'Yeah, women, vote yes! Cos look how glam and pert-boobed these ladies are, that could be you too! Remember Sex in the City? The Lisbon Treaty is so Sex in the City, Carrie would totes vote yes!' Are they deliberately trying to beat the no campaign and loony-bins Cóir in the crazy stakes?

Between this and a dripping-with-condesencion 'what's this EU thingy' ad I saw in the cinema a couple of weeks back I'm ready to colonise a Skellig and declare independance.

Sorry for crappy quality photo

Jood

I think that is actually hilarious, instead of telling people step by step what the treaty is about in a non-biased fashion they think that by sticking up a picture of 4 women that we'll vote their way!!

Its no wonder the country's gone to pot!!!

Xiney

Earthhorse

Yup. I saw this poster up on my road on the way out the other day and literally guffawed.

Maple

:O Good jesus.

Although what else can we expect from a government who wants to spend 15million plus on a new postcode system while the queues at the soup kitchen grow longer every day. The lack of logic makes the mind boggle.

Tricity Bendix

A few folks were discussing these posters in the LGB forum, which attracted some of the brains behind them to come out of the woodwork. I'll post up what they had to say in defence of their posters after I described them as a meaningless contribution.

The_Minister wrote: »

As for the poster, its lighthearted, and an attempt to make the treaty a bit more fun - most people think the Lisbon debate is the most boring issue in Irish politics, and they are right. There is no harm in trying to relax things a little.

Het-Field wrote: »

You are not the first one to voice disapproval at the posters. However, they were used as part of a market research exercise, and groups of women overwhelmingly voiced their approval at the posters. Like most posters, they contain little or no information on the treaty. That is due to the fact that aside from the Charter of Fundamental rights, there is little or nothing which can be proffered as an answer to the staple question of the Irish people, i.e "what does the Treaty do for me ?" You can put trite lines such as "Yes For Jobs", "Ireland Needs Europe". You may also use the polar opposite to seek a no vote. However, these posters have been utilised in Dublin City, hence the "Yes In The City" slogan. It may seem low brow, and I dont disagree with you. However, it does as much as any other poster in terms of information content.

liberalsociety wrote: »

In terms of posters the Liberal Society have more than a few when it comes to hitting hard. A careful reading of the Millward Brown IMS report demonstrated that women recorded a stronger No vote than men (56% to 51%) as did the younger age groups, with 25- 34 year olds being most opposed to the Treaty at 59%. Participants in the Milward Brown Research especially women demonstrated a negative response to misleading campaign posters, as Coir are now discovering with their infamous €1.84 posters.

The Yes-in the City poster is simple, unambiguous and it is working. Whether the anoraks like or not is immaterial, the message is getting through.

Tricity Bendix

maple wrote: »

:O Good jesus.

Although what else can we expect from a government who wants to spend 15million plus on a new postcode system while the queues at the soup kitchen grow longer every day. The lack of logic makes the mind boggle.

Posters actually come from a group called Liberal Society, which has nothing to do with the government.



but the new postcode system is still a joke :P

maple

"The Yes-in the City poster is simple, unambiguous and it is working." bit premature, dontcha think

maple wrote: »

:O Good jesus.

Although what else can we expect from a government who wants to spend 15million plus on a new postcode system while the queues at the soup kitchen grow longer every day. The lack of logic makes the mind boggle.

Every single time I hear "x million" and "the govt", I think "9 million for cervical cancer vaccine was 'too expensive'". Over and over.

Maple

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

Posters actually come from a group called Liberal Society, which has nothing to do with the government.



but the new postcode system is still a joke :P

I got my rants crossed.

astrofool

maple wrote: »

:O Good jesus.

Although what else can we expect from a government who wants to spend 15million plus on a new postcode system while the queues at the soup kitchen grow longer every day. The lack of logic makes the mind boggle.

The postcode system will earn back the investment made very quickly, it's not a risky investment (the pay off in extra economic growth enabled by the system should dwarf the initial cost), so should be relatively easy to fund.

If you're going to pick a target, pick one that is risky, with no pay off.

Anyway, the poster is no better or worse than most of them out there.

Tricity Bendix

astrofool wrote: »

Anyway, the poster is no better or worse than most of them out there.

Personally, I think it is. I think its the worst poster out there because there is no message behind it other than "we want women to vote yes, lots of women like Sex in the City, ergo we need to be like Sex in the City".

At least other posters try and put out an idea or a concept.

Maple

astrofool wrote: »

The postcode system will earn back the investment made very quickly, it's not a risky investment (the pay off in extra economic growth enabled by the system should dwarf the initial cost), so should be relatively easy to fund.

How so? Genuine question.

astrofool wrote: »

If you're going to pick a target, pick one that is risky, with no pay off.

I just don't understand how when they're making cut-backs in the health service, public services, thinking of introducing new tax levies, basically when there is so much wrong that they're not bothered fixing how they think its logical to undertake a new project like this.

astrofool wrote: »

Anyway, the poster is no better or worse than most of them out there.

I beg to differ.

Het-Field

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

Personally, I think it is. I think its the worst poster out there because there is no message behind it other than "we want women to vote yes, lots of women like Sex in the City, ergo we need to be like Sex in the City".

At least other posters try and put out an idea or a concept.

Would you rather us peddle lies about a serious reduction in our minimum wage ?

Would you rather us proffer that a yes vote will somehow create jobs ? While it wont do us any harm on the jobs front vis-a-vis FDI etc, not one job will be created directly through the Treaty. Furthermore, our domestic situation in terms of competitiveness will also need to be addressed before Ireland becomes an attractive hub for potential investors.

All and sundry have utilised red herrings, and outright lies to achieve their aim. However, the real ire (on this forum) is reserved for a group, who contribute "nothing" to the debate. Remember, we have peddled no lies, or misinformation. We are promoting the vote, and our leaflets prove informative.

Seriously TB, you really have to give the whole jealousy thing a rest. Im begining to think your online campaign against our posters has more than just a political motivation.

Silverfish

This thread is for discussion of how the target audience of the poster (women) feel about the poster.

If people want to debate the Lisbon Treaty, they may use the Politics forum if possible.

We would ask that people leave personal animosity aside, and not drag debates from other forums to here.

Thanks.

Het-Field

Het-Field wrote: »

Would you rather us peddle lies about a serious reduction in our minimum wage ?

No, we'd all rather have posters that aren't stupid, actually

Do you honestly think you can throw up whatever crap you want because oh well, the others aren't much better anyway?
It's just stupid.

Im begining to think your online campaign against our posters has more than just a political motivation.

Without knowing TB, I'd guess that's true - it's an anti-idiocy motivation. Anti-polluting our streets and eyes with posters (in general) that are getting ever more ridiculous and further from the point of the treaty.


Personally I thought SATC was a load of anti-feminist drivel, this would only tempt me to vote no!

MissFlitworth

Het-Field wrote: »

Would you rather us peddle lies about a serious reduction in our minimum wage ?

Would you rather us proffer that a yes vote will somehow create jobs ? While it wont do us any harm on the jobs front vis-a-vis FDI etc, not one job will be created directly through the Treaty. Furthermore, our domestic situation in terms of competitiveness will also need to be addressed before Ireland becomes an attractive hub for potential investors.

All and sundry have utilised red herrings, and outright lies to achieve their aim.

Ah now, are you for real? How can you argue that because other posters are worse/have outright lies on them it's ok for you to put rubbish like the 'yes in the city' poster out there. I thought the 'everyone else is doing it, leave me alone' type arguments died out in the playground. Were your only options really 'lying like everyone else' or 'weird crap'? The reason it caught my eye is because it is the absolute pinnacle of all the awful Lisbon crap out there, it makes no sense whatsoever. Why not random pictures of other stuff women are supposed to like? Twilight themed yes to Lisbon posters? - 'Edward wants you to vote yes' Why not the Care Bears giving a big cuddly Lisbon thumbs up? Or how about a big 'YES' spelled out in cupcakes?

Het-Field

bluewolf wrote: »

No, we'd all rather have posters that aren't stupid, actually

Do you honestly think you can throw up whatever crap you want because oh well, the others aren't much better anyway?
It's just stupid.


Without knowing TB, I'd guess that's true - it's an anti-idiocy motivation. Anti-polluting our streets and eyes with posters (in general) that are getting ever more ridiculous and further from the point of the treaty.


Personally I thought SATC was a load of drivel, this would only tempt me to vote no!

What kind of vapid nonsense are you spouting.

So am I to assume that you see the lies (admitted) of Coir, or the misrepresentations of the two main parties as useful to this debate ? In spite of the fact that their claims have little or nothing to do with the Treaty. These are dangerous and anti democratic tactics. What about the CSP who's posters imply that the treaty will create an EU superstate ?They dont validly contribute to the debate, nor do they serve a meaningful purpose.

This small campaign of keyboard warriors has become tiresome. We have admitted that the posters are low brow. What more do you want ? I know more than enough educated and clever women who have been more than supportive of the posters. They have not identified them as "talking down", they have identifed them as light hearted.

Nevyn

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

Posters actually come from a group called Liberal Society, which has nothing to do with the government.

They are what is left of the progressive democrats from what I've seen.

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

but the new postcode system is still a joke :P

I think that is something which is needed will bring jobs and honestly save lives as fire engines and ambulances will be a lot less likely to get lost.

From what I have seen of the liberal society they are trying to make politics sexy by putting up poster of hwat women, and honestly what a fail.

Het-Field

Het-Field wrote: »

What kind of vapid nonsense are you spouting.

I could ask you the same question. At least my vapid nonsense isn't being blown up into posters to annoy everybody in the city with under the pretext of supporting the vote.

So am I to assume that you see the lies (admitted) of Coir, or the misrepresentations of the two main parties as useful to this debate ?

Am I to assume you can't read properly? Or are you just making things up now?

In spite of the fact that their claims have little or nothing to do with the Treaty. These are dangerous and anti democratic tactics. What about the CSP who's posters imply that the treaty will create an EU superstate ?They dont validly contribute to the debate, nor do they serve a meaningful purpose.

This small campaign of keyboard warriors has become tiresome. We have admitted that the posters are low brow. What more do you want ? I know more than enough educated and clever women who have been more than supportive of the posters. They have not identified them as "talking down", they have identifed them as light hearted.

Good for them. We're calling it ridiculous. And we're perfectly entitled to do so in our own forum. if you don't like it, take off.

Nevyn

Het-Field wrote: »

So am I to assume that you see the lies (admitted) of Coir, or the misrepresentations of the two main parties as useful to this debate ? In spite of the fact that their claims have little or nothing to do with the Treaty. These are dangerous and anti democratic tactics. What about the CSP who's posters imply that the treaty will create an EU superstate ?They dont validly contribute to the debate, nor do they serve a meaningful purpose.

So you are happy to stoop to the level of Coir?
And think that women will accept that?

By the way ladies, Coir is the new name for the a certain collective who have been also known as Youth Defense/Mother&Child/NaturalLaw party/S.P.U.C.

Het-Field wrote: »

This small campaign of keyboard warriors has become tiresome.

Wow.
This thread has less then 20 posts as I write this and a few women have said they found the postera objectionable you have a handful of posts and you are tired of talking about the topic and are saying you are being attacked by female keyboard warrior? Over react much?

Het-Field wrote: »

We have admitted that the posters are low brow. What more do you want ?

Facts, figures something which will engage our brains instead of making us roll our eyes. That level of poster is saying, if you are smart and sexy you will vote yes, crap reasons for voting yes and frankly I would not be surprised if Emmeline Pankhurst is rolling in her grave on that one.

Het-Field wrote: »

I know more than enough educated and clever women who have been more than supportive of the posters. They have not identified them as "talking down", they have identifed them as light hearted.

OK then you had a focus female group who where they?
Who are these women who are more educated and clever then those of use who do find them objectionable?

Dudess

Those posters are hilarious. What's even more funny is Het-Field and Liberalsociety's inability to take valid criticism of them, so they resort to being personally abusive and throwing out unsubstantiated accusations.

Good work.

Wagon

My mate told me about this yesterday, she would almost vote no because of it.

Nothing is as bad as this though

Tricity Bendix

Silverfish wrote: »

We would ask that people leave personal animosity aside, and not drag debates from other forums to here.

Thanks.

I had no intention of draggin a debate anywhere, I was just trying to give some more context to the thread. I have no personal animosity towards Het-Field and i have no intention of debating with him about any 'campaign' or and 'jealosy' i might have. Frankly, because i don't think its even worth debating.


On Topic: I hated SitC, so I guess the chances of me liking this were always going to be slim. How do people who liked SitC feel about it?

Jood

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

I had no intention of draggin a debate anywhere, I was just trying to give some more context to the thread. I have no personal animosity towards Het-Field and i have no intention of debating with him about any 'campaign' or and 'jealosy' i might have. Frankly, because i don't think its even worth debating.


On Topic: I hated SitC, so I guess the chances of me liking this were always going to be slim. How do people who liked SitC feel about it?

I love Sex and the City, more now than I did when it first came on the telly, but that doesnt mean that I'm going to be swayed one way or another by an Irish poster riding on the back of an American tv programme.

Nevyn

SaTC has it merits, by todays standards its very dated and the film made a mockery of it
but in it's time when it was being aired and made it was in a league of it's own and I think raised a lot of issues which were not spoken about. So despite the 'ladies' in it being stereotypical and the show being far to focused on getting a man in general I do have a soft spot for it but I don't want to be any of those characters.

And anyone who thinks that linking in my mind voting in a certain way to mean that I would be glamours and sophisticated like the 'ladies' from that show has certainly got it wrong.

skelliser

nice one, ye have just belittled and patronised women, well done

panda100

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

A few folks were discussing these posters in the LGB forum, which attracted some of the brains behind them to come out of the woodwork. I'll post up what they had to say in defence of their posters after I described them as a meaningless contribution.

Two ex PD's are the brains behind the operations....Interesting...

In all fairness at least the liberal party were trying to make some effort to connect with women, a very misguided attempt but an attempt nonethless. Their a lot better than the god damn awful "Women for Europe" that are so disconnected from the voting public that they held a public meeting in Kilkenny the night of the All Ireland hurling final?!

I applaud those in politics who try and engage with women, as they are often the most disenfranchised part of the voting electorate. While I completely disagree with the PD party politics, they were the only mainstream party that had a 50:50 gender ratio.

The posters seem to be up mainly on the southside,I saw them in Ranelagh and Donnybrook but none around Phibsborough where I live. I presume there trying to appeal to a certain, more affluent type of Irish ladies.
The posters are woeful though. Its sad that the Liberal party are using the same condescending vein of advertising as 'Generation Yes'. Women and young people, the biggest groups who voted No the last time should be taken seriously. Trotting out celebrities, wearing t'shirts saying ' I only kiss boys who vote Yes', and now this poster. Its like women are just not taken seriously and we are easily swayed by frivolous,shiny things.

What does Sex and the City have to do with the Lisbon Treaty?? Will I have the money and the lifestyle of Carrie If I vote Yes? Somehow I don't think so.

You say that its meant to be lighthearted?Why are you turning something as serious as the Lisbon treaty that will affect all out lives into a joke?

astrofool

I'd challenge anyone to find a poster on either side of the debate that is actually meaningful, or accurate in any way. All election posters are, by design, vapid and designed to coerce the viewer to vote their way, without any real debate on them.

But it's good to see politics being discussed.

panda100

astrofool wrote: »

I'd challenge anyone to find a poster on either side of the debate that is actually meaningful, or accurate in any way. All election posters are, by design, vapid and designed to coerce the viewer to vote their way, without any real debate on them.

But it's good to see politics being discussed.

Oh yeah personally those posters have no effect on me during referendums or elections. There a waste of money, bad for the environment and should be banned.

astrofool

Well, unfortunately, they work, the politician with most money spent on advertising usually wins the election.

Kooli

astrofool wrote: »

I'd challenge anyone to find a poster on either side of the debate that is actually meaningful, or accurate in any way. All election posters are, by design, vapid and designed to coerce the viewer to vote their way, without any real debate on them.

But it's good to see politics being discussed.

Yes I agree, but the difference about these ones is that they are actually insulting. As another poster said, it's like women are frivolous creatures who will be distracted by shiny things.

If you're going to single women out and target them in this debate, does it have to be in such a vapid, superficial way? 'Let's target women voters - they like that show about shoes don't they?' Yup, this is the stuff we care about...:rolleyes:

And by the way I am not anti-SATC at all, in fact I loved it.

Nevyn

Target women strikes again Getting at it wrong.

Cos women are all touchy feeling and not concerned about the issues or engaging our brains :rolleyes:

Stheno

maple wrote: »

How so? Genuine question.

I just don't understand how when they're making cut-backs in the health service, public services, thinking of introducing new tax levies, basically when there is so much wrong that they're not bothered fixing how they think its logical to undertake a new project like this.

Well firstly it will be more efficient to deliver post/all other deliveries to towns and especially to townlands. E.g. I've a friend who lives in a townland and so do several of her family, and while on Post know that M Smith is her, couriers, online deliveries etc do not and can spend a considerable amount of time trying to deliver goods to a correct address. An Post estimate that postal delivery costs 20-30% more due to the inefficiency of not having postcodes, so if you extrapolate that out to delivery companies, couriers etc, that's a fair few million in costs saved each year. Savings are estimated iirc at approx. €9 million in the medium term, so over five years the project would pay for itself in financial terms.

There would be other benefits for e.g. Bord Gais, ESB, Telecoms, when they were putting infrastructure in place for the same reason, i.e. a six digit postcode would be far more accurate in terms of logistics than just a townland name.

Also the Ambulance and fire service would know exactly where to go for emergency calls, and lives would potentially be saved as a result.

Finally, our postal delivery service is still a monopoly, and lack of postcodes hinders opening up the market.

HTH

Back OT I've not seen those posters, I tend not to take notice of posters tbh, they are laughable though

The_Minister

I was just trying to use Google to find a previous thread I set up in Work & Jobs, wherein one posted the various help wanted notices that have been seen around town, the idea being to help people find low-level student jobs.
It wasn't a success, but with recession and Christmas now colliding, I thought it might have a better chance (seeing a help wanted sign in a jewellers reminded me).
I happened to come across this thread, and there was one point I wanted to address.

Thaedydal wrote: »

They are what is left of the progressive democrats from what I've seen.

Firstly The Liberals =/= The PDs or the YPDs. The Liberals were set up in Hamburg by a group of legal professionals who were unhappy with the Irish political system and wanted change.
The YPDs later merged with them when the PDs shut down (or voted to - they are still a registered party). However the vast majority of people in the organisation were never PDs. Off the top of my head there are about 6 active former YPDs in the organisation at the moment.
It is not fair on the other members (who number over 150 at my last count) to label them all as former Progressive Democrats, when the vast majority of them were never in the party.
There are people from several parties involved, including councillors of different stripes.

Since the YPDs were always closer to the true liberal idea than the main party, it is not surprising that several of us have joined the Liberals. However, more former YPDs have joined Labour, have joined Fine Gael, or the Greens. It is not accurate to say that the Liberals are the same as the Progressive Democrats.

I just felt I had to address that point, if anyone has any questions regarding the posters they want to ask me, go ahead (be gentle:pac:).

Macha

*Waves hand* I have a question!

Why on your Facebook page do you claim credit for getting a YES to Lisbon? Your No to Nuts might have done some good but the Yes in the City ones alienated a lot of female voters. And I couldn't tell if your youtube video was a shampoo ad or a campaign video!

Het-Field

taconnol wrote: »

*Waves hand* I have a question!

Why on your Facebook page do you claim credit for getting a YES to Lisbon? Your No to Nuts might have done some good but the Yes in the City ones alienated a lot of female voters. And I couldn't tell if your youtube video was a shampoo ad or a campaign video!

Why shouldnt we ? We campaigned, we handed out leaflets, we took on Coir face to face. Should all civic groups now sit back, allowing Cowen and Kenny claim credit for something which mobilised vast numbers of ordinary civilians, and was won by the efforts of ordinary citizens. I spent the guts of 6 weeks seeking to have the treaty ratified (as did many of the Liberals). Equally, the nucleus of the Liberals spent three weeks seeking its ratification in 2008. Thus, we are as much entitled to claim credit for the victory. Furthermore, the areas in which we concentrated our efforts hugely endorsed the Treaty.

Int he areas we placed our posters, the turnout, and the treaty's endorsement was highest. Many of our posters were around Cornelscourt, which returned a 93% Yes. So am I to take it that the other 7% all voted no as a result of "Yes In The City" ? As I have mentioned before, I know enough women who endorsed the posters, as did many within the political establishment. Hence, I think you are attempting disinformation with you "many women were alienated". I know "many" women. I canvassed their attitude, and got negligible rebuffs.

Macha

Het-Field wrote: »

Why shouldnt we ? We campaigned, we handed out leaflets, we took on Coir face to face.

Sorry but I was involved in a civic campaign and I didn't see any of your leaflets, canvassing or taking on Coir on the streets face-to-face.

Het-Field wrote: »

Int he areas we placed our posters, the turnout, and the treaty's endorsement was highest. Many of our posters were around Cornelscourt, which returned a 93% Yes.

Oh come ON. You're not fooling anyone. These areas were the strongest YES voters last time and it could actually be said that your campaigning in these YES strongholds was a waste of resources.

PLEASE do not try to claim credit for these areas having the highest YES votes as they have always been the most pro-Europe constituencies.

Het-Field wrote: »

As I have mentioned before, I know enough women who endorsed the posters, as did many within the political establishment. Hence, I think you are attempting disinformation with you "many women were alienated". I know "many" women. I canvassed their attitude, and got negligible rebuffs.

Who? I found them condescending, as did all of my female friends. And so did the other women in the office I worked in. Can you please post up your video so everyone can see what it was like? Thanks.

Het-Field

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry but I was involved in a civic campaign and I didn't see any of your leaflets, canvassing or taking on Coir on the streets face-to-face.


Oh come ON. You're not fooling anyone. These areas were the strongest YES voters last time and it could actually be said that your campaigning in these YES strongholds was a waste of resources.

PLEASE do not try to claim credit for these areas having the highest YES votes as they have always been the most pro-Europe constituencies.


Who? I found them condescending, as did all of my female friends. And so did the other women in the office I worked in. Can you please post up your video so everyone can see what it was like? Thanks.

1.To use the trite example from "The Santa Clause", "have you ever seen a million dollars" ? Just because YOU didnt see it, doesnt mean it didnt occur or exist. Who was your civic campaign ? Did we see them in action ? If it was Ireland For Europe, the Liberals were well known to them.

2.Waste of Resources ? Not at all. Simply appealing to the market in which we have pitched ourselves for the time being. Many of the Liberals are based in Dublin. When I say many, i dont for one minuite seek to suggest that we have a large, active membership. We needed to be focused, and we were. The small active membership decided to focus resources on certain places. We contributed to the cmapiagn, so you attempts to negate our activity to nothing is falling on deaf ears as far as im concerned. Again, you seem to be another random activist, seeking to cut herself a bit of the "success pie". At the end of the day, it was Bertie's mug which was on the front of the Sindo. One day later, Lisbon was old news.

3.So what if you find them condescending. I know enough women who had no problem with them. I suggest you take a proper look at the campaign, and the message we were seeking to convey. We have not tried to proffer it as high brow. However, we never peddled lies, or mistruths.

We are entitled to our piece of kudos, just as much as you are. We were on O Connell Street handing out our leaflets when Coir held their mass demo. We took them on, and destroyed their day of action. Were you there ?

Simply because you didnt like our angle is completely irrelevant to me

Silverfish

Het-Field wrote: »

I suggest you and your bra burning friends take a proper look at the campaign, and the message we were seeking to convey.

Het-Field, I would ask at this point that you have a read of the charter of this forum, this aggressive tone of posting is not acceptable here.

Thank you.

Nevyn

Ok I didn't see them either or get any of thier leaflets,
Ladies did any of you ?

Macha

Het-Field wrote: »

1.To use the trite example from "The Santa Clause", "have you ever seen a million dollars" ? Just because YOU didnt see it, doesnt mean it didnt occur or exist. Who was your civic campaign ? Did we see them in action ? If it was Ireland For Europe, the Liberals were well known to them.

Yes, I was involved with Generation Yes. And to give you a few stats:
-180,000 leaflets distributed
-1 GIANT banner on the POD, Harcourt St
-87 towns canvassed
-3,630 hours canvassing
-84 press stories
-one protest outside the UKIP press conference
-one protest outside Ganley's press conference.

And yes the Liberals were known to us but only because members used to swan around the office.

Het-Field wrote: »

2.Waste of Resources ? Not at all. Simply appealing to the market in which we have pitched ourselves for the time being. Many of the Liberals are based in Dublin.

Well at least you acknowledge that your campaign had other political motives.

Het-Field wrote: »

The small active membership decided to focus resources on certain places. We contributed to the cmapiagn, so you attempts to negate our activity to nothing is falling on deaf ears as far as im concerned.

We had a tiny membership. 5 regulars in the office and student/graduate volunteers to help with canvassing. But we didn't just stick to the guaranteed YES strongholds - total waste of time.

Het-Field wrote: »

Again, you seem to be another random activist, seeking to cut herself a bit of the "success pie".

I worked really hard on this campaign for the last few months.

Het-Field wrote: »

3.So what if you find them condescending. I know enough women who had no problem with them. I suggest you and your bra burning friends take a proper look at the campaign, and the message we were seeking to convey.

What? Platitudes and condescending nonsense?

Het-Field wrote: »

We have not tried to proffer it as high brow. However, we never peddled lies, or mistruths.

I never said you did. But what exactly does YES in the City mean? You insult the elecorate by offering them nothing but platitudes.

Het-Field wrote: »

We are entitled to our piece of kudos, just as much as you are. We were on O Connell Street handing out our leaflets when Coir held their mass demo. We took them on, and destroyed their day of action. Were you there ?

Yes we were there - we had people at the GPO every single week day for the 3 weeks before hand. On wed/thurs/fri we also had people at Connolly station and on Grafton St. I was out canvassing almost every day. I did not see a single Liberal person canvassing in the city centre.

Het-Field wrote: »

Simply because you didnt like our angle is completely irrelevant to me

Look, you've made it pretty clear you don't care if other people find your angle condescending. Well done.

The_Minister

taconnol wrote: »

*Waves hand* I have a question!

Why on your Facebook page do you claim credit for getting a YES to Lisbon? Your No to Nuts might have done some good but the Yes in the City ones alienated a lot of female voters. And I couldn't tell if your youtube video was a shampoo ad or a campaign video!

Firstly, we aren't claiming complete credit, we are taking some credit.:p

Secondly, we did alot to get Lisbon passed. We went door-to-door, we handed out leaflets on major Dublin streets, in colleges, outside the GPO (with Coir heckling us), answering any questions that people might have regarding Lisbon.
We were very involved with Ireland for Europe, who were two of the biggest non-party campaigns in the country.

Thirdly, I don't agree that the Yes in the City posters alienated a lot of female voters. I will fully admit that I cringed when I first saw the poster, but the point of the poster was to be funny and light-hearted in a campaign where everyone was screaming Apocalypse. It was trying to send the message that the Lisbon Treaty wasn't anything to be afraid of or be daunted by, and that it could be discussed without everyone frowning and roaring.

And personally I thought the video was nice.:)

brianthebard

I'm really surprised by the attitudes of the liberal group members here, you have a forum full of women telling you they think the poster was stupid, insulting, etc and you continue to tell those women what they should think of it? Many companies such as RTE have been using this site as a way of getting insight into public opinion but instead of taking on board valid criticism you decide to ignore complaints that could be used to improve your organisation.
Since I'm not very impressed by your society I should feel glad, but I can't help feeling mystified at your self sabotage.

Het-Field

First, id like to thanks the Minister who has represented us better then I have ! Its my bad ! I spent a lot of time canvassing Dublin South West (a constituency seen as virtually impossible to change). It was a tough road, and I felt annoyed that, as I saw it, another poster sought to denegrate this. Equally, I was out with Ireland For Europe on a regular basis, and I always felt that Gen Yes, and Ireland For Europe had a good working relationship with the Liberals. It was fantastic that we were given such a warm welcome by all members of I4E and Gen Yes last Saturday night.

I admit, the posters were low brow. However, they were one of a few variations. In fact, one poster erected focused on Article 24 of the Charter of Fundemental Rights, which gave creedence to the rights and protection of Children. Other posters focused on jobs, and future prospects. I suppose I have found it slightly irking that our other posters have been ignored, and the focus has been placed on the tongue in cheek one, which was not meant to be offensive, nor was it created in the spirit that "women like Sex And The City, therefore, we use that, and they will vote our way. Pop culture has often been used in international elections. The US has been a master of this tecnique. What harm is it to introduce it into Ireland.

As I have previously mentioned, the liberals are a very small group. While I agree Gen Yes had a core staff, they were a staff which utilised internal university contacts, and mobilised young people with an interest in Europe. However, the Liberals never had that form of infrastructure, and we managed to run a campaign on a shoestring. The leaflets were there, and as I mentioned, we took Coir on. We didnt "turn the other cheek", we faced them, and argued with them. In fact, our presence destroyed their flagship event on O Connell Street on September 30th. Rather then canvass, their key campaigners (including Una Bean Mac Mathuna) sought to intimidate us. This was after they laughed at us for our small numbers. Their intimidation didnt preturb us, and we hit them head on. Madam Poulet also referred to a specific event to which we witnessed.

http://www.mamanpoulet.com/death-panel-politics-disability-and-lisbon/

We didnt let that go unchallanged, and publicly called Brian Hickey out on the matter in UCD the following week.

Look, we didnt seek to insult anybody, and if we did, it wasnt our intention. It was simply a case of being fed up with trite lines about being "at the heart of europe" etc. The 2008 campaign taught me a lot, and it was frustrating to see the amount of interested and motivated people, who didnt respond to the rally cry in May 2008. The lethargy in 2008 led to a boring campaign, which was doomed to failure from the beginning. I like to think that my efforts had some bearing on the campaign. Particularly the efforts in Dublin South West, which had the second highest turnaround from 2008.

As I said before, civic groups were the difference in this election. The fact that they could negate the party politics element was beyond commendable. In fact I hope this level of civic pride becomes more cogent in the future, and that other issues will encourage such a high level of activity.

I also withdraw the "bra burner". As a rule I hate the ad hominem, and the previous comment does make me a hypocrit. Thus I withdraw it.

Het-Field

Silverfish wrote: »

Het-Field, I would ask at this point that you have a read of the charter of this forum, this aggressive tone of posting is not acceptable here.

Thank you.

Mod, I apologise. I have withdrawn the impugned statement.

shellyboo

Thaedydal wrote: »

Ok I didn't see them either or get any of thier leaflets,
Ladies did any of you ?

I didn't get a leaflet, but I'd have relished the opportunity to talk to someone about the campaign. I was genuinely offended by it. I did see the posters along the N11, but that was the only place I saw them.

The_Minister wrote: »

Thirdly, I don't agree that the Yes in the City posters alienated a lot of female voters. I will fully admit that I cringed when I first saw the poster, but the point of the poster was to be funny and light-hearted in a campaign where everyone was screaming Apocalypse. It was trying to send the message that the Lisbon Treaty wasn't anything to be afraid of or be daunted by, and that it could be discussed without everyone frowning and roaring.

I don't think it alienated any female voters, actually - but I do think it offended a lot of female voters.

I'd like to think that the female voters who'd already made up their minds about the treaty are more intelligent than to change it because of an offensive and badly thought-out campaign for a yes vote.

The part in bold - if that was the intention, that did not come across, at all. I saw the No to Nuts posters and I thought they were great. But comparing a referendum on our nation's constitution to a TV programme about sex - as if that was the only level on which women could possibly relate to it - is seriously offensive to me as a female voter.[/quote]

Het-Field wrote: »

I suppose I have found it slightly irking that our other posters have been ignored, and the focus has been placed on the tongue in cheek one, which was not meant to be offensive, nor was it created in the spirit that "women like Sex And The City, therefore, we use that, and they will vote our way".

Where was the backup to explain that that wasn't what you were intending to do? Where on the poster does it give me ANY inkling of what you were trying to achieve other than to compare it to a TV show?

Het-Field wrote: »

Look, we didnt seek to insult anybody, and if we did, it wasnt our intention.

I just basically saw it as a sexist extension of the government's initial attitude to the treaty - a sort of "don't worry your wee heads about the issues, just vote yes" pat on the head.

If you're going to use my gender to try to sway my political opinion - which is something I'm not particularly ok with in the first place - for the love of god, do it in a way that's at least vaguely flattering as opposed to utterly condescending.

panda100

taconnol wrote: »

Yes, I was involved with Generation Yes. And to give you a few stats:
-180,000 leaflets distributed
-1 GIANT banner on the POD, Harcourt St
-87 towns canvassed
-3,630 hours canvassing
-84 press stories
-one protest outside the UKIP press conference
-one protest outside Ganley's press conference.

And yes the Liberals were known to us but only because members used to swan around the office.

But what exactly does YES in the City mean? You insult the elecorate by offering them nothing but platitudes..

I thought the 'Yes in the city' posters were offensive but they didnt even come close to Generation Yes derogatory use of female members.
Surely it is demeaning on every possible level to have female canvassers wearing tight tshirts with sexually suggestive slogans written on them?



Seriously little tight,pink, 'I only kiss boys who vote Yes' t-shirts? How patronizing to young voters that you think their only interested in female sexual availability?
It diminishes your political arguments greatly If you feel the only way you can get young people to vote yes is selling sex.
And pink?I mean how many chauvinistic cliches can you put into one campaign group!
Also why arent the men in Generation Yes wearing similar t-shirts?? Way to enforce the tired and unhealthy transaction of man as consumer and women as sex object.

I am an active member of The Socialist Party and campaigned for a No vote. I am pleased that we treated male and female voters, both young and old, with a bit of respect and didnt have to reduce ourselves to these cheap tactics. We may have lost the second vote but at least we did it without demeaning both female and young voters.

Macha

panda100 wrote: »

Surely it is demeaning on every possible level to have female canvassers wearing tight tshirts with sexually suggestive slogans written on them?

I totally agree. For the record, I HATED those tshirts and the decision to get them was made long before I got involved. As for the fact that they were tight, that was the fault of the t-shirt printers. Generation Yes ordered male and female in L, M & S. The small female was like it was made for children - only 2 people could fit into them. They also didn't force anyone to wear any tshirt they didn't want to (I certainly never wore one of those pink tshirts). But, again, I totally agree.

panda100 wrote: »

I am an active member of The Socialist Party and campaigned for a No vote. I am pleased that we treated male and female voters, both young and old, with a bit of respect and didnt have to reduce ourselves to these cheap tactics. We may have lost the second vote but at least we did it without demeaning both female and young voters.

I don't see how Generation Yes were demeaning to young voters at all. I fully accept the point about the t-shirts and it was something that people in the office spoke up about and they took it on board. The newer girls t-shirts were exactly the same as the guy's ones as you can see in photos on the front of the papers. But I don't see how you can say we were demeaning to young voters.

If you want to talk about demeaning voters, we could be here all day about the Socialist scaremongering over privatisation..