Talk:Lynton Crosby/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This man had no business interfering in the last British election since he is an Australian citizen therefore he had no right to tell voters what government they should have. If he really wanted to be part of the British campaign he could at least had campaigned for the Liberal Democrats at least they have a similar name to his beloved Liberal Party in Australia.

Well, he didn't force Michael Howard to give him the job, and once a Commonwealth citizen has the right of abode in the UK, he or she can vote and stand for election - just as Crosby's fellow Aussie Patricia Hewitt has done.

You obvious had never heard of the Prime Directive. As I said before he had no business telling British and New Zealand voters how to vote. The fact that he is a Commonwealth citizen still does not make it right for him to participate in the election. Here in Australia decades ago British subjects who are not Australian citizens were given the right to vote while non-British subjects who are not Australian citizens had no say what so ever. How fair is that? Better read up on the Prime Directive.--The Shadow Treasurer 05:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

what? What are you talking about? Prime Directive? Crosby was employed by the Tories, legitimately, to help run a campaign. That fact that he was Australian is irrelevant. He was contractually employed to assist in a campaign. As for telling people how to vote, that is is job. He was paid a large amount of money to do so, because he is very good at what he does. Moreover, the Tories claimed back a large amount of seat in that election, demonstrating his success. Before you start shouting out about things you nothing about, perhaps do a bit of research.

Why don't you look up what the Prime Directive is, because making that absurd argument you just made. The point is there should be the non-interference of a country's internal affairs. The fact that he is an Australian is completely relevant because he had no business telling voters in a foreign country how they should vote. As far as I am concerned being involved in a foreign election campaign is the same as a terrorist selling WMD to the highest bidder no matter where they come from. Telling voters in a foreign country on how they should vote is the same as a stranger barging into someone's else and telling the houseowner on how he or she should live. May I remind you that when Mark Latham was ALP leader, US President George W Bush openly attacked him and was therefore accused of interfering in Australian politics. Bush was absolutely wrong in attacking Latham since he does not experience firsthand on what goes on in Australia just as Crosby is a complete stranger when he agreed to help out the Tories in Britain. It is therefore questionable whether the Tory gains were fair due to Crosby's involvement. I would had no problems with the gains the Tories made if Crosby had not been involved.--The Shadow Treasurer 05:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just found out that Lynton Crosby is heading Boris Johnson’s campaign to become Lord Mayor of London. Once again on principle Crosby is doing the wrong thing telling voters in London on how they should vote when he is not a British citizen.--The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Get over it mate. It's absolutely none of your business who the tories pick to help them run their campaign. Sounds like sour grapes that Crosby is so good at it! To use your logic - you have absolutely right to tell Crosby what to do because you are not a Tory... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.91.127 (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

NZ election

Not true. Crosby did not work in NZ. There is no evidence provided. I have deleted it.

Frank Crean was Deputy Prime Minister

At one time, Lynton Crosby described former ALP leader Simon Crean as the son of a Whitlam Government Minister. Frank Crean was not just a minister he was the Deputy Prime Minister in the last days of the Whitlam Government. Crosby should have referred to Frank Crean as a former Deputy Prime Minister not as a former Minister. While it is not false to call him a former minister to call him as such makes him sound as just another minister and does not indicate what so ever that he used to be Deputy Prime Minister. Referring to Frank Crean as a former minister is like referring to Al Gore as a former member of the Clinton administration. There is a right and wrong way on how politicians should be referred as, calling Frank Crean a former minister was definitely the wrong way. --The Shadow Treasurer 23:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What a load of precious nonsense. Deputy PM is a bullshit job Labor usually slings to someone in the left wing to keep said faction happy. How many Deputy PM’s, from either side of politics, went on to long stints as PM.

Shortest term as Prime Minister: former Deputy PM, Frank Forde.

The selection of a Deputy Prime Minister in an ALP Government is really not that different from a vice presidential nominee in the US election. The Vice President is still accorded respect by reference to his title and therefore I don't see why the same kind of respect be accorded to the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia.--220.237.9.99 (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Now if Lynton Crosby had called Frank Crean a rat-bastard you’d have something to complain about. --Tarbelly (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Your incivility is disappointing. Refer to Deputy Prime Minister of Australia for the information your purport to seek. Forde was an interim PM until Chifley was chosen following Curtin's death. Whatever your point is regarding Forde is totally irrelevant. Timeshift (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The overall result of the 2008 London Mayoral election was Johnson 1,168,738; Livingstone 1,028,966 (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/london/08/html/mayor.stm )

Notwithstanding the alleged comment from the "Macquarie Radio Network" (whatever that is), I don't believe this is really a sufficient margin to justify use of the hyperbole "red-headed stepchild" in an encyclopedia. Daniel Barlow (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

2013 tobacco material

When a subject is reported in a WP:RS as per Crosby's involvement with Philip Morris and a Lib Dem member of the Coalition saying he should resign or be sacked it's not helpful to simply delete this material. Ericoides (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ericoides continues to defame a public subject based on the conjecture of a news report. The user has placed statements on the subject that are not verbatim comments or substantiated with a right of reply in the articles, therefore are not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctaustralia (talk • contribs) 02:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see sockpuppet investigation here. Ericoides (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Fresh lobbying row

According to The Guardian Cameron faces fresh questions over his strategist after it emerged Crosby's lobbying firm advised private health companies at the time of NHS reforms. Crosby wasn't a Tory adviser at the time so it may not be relevant, but as this article is under complete lockdown I wonder if someone could look into this and perhaps add a mention of it if necessary. Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Edits by his own supporters

According to a report on tonight's Channel 4 News this page has been heavily edited by Lynton Crosby's own team, removing unfavourable references. Should this have a mention? What do other editors think? SmokeyTheCat 18:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Lynton Crosby's staff deleted criticism from Wikipedia" It's referring to the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carringtonb/Archive. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Boris Johnson

The excerpt under sub heading United Kingdom: 'and was also appointed to run (the successful) Conservative Boris Johnson's London 2008 Mayoral election campaign' should read 'and was also appointed to run Conservative Boris Johnson's successful London 2008 Mayoral election campaign'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.140.83 (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2015 TO BE ADDED TO THE CONTENT TEXT

Known as 'The Wizard of Oz', Lynton Crosby is credited for David Cameron's Conservative 2015 sweeping success. 2.27.102.80 (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2015 TO BE ADDED TO THE CONTENT TEXT

Known as 'The Wizard of Oz', Lynton Crosby is credited for David Cameron's Conservative 2015 sweeping success. 2.27.102.80 (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Niqab and poll numbers in the Canadian federal election, 2015

I've decided to take this to the talk page because I do not want to enter into an edit war with WpgJets4Life. The original phrasing was as follows "Crosby's decision to bring the issue of a small group of Muslim woman refusing to remove their niqab when swearing the Canadian oath of citizenship, became one of the top issues of the campaign and reversed the Conservative sliding poll numbers, especially in Quebec." This sentence makes no statement about who is leading the polls currently, only that Crosby's tactics led to a reversal of the Conservative's falling poll numbers. It is backed up by the sources already in the article, including one I added but was removed by WpgJets4Life, as well as reliable sources elsewhere, yet WpgJets4Life treats this statement as "false information." [1]

I didn’t really appreciate the power of the “dead cat” strategy until now, as the niqab issue explodes and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s polling numbers keep going up. But since the “dead cat” threatens to transform the election, certainly in Quebec, it’s worth a second look....Harper’s campaign was floundering from Duffy to the second recession. The change wave threated to drown him. And instead of a life jacket, his Australian friend threw him something better: a dead cat. The niqab issue. It’s all anyone can talk about. It fits perfectly into his agenda of security and fear of change. The NDP, which was once riding high on polls that showed Quebecers were ready to turf Harper, have whiplash. It has lost control of the agenda. It’s all niqab, all the time.

— Evan Solomon, Maclean's [2]

This campaign, the Conservatives have dangled hardly any Quebec-specific goodies, and yet thanks to their relentless hammering on the niqab issue, they are surging in the polls here — one poll had them doubling their support in a month — and are on track to surpass their 2006 result.

— Graeme Hamilton, National Post [3]

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party has edged into first place in Quebec, buoyed by the divisive debate over Muslim women wearing niqabs, according to a new public opinion poll.

— Elizabeth Thompson, iPolitics [4]

This trend is even borne out by the CBC poll tracker that WpgJets4Life cited [5], which clearly shows that in the days before Crosby was hired, the Conservatives were polling just below 27%, and since they were hired, shot back up to 32% and has since stayed around 30%. The source currently in the article also supports the original phrasing. The niqab is cited as a critical factor in determining how to vote by 31% of Canadians, and 41% of Quebeckers. This is higher than numbers reported for childcare, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, ISIS, and the Syrian Refugee Crisis, in and Quebec, it would put it at third, equal to the parties' economic plans, and above the environment (assuming that there's no similar regional disparity in those numbers). For an issue that was nearly a complete non-issue before the election, it has definitely become a top issue, even if it isn't number one.

I would not be opposed to text that shows that the niqab is not the #1 issue or that the Conservatives aren't at the top of the polls, but to dismiss the niqab's effects on Conservative polling as "false" is simply wrong. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Canadians simply do not view it as an important issue, regarding the 2015 Federal Election. All opinion polls clearly show the niqab issue is not even in the top five issues that Canadians are concerned with. Additionally, Conservative support has been relative stagnant in the last month. Their support has neither increased nor decreased. However, they now trail by as much as eight points, according to recent polls. WpgJets4Life (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

In the Ipsos poll currently cited in the article, the niqab is the 6th issue and statistically tied for the 5th most important issue given the margin of error, and in Quebec, it's tied for the 3rd most important issue. Before the election, few Canadians who were not Muslim or avid political followers would've even known what a niqab was. [6]. To say that it's become one of the top issues is absolutely correct and is supported by the sources cited above, as well as numerous reliable sources available. [7] [8] [9] [10] I am not against mentioning that it's not the top issue (though that might be a case of WP:UNDUE), but to dismiss it as one of the top issues in the election is wrong and goes against the available sources. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

At a national level, Conservative support has remained unchanged from early September. So it is incorrect to assume that the niqab issue is a huge issue for Canadians, as that is simply not true. Both my positions are validated by recent polling and articles.WpgJets4Life (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You are basing that information on just one opinion poll. If you look at all opinion polls, they clearly show Conservative support hovering around 30% at the beginning of September. Currently, opinion polls show the Conservatives are hovering around 30% It remains unchanged since Crosby was brought in to help the Conservative Party in the election. WpgJets4Life (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the graph on that page it clearly shows that the Conservative poll numbers dipped to 26.9% in the days before Crosby was hired. After Crosby was hired, the CPC regained ground and reliable sources attribute that at least partially to Crosby's identity politics. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I would not call three percentage points "significant." There is no reliable evidence that Conservative support rose due to Crosby's hiring. Additionally, I provided reliable sources that clearly indicate that the niqab is of low priority for the average Canadian voter. Crosby's influence on Canadian politics was clearly insignificant, during his time helping the Conservative Party.WpgJets4Life (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't three percentage points, it was six, which is double the margin of error for most of the polling done during this election and quite significant. In the graph that you linked to yourself, the CPC starts off at 31% at the start of the election, gradually loses ground in the polls until they're third place and at 27% in the polls. Then Crosby is hired, dog-whistle politics get used, and at the start of October, the CPC is polling in first and at 33%. If you look at any of the available polls on the opinion polling page with regional breakdowns, you'll see that this was especially acute in Quebec, where the CPC went from non-contenders outside of their traditional safe seats to basically being in a 4-way provincial tie with the NDP, LPC, and Bloc. Also, the Ipsos poll that you linked to shows that the niqab is a national issue (it's in a statistical tie for the 5th most important issue for all Canadians, and the 3rd most important issue for Quebeckers), which is incredible considering the majority of Canadians didn't even knew what a niqab was before the election. Many reliable sources provided above directly link the rising CPC poll numbers to tactics that Crosby has championed in other electoral campaigns, and thus making said claim is acceptable under our verifiability policy. For good measure, here's more reliable sources that directly tie Crosby to the CPC's rising poll numbers.

It must seem slightly miraculous to the Tory team that, with less than three weeks to go, the Harper Party remains in a first-place tie with the competition...Lynton Crosby, on the other hand, has had an immense influence. No sooner was the Aussie wedge-worker on the scene than the Supreme Court decided to make things easier for him by handing Harper the gift of the niqab — more of a hammer than a wedge, really.

— Krayden, David, iPolitics [11]

Most observers attribute Harper’s sudden success with anti-Muslim politics to the mid-campaign arrival of Australian consultant Lynton Crosby to help the flagging Conservative cause. His presence in Canada first became apparent during a debate in which Harper appealed for the votes of what he called “old-stock Canadians” – a novel phrase that struck a deliberately discordant note in the typically inclusive chorus of Canadian multiculturalism.

— Barber, John, The Guardian [12]

As Dan Leger explained in The Chronicle Herald earlier this week, the Conservatives are edging ahead in the polls because they’ve been able to peel off voters from the NDP by using [the niqab] issue to their advantage...Ramos sees Crosby’s influence not just in the niqab issue but also in Stephen Harper’s vague promise to protect Canadians from “barbaric cultural practices.”

— Demont, John, The Chronicle Herald [13]

As I've said above, if you want to add that the niqab is not the #1 issue or that the Conservatives are no longer polling above the Liberals, that is fine as long it's not given undue weight and it doesn't try to predict the outcome of the election (we won't know that it has in fact failed until the 19th). However, to deny that Crosby's tactics helped the Conservatives reverse their slide in the polls or that the niqab is not one of the top issues in the campaign (which it unfortunately is), goes against all the reliable sources out there. If you continue to insist on misrepresenting your sources and removing accurate, sourced information, I will ask for a third opinion on this dispute. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

First off, the niqab was not a major issue for Canadians, as illustrated by the article I provided. Out of several election issues, the niqab finished 6th. Crosby's tactics may have initially helped the Conservative Party, but it was only for a brief period of time. You have to look at the end result. Most of the articles you cite are two weeks old. The recent poll numbers make it clear that the Conservatives has fallen back to the level they were at, when Crosby was hired in early September. Ultimately, the niqab issue was not a priority, in terms of issues the voting public deemed important. You would just be spreading false information, to label the niqab issue a "top priority" for Canadians.WpgJets4Life (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The very article you provided classifies the niqab as a "key issue" and puts it statistically tied for 5th among all election issues, and though of as a top priority by nearly a third of Canadians. All the sources agree with you in that Crosby's tactics did help the Conservatives, which was what the article stated. I understand that you may not like the Conservatives, but these facts are not in dispute. Now that there's an article about both Crosby leaving the campaign and how the bump to the CPC didn't permanently put them in 1st place in the polls, I've added it to the article. Hopefully this is an acceptable compromise. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The niqab is not really a top priority for Canadians. Out of 11 issues chosen by surveyors, the niqab issue came 6th (not 5th) at 31%. You are misinterpreting the stats. In Canada, 31% respondents said it was a top priority. That includes Quebec, which has less than 25% of the Canadian population. The 41% figure was included in the poll, which means it is less of an issue (>31%) in English Canada. Canadians are far more concerned about the economy and taxes, at 58% and 44% respectively. I have no horse in this race. I'm not sure why you accuse me of having a political agenda to change the Wikipedia entry, but you are incorrect. Let's please stick with the topic. Labeling me a "Conservative hater" serves no purpose, other than to discredit my opinion. Why do we not wait until the election is over, before changing the Wikipedia entry, which is only three days away. That will determine one and for all, if Crosby had a significant favorable effect, in terms of helping the Conservatives.WpgJets4Life (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the bottom of the Ipsos poll, you'll see that their methodology has a margin of error of +/- 3%, which means that any two results that are 3% apart of less are statistically tied. Since 31% and 33% are only 2% apart, the niqab is statistically tied for the 5th most important issue this election. I think that something that nearly 1/3 of Canadians think is a critical factor in deciding how they vote would count as a key issue. I apologize for my statement and have struck it. However, I stand by the fact that what was and what currently is in the article is backed by reliable sources and thus should be in the article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Departure from Harper Campaign

The article is locked, but there were also maintien about Rob Ford's support of the Conservatives been the major reason as well for his departure. Maybe this can be added173.177.232.62 (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

-That is what I had read too WpgJets4Life (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It was in the National Observer article cited for his departure, but making a more substantial claim than him leaving probably requires more sources to come out. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2016

References to Canadian election are incorrect. Mr Crosby and Crosby Textor were not involved in that election as per this statement.

http://www.crosbytextor.com/news/canadian-election/ JTown123 (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Is there an independent source that talks about this? In addition, please format your request as Change X to Y --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 21:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

JTown123 (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Here is independent article corroborating that Crosby Textor was not involved in the Canadian election. http://www.smh.com.au/world/lynton-cosby-bemused-at-reports-of-involvement-in-canadian-elections-20151022-gkfp35.html

Change

Canada In early September 2015, partway through the 2015 Canadian federal election, Crosby was brought on as a campaign strategist for incumbent Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whose Conservative party fell to third place in the polls, behind both the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party.[19][20]

Crosby's decision to bring the issue of a small group of Muslim woman refusing to remove their niqab when swearing the Canadian oath of citizenship, made the niqab one of the key issues of the campaign and reversed sliding poll numbers for the Conservatives, especially in Quebec, where their polling numbers rose at the expense of the NDP.[21][22][23] However, four days before the election, ThinkPol reported that Crosby had left the Harper campaign, whose polling numbers had once again fallen behind those of Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party, which used more inclusive messaging.[20]

The Liberals went on to win an unexpected majority government in what was described as a "stunning rout".[24][21] The party's increase of 148 seats from the previous election was the largest-ever numerical increase by a party in a Canadian election.[25]

To

Although Lynton Crosby has never been involved with political campaigns in Canada, a number of media stories in Australia and Canada linked Mr Crosby to the campaign of Stephen Harper[19]. The Crosby Textor Group has stated that neither Lynton Crosby nor anyone in the Crosby Textor group was involved in the Canadian general election campaign, nor traveled to Canada during the campaign.JTown123 (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: Since the requested removal appears to be very reliably sourced, and yet the requested replacement also seems reliably sourced, that text was instead added to the Canada section with a tiny bit of "editing".  Be prosperous! Paine  23:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Sir Lynton???

Is he a naturalised British citizen? If not, then he is not entitled to the honorific "sir". Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Possible Partisan POV and inaccuracies in the Canada Section

I'm sorry, but as a Canadian I have huge issues with this article's take on the 2015 election. Describing the NDP as Canada's "natural spoiler party," was that section written by a Liberal? Also, it frequently referred to the Tories as the "Progressive Conservatives" (the PC Party disbanded in 2004) and it insinuates that the NDP couldn't win and was only viable in Quebec, by neglecting to mention that the NDP was also leading in the polls outside of Quebec when the campaign started.. Not everything is inaccurate, but it does contain what comes across as Liberal partisan folklore. I will change the section accordingly. Chris-Gilmore77 (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2016

Lynton Crosby didn't have personal involvement in Zac Goldsmith's campaign. His firm advised the campaign but he kept himself at a distance because he was unconvinced about the candidate: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/06/how-could-zac-goldsmith-lose-london-so-badly-the-conservatives-c/

82.2.146.222 (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Topher385 (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Lynton Crosby's £5.5m offer to undermine 2022 Qatar World Cup

Not sure where this can be added but seems important to include here and maybe on the 2022 World Cup article?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/10/lynton-crosby-2022-qatar-world-cup-ctf-partners

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Was never part of the Harper Campaign

What a bit of nonsense that I picked up that he was part of the Harper campaign in Canada.

Crosby is an Australian Liberal and therefore he supported his fellow Liberals in Canada and help make Justin Trudeau Prime Minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.83.10 (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The Australian Liberals are the conservatives/neo-cons, anti Labor, anti unions etc. It is very conceivable that Crosby worked on a Harper campaign because the Liberals (= conservatives) have often praised Harper. Yes - the Australian Liberal Party is false advertising and a misnomer.

The guardian article mentioned below about that anti-Qatar influencing operation is important as it confirms our suspicions about the manipulation strategies we are all subjected to. 2001:8003:AC60:1400:2C4E:295B:9578:F44A (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Copied to Crosby Textor group page

The following text was copied To the Crosby Textor group page:

In 2019, The Guardian announced it had seen documents revealing that multiple outwardly independent groups behind adverts on Facebook promoting a hard Brexit are administrated by employees of Lynton Crosby's lobbying firm, CTF Partners. 

Burrobert (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

References