British tory negative billboard campaign off to a poor start
by Jake Quinn
British Tory Party Billboard
(Image via: No Right Turn)
After failing to make headway with their initial positive campaign, the British Tory’s have gone negative with a new set of 800 Saatchi designed billboards being rolled out across the country.
The above billboard, part of the new negative (or satirical) campaign, is foolish on a number of levels:
1) really stupid Tories might think they are supposed to vote for this guy (because he increased the gap between the rich and the poor)
2) disaffected Labour voters (who are disappointed with the Labour government’s record on closing the gaps) are more likely to vote for the Lib-Dems, or not vote at all, than they are to vote for the Conservatives
3) it gives the voter no direct reason to vote for the Conservatives, and
4) the image of Gordon Brown makes him look somewhat younger and more smiley than he generally is.
More billboards and the Independent story can be found here.
Update: and as NZ’s billboard man John Ansell notes in the comments, a number of people won’t read (or analyse) the text, and will be left with (another) smiling image of Gordon Brown, who with Labour’s billboards being up too, will be everywhere.
Life and Politics 
I agree with those points, Jake, and would add a fifth: the lack of punctuation. Shouldn’t the party of excellence in education know about full stops?
There’s a big risk when you make your opponent look good (as this photo does) that many people won’t read, let alone analyse, the words. They’ll just think: “That’s a pretty good-looking Gordon – even if they did catch him with his eyes shut.”
Add in Labour’s no doubt even-better-looking Brown billboards and he’ll be everywhere.
I’d have thought the attack message would be that after umpteen years in power Labour are tired, listless and lacking energy – and that their choice of Brown photo should reflect that.
But of course the attack ads are only half the campaign and it all depends how the Tories present Cameron. Doesn’t sound like they did that very well either, from what you’re saying.
Are Crosby Textor helping with this one? What normally happens is that the ad agencies do their best – which is often pretty lame – then the party has to call in the experienced political specialists to produce ads that actually work.
Interesting points John. One would have thought that a carbon copy of National’s successful 08 campaign (relatively benign (but never negative) billboards with a relentless focus on change/tired govt) would have been the place to start for the tory’s… Or perhaps that’s what they tried (I haven’t checked out the initial positive campaign that failed to stem Labour’s poll comeback).
I’m not sure from this comment, Jake, whether you mean the 2005 or 2008 campaign billboards.
The 2008 ones could be said to be ‘benign but never negative’ and the 2005 ones to have ‘a relentless focus on change/tired govt’.
As for ‘successful’, the 2005 billboards won praise for giving the Nats a pulse, but of course the party didn’t win the election.
The 2008 billboards had no pulse, but the party won nonetheless. To the extent that the strategy was to appear harmless, they worked – though one might argue that the party could have got better value for money by leaving the ad budget in the bank.
Sorry – to clarify – I was referring to 08. What I should have said was that National’s billboards were ‘benign but never negative’ and their general campaign strategy was to ride the mood for change while highlighting the ‘tiredness’ of Labour after 3 terms.
In terms of the 05 billboards I think they were highly successful. As you are aware, taking a party from 20.9% to 39.1% of the party-vote was a huge achievement, desite that fact that National didn’t ‘win’ in the end.
Incidentally, I believe Labour’s “Don’t put it all at risk” campaign (which put stickers of that name onto their already existing billboards and hoardings in the final week) played a significant role (together with a big push in south/west akl for turn out) in turning the polls around in the last few days.
I always thought of Brash as being a double edged sword for National. On the one hand strongly turning out the blue collar male vote, while on the other motivating a more urban, liberal and particularly female constituency to vote against him because of his ‘harsher’ edges (around treaty, race, welfare, etc.)
Key’s great success was to soften those edges and pull back the female vote, which he did to great affect in the 08 campaign.
In terms of your comment about banking ad-money budget, that is a fair point. But when you’ve got the money, as they did, you may as well spend it.
I see what you mean now – I read change/tired govt as an attack, which is why I didn’t identify that with 2008.
I agree that Labour’s “Don’t put it all at risk” campaign was their best work in 2005 – run in the last week with money stolen from the taxpayer, as I recall. We had attack ads ready to go as well, but didn’t run them because Don had made it clear we weren’t to go over budget. They also had people (I think the EPMU) chalking messages on pavements on election day – also illegal.
Key’s whole strategy was to appear warm and non-threatening – the sort of righty a lefty could safely vote for.
Ever since, he’s run the country largely for the benefit of those urban liberal lefty women he pulled across the divide, rather than his own supporters (who can only vote National or ACT, neither of which will threaten his government).
Politics is a funny game, isn’t it?
It sure is.
The costs of the “Don’t put it all at risk” would have, surely, been marginal.
The point you make about who Key’s been running the country for, however, is a point of debate I shall take;)
If this year sees the top tax-rate reduced to or near 30%, GST increased, the mining trucks roll in to the schedule 4 zones, the Super City legislation passed in its current form, and the education sectors see further cuts, I’d argue that the Nat/Act crew will have gotten just what they voted for.
I think from a right-wing perspective the Nats have done good things on education with national standards (popular with mums), law and order with three strikes (again, making women safer), infrastructure and mining (sold as selective and reasonable, in view of the gains that can buy better medicines etc.).
Not so good are Key’s ignoring of the smacking referendum (done to appease urban liberal women), the ongoing, undemocratic bribing of Maori and the ETS that ignores the deeply unsettled and unsettling science and is, again, being done for the Climate Scientologist greenies, who are motivated by faith rather than logic or economics.
Meanwhile we’re borrowing $400 million a week, which I’m not sure is classic good housekeeping.
I think Key’s view is you can fool most of the people most of the time, and he’s doing it. It’s a balancing act that requires most people to remain ignorant and not care that much about the finer points of government.
I’m also not sure supercities are classic right-wing ideology either – last I heard from the likes of Owen McShane, small was beautiful (as in the principle of subsidiarity and all the evidence from round the world that small local bodies serve people better than big ones).
That’s one of the reasons, I’d say, for the reported tension between Rodney Hide and Roger Douglas.
Whether Key is a successful economic manager will be judged by the numbers and whether he achieves his goal of closing the Tasman Wage Gap. So far the signs aren’t that flash.
But they’re making a few changes around the edges, which is all one can expect from conservatives.
Interesting decision to run with the “positive” picture of Brown, perhaps a way of deflecting precisely the criticism you’re chucking their way, Jake?
I don’t think ads as distinctive as this will get lost in a sea of Labour counter-production. Saatchi have created an extremely recognisable campaign, particularly if it’s complemented by television spots.
Besides which, the Brits have traditionally been a bit “edgier” than us Keewis.
Sum total: an effective Conservative campaign that won’t be misinterpreted by voters or regarded as overly negative.
Agree that the Brits are more attuned to irony. But then I understand the Tories’ “Are you thinking what we’re thinking?” campaign – showing Blair looking shady – flopped last time.
Good point about TV possibly setting the scene.
John: responses to the points you raise in the order you raised them:
National Standards will have been worth it if they do anything to raise standards, rather than just highlight failure. Infrastructure spending (especially as stimulus) is obviously a core job of government and I’m glad this government hasn’t dropped the ball on this like the Nats did in the 90s (Labour had spend billions on roads to catch up for the Nat’s huge under-investment).
Mining seems to be this year’s clusterf**k strategically by the govt – the moment people learn that NZ only sees 1% (or according to RNZ this morning, sometimes one tenth of that!) of the cash in return for digging great holes in the ground of National Parks people realise there isn’t much point. ‘Selective and reasonable’ is the mining that doesn’t hit the news, Nationals has failed in this regard.
80% of New Zealanders answered the smacking question in the only way it could have logically been answered (because of it being a loaded question – anything that is by definition part of good parenting must be good, therefore shouldn’t be a criminal offence). Anyone that voted yes was doing so (admirably) for politically reasons or as a protest. There was no point for Key to draw any meaningful conclusion from its answer, or to “act on it”.
The ETS kick backs for elites (including Maori) are a shame and simply the result of the National Party working with a Maori party that represents the rangatira rather than the working and middle classes.
(in terms of borrowing) The government is not a House, it is a government. Governments have much cheaper access to capital than households or businesses, they can borrow from themselves, for instance, or they can borrow at quite cheap rates. You know as well as anyone else (but probably do not agree, given your classical liberal disposition) that borrowing and spending (to a point) during recessions and saving for rainy day during boom times makes economic sense.
You’re on the money here (re: Key’s view is you can fool most of the people most of the time). Most people don’t care about the finer points of government. Elitist democracy (the view that the masses are unfit to govern (especially in any participatory way) relies on a high level of apathy from the voting public, which is what we’ve seen in NZ, especially in recent times.
(re: super city) The Right is likely to be much less suspicious of corporate management of traditional local government functions (water, waste, roading, libraries etc) that the Left will be, who would rather see elected local people have control over these things (for the sake of accountability).
The wage gap won’t close it will grow because of AUS’s resilience through the recession. The question for swing voters at the next election will be ‘can National be trusted in their second term?’… and if not, can Labour be expected to do better.
Rob – I think it is a mistake to overstate the intelligence of the British voting public. How elites react to the campaign will be very different to the masses. This is the mistake I believe saatchi made in opting for satire. Satire is actually a rather complicated form of humour, which is what makes it so often clever. But its not sensible politics. However, we shall wait and see what the polls do!
I think National Standards will work because they’ll make SOME parents of underperforming kids put pressure on schools to teach better. It’s a scandal that the unions seem able to protect teachers who can’t teach from the commercial realities, at the expense of our nation’s children. Doubtless you won’t agree, but I think the Nats should declare war on the PPTA, since judging by the pathetic ‘dimming’ billboard the PPTA has already declared war on Tolley and Joyce.
I wouldn’t trust RNZ to have the full story on mining. Did they factor in the tax the government will be collecting, or just the royalties? Certainly if there’s only a tiny return, John Key would hardly use up his precious electoral capital digging up national parks.
I’m no expert, but what about the mining in Australia? Is it similarly unprofitable there? Though minerals only account for 7% of Australian GDP, I’d have thought it was part of the reason they’re doing so much better than us, and therefore warrants us doing more. As David Lange said, “Australia is a quarry, while NZ is a theme park.”
But it does depend on the public being presented with the benefits as well as the cost. So far it’s been all downside, so not surprisingly the polls haven’t been all that supportive.
I don’t agree with you about the public’s ability to figure out the smacking question. They knew what they were doing, and they didn’t like being ignored. Key’s arrogance has sparked the direct democracy movement into life and that will be an interesting campaign – looking at what the Swiss have been doing for 150-odd years.
Borrowing? You may well be right, but it would have been better if Labour hadn’t wasted so much during the boom times.
The wage gap won’t close because too many of the smartest NZers capable of making sound decisions are overseas. The Aussies (enriched by the brightest Kiwis) are simply smarter and more positive than we are. Those still here tend to be the plodders, and we get the decisions we deserve. That’s a rather gloomy assessment, but how else do you explain this eagerness to be the first country to shoot ourselves in the foot with an ETS?
[…] The Tory billboards are up too – here’s what’s just down the road. Jake Quinn has done a post about how bad they are on several […]