Have Labour and Keir Starmer’s attack ads gone too far or not far enough?

The use of attack ads has become increasingly common in British political campaigns, as both parties seek to gain an advantage over their opponents by highlighting their flaws and weaknesses rather than extolling their own virtues.

This is a plague that has been beseeching American politics for decades now, but it would appear the populist times we live in (arguably catalysed by the rhetoric being spewed during the Brexit days) have led to a world where it’s perfectly fine for one party to basically call out the other as paedophile apologists.

For those not aware of what I’m banging on about, in recent months, Labour and its leader Keir Starmer have been accused of running a series of negative and attack-focused advertising campaigns. They largely feature Rishi Sunak’s gurning face alongside an incendiary statement about “what the Tories don’t do.”

These ads have targeted the Conservative government on a range of issues, including its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, the cost-of-living crisis, and its record on crime, not to mention to more salacious attacks on the government’s record for child sexual abuse prosecutions. Now, I’m no fan of the Conservative government (particularly this one) but that’s a low blow indeed.

Have they worked?

Some have argued that these ads are simply part of the cut-and-thrust of modern political campaigning. They point out that all parties use negative ads from time to time, and that Labour is simply playing catch-up with the Conservatives, who have a long history of using negative advertising.

However, others have argued that Labour's ads are particularly negative and divisive. They point out that the ads often rely on fear and prejudice, and that they are designed to attack the character of individual politicians rather than their policies.

There is no doubt that Labour's ads have been effective in raising the party's profile and putting pressure on the government. However, it is also clear that these ads have divided opinion and alienated some voters.

Furthermore, some have accused Starmer of being too focused on attacking the Conservatives, rather than presenting a positive vision for the future of the country. While it is important to hold the government to account, it is equally important to offer voters a clear and compelling alternative that they can get behind.

It remains to be seen whether Labour's negative campaigning will ultimately pay off. However, the party is taking a risk by relying on such a strategy. The use of attack ads can ultimately be seen as a sign of desperation, suggesting that a party is struggling to win support based on its own policies and ideas. It can also be seen as a calculated diversion tactic, though honestly, if there is one party that really needs that right now, it’s Sunak’s lot.

Is it really good enough?

Of course, you might be asking (quite rightly), what this topic is doing gracing the pages of a magazine focused on the creative industries? I’ll tell you why: Advertising is, above all else, a creative world that aims to promote ideas and opinions via fresh and inspired content.

Plastering a photo of the current Prime minister next to an accusation is not creative, it’s borderline childish. At least the political attack ads of the past had some bite to them. We all remember the “evil eyed” Tony Blair of the “New Labour, New Danger” campaign, for example (below), but who is going to remember this tacky nonsense in 20 years? Nobody.

Maybe I’m letting my disenfranchisement with the current political system speak for me here or maybe I’m just sick to death of politics? More likely, however, I think I’m just sick of lazy advertising.