Elections
Local elections in England have come and gone. The Tories took a battering from all sides and must be concerned that their messaging on boats and anti-social behaviour is having little to no impact on an electorate consumed by worries about the economy. The run up to the elections was an opportunity for all parties to test out ideas for the general election that’s just around the corner. Labour went straight for the jugular with campaign ads that directly targeted the PM and his wife with messaging that has drawn a lot of criticism for its negative slant. Despite having a fit of the vapours over these attack ads, The Conservatives have form here with their Blair, demonic eyes, New Labour New Danger campaign in 1996. The Tories have reacted as expected, perhaps forgetting their own attacks on Keir Starmer in Parliament about his role in the non-prosecution of Jimmy Saville. The whole episode raises questions about what does and doesn’t constitute legitimate campaigning methods. The furore certainly suggests that the next UK election is going to be hard fought if not downright dirty with a lot of messaging specifically targeting the red wall voters who deserted to The Tories in the last general election. In part that’s why you see Labour trying to turn voters traditional perceptions of the two main parties on their head, attacking The Conservatives for their record on law and order and forcing the Tories further right as they try to turn perceived worries about migration and anti-social behaviour into votes. The major parties are scrapping over a narrow strip of economic centre ground where there’s barely anything to separate policy which means the peripheral issues are becoming huge battle grounds where the campaign teams of the major parties feel they can plant their flags.
Is it effective though? Tory messaging on migration and anti-social behaviour threatens to return them to the days of being the ‘nasty party’. Labour claims that Rishi Sunak is soft on paedophiles turns the mirror back on Starmer’s record as director of public prosecutions - definitely not the intention of the bright spark on the Labour campaign team who came up with that one. However, focusing on Sunak’s wife’s financial affairs does seem an entirely legitimate line of attack given that she may be a beneficiary of policies concocted by her husband. Expect to see more of this in the coming months as Labour messaging doubles down on the idea of the ‘chumocracy’ (Government by the few for the few) and The Tories hammer on about immigration and anti-social behaviour as both parties dance around their respective claims of economic competency. Were Labour right to defend their ads on Sunak’s record on sex offenders even when some of the inconsistencies in their position had been pointed out?
