Ask anyone involved in British politics which are nastier, the general or local elections, and they will say the latter. They’re far dirtier in terms of pure, malicious falsehoods, either murmured on the doorstep or made anonymously in leaflets or posters.
My late father, who campaigned in general elections and those for the town council, said the local fight went low every time.
Even the most benign figures, representing seemingly squeaky clean party leaderships, were given to saying the most unspeakable things away from the unforgiving spotlight of Westminster and the national media.
He would recognise the claims being made by Labour at the moment about Rishi Sunak as par for the course. The fact that for the next month the domestic political agenda is dominated by the local elections may have something to do with it.
Labour is not retreating on its charge, made on Twitter, that the Prime Minister did not think child sex offenders should go to prison. Not at all. With a new attack on Sunak’s wife and her tax status coming out on Tuesday, we’re being told to expect more of the same between now and May 4.
This is the blaming of Sunak personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates. Then, they’re due to return to crime, accusing Sthe Prime Minister of “effectively decriminalising rape”.
On one level, this is Labour fighting back. The smooth, urbane Tories you see in parliament can be brutal, below-the-belt sluggers on their home patches.
Labour has long complained of underhand tactics used against them by the Tories, and by the Liberal Democrats come to that, in local elections. This time, they’re getting their response in first, taking the battle to the enemy.
On another level, it’s a deliberate ploy to focus the debate, first on the Tory record on law and order, then on managing the economy, and finally, back to law and order.
Following the criteria often used by brand campaigners they’re deemed a success because everyone is talking about them, everyone is focusing on subjects the Tories would rather they did not focus upon — witness this very article.
The drive is deliberately provocative, designed to cut across the usual filters, to get people talking and thinking. On social media, which is where the adverts are appearing, you don’t gain followers by being middle-of-the-road and wish-washy — extremism and provocation are what get you noticed.
In the jargon of political strategists, Labour is deploying “dog whistle” tactics, sending coded messages to parts of the electorate. It’s not true that Sunak is soft on paedophiles — it’s not even his responsibility. As Prime Minister, he has no say over sentencing. That’s a matter for the courts and some of the figures date back to 2010, before he was an MP.
Many voters will realise that and not be influenced by the Labour attack. Some, though, won’t, and they will believe there is no smoke without fire and the slogan must therefore be true or at least contain a grain of truth.
Labour has taken the view, too, that it can ride out the charge of hypocrisy, that it was not that long ago the party hierarchy was complaining bitterly about the Tory accusation that while he was director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, now the Labour leader, refused to prosecute the TV entertainer and serial sex offender Jimmy Savile. The people they’re aiming their adverts at, those they want to persuade, are not sophisticates, who will ignore them because Labour is being two-faced — they will go by what’s on the cover, by what’s being claimed.
Nevertheless, there is much unease, rightly, in Labour circles and elsewhere about this campaign. It’s simply unpleasant, and dog whistle or no, has the effect of bringing Starmer’s party down into the gutter. For years, they’ve accused the Tories of being the “nasty party”. Not any more.
Putting out advertising like this one minute, and then setting out your stall for a nicer, more inclusive Britain the next, do not exactly sit easily together.
It gives the Tories licence to say what they want. Labour will maintain that well, they would anyway, but future shrill complaints about vicious, outrageous Tory slurs are likely to fall on deaf ears — Starmer and his colleagues should be careful what they wish for.
In choosing Sunak, they’ve also picked the wrong target. He is a politician who has risen to the top by dint of being careful. He projects a wholesome, family image. There’s an openness and almost vulnerability about him that is hard to shake off.
Where Sunak is weakest is in the feeling that his substantial wealth and that of his wife removes them from ordinary people, that the worries affecting millions of households do not affect them.
But that isn’t where Labour is going here. Yes, they’re trying to portray Sunak as not caring. However, in choosing to link child sex offenders with a man who patently dotes on his young daughters, they’re wide of the mark.
What’s puzzling is why they should even put such store by negative electioneering. The lesson from recent polls is that positivity usually wins through, every time. In the US, Obama succeeded with “yes we can”, Trump with “make America great again” and Biden with “build back better”. In the UK, Boris Johnson won in 2019 with “get Brexit done”.
The suspicion must be that going negative is where Labour thinks it can score, that campaigning hard on the merits of Starmer and his colleagues alone won’t succeed.
Far from coming from a position of strength, this campaign is a sure sign of Labour weakness, that their leader lacks the charisma and personality, and the party the popular policies, to deliver victory and they must resort to something else.
What’s depressing is that one of the main parties should opt for rock bottom just at the moment that faith in our politics and politicians is so poor. They should be attempting to raise the game, not plunge it to new depths. For that alone, Labour should be ashamed.
