Political Negative Advertising

[the Black Prince]

Nritish audiences have been wowed of late by a very well produced satirical Party Political broadcast from labour.

instead iof extoling labours (dubious) virtues, the advert series (of which there are now 3 or 4 episodes i think) is solely dedicated to the adventures of "Dave the Chameleon" (David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party)

personally though, funny as i find the adverts when watching them, i'm particularly curious of two things

why the labour party is running any negative adverts at all when Blair announced back in 2001 he would always run a positive issues based campaign (the kind of reversal of policy that labour accuses cameron of!)

why neghative adverts are necessary at all

i don;t want to tune in and see the parties slinging mud at each other like a load of kids in playpen, i wan to see the parties telling me, the voter, why i should vote for them, what issues they represent. this advert doesn't even say what bad issues the tories propose, only that Cameron is a tory through and through (which i already knew!) why this negative emphasis??

[God]

why the labour party is running any negative adverts at all when Blair announced back in 2001 he would always run a positive issues based campaign (the kind of reversal of policy that labour accuses cameron of!)

Because Blaire's a lier.

...and you can see the advert here! http://www.davethechameleon.com/dtcdebut

(yes it has it's own website)

[Tostig]

I haven't had TV since I moved house, and can safely say that the only thing I have missed has been Pocoyo.

[the Black Prince]

i don't even have a TV at uni (well, we do, buts its for the playstation... no aerial and no TV licence)

i did mean this thread more generally though...

negative advertising isn't really that common in the UK, but i hear it is so in america...

[Last Roman]

negative advertising isn't really that common in the UK, but i hear it is so in america...

very much so, it's quite dissappointing really.

[Denny Crane!]

Its far easier to convince the public that someone is a liar than it is to convince the public that you are telling the truth.

Peter

[gigagaia]

Nritish audiences have been wowed of late by a very well produced satirical Party Political broadcast from labour.

instead iof extoling labours (dubious) virtues, the advert series (of which there are now 3 or 4 episodes i think) is solely dedicated to the adventures of "Dave the Chameleon" (David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party)

personally though, funny as i find the adverts when watching them, i'm particularly curious of two things

why the labour party is running any negative adverts at all when Blair announced back in 2001 he would always run a positive issues based campaign (the kind of reversal of policy that labour accuses cameron of!)

why neghative adverts are necessary at all

i don;t want to tune in and see the parties slinging mud at each other like a load of kids in playpen, i wan to see the parties telling me, the voter, why i should vote for them, what issues they represent. this advert doesn't even say what bad issues the tories propose, only that Cameron is a tory through and through (which i already knew!) why this negative emphasis??

Negative advertising is prevalent in North America because it works.
When people vote, most don't really bother to inform themselves about the issues and where the candidates stand. Sometimes you have a high-profile issue that raises awareness, and people only look at how each party addresses it, but other, "smaller" issues are pushed to the side.
Getting elected is a lot more about image than about quality of platform. For example, when questioned, those that watched the famous Kennedy-Nixon speech felt that Kennedy had won. Those who listened but did not watch felt that Nixon won. Kennedy was an attractive, young and confident man. Nixon looked like a criminal. That goes to show you how important perceptions about politicans are.
In Canada, the previous election before this past one, the conservative party was leading in the polls going into the home strech. The liberals issued a series of ads, lamenting a secret agenda and hatred towards the constitution on the part of the conservatives. The liberals went on to win a minority government. This past election, the same thing happened, the liberals put out an election accusing the conservatives of planning to put "soldiers. on OUR streets!" It was pulled soon after, as the military found it offensive. But people did get scared and vote with their balls and not their brains.

Attack ads aren't necessary, and they certainly lower the quality of politics in any country, and likely make some people sick. But they work. People care more about images of politicians than they do actually platforms. Go out to town, and ask 30 random people what the major issues are in the next election and where the parties stand on them. I am willing to bet that not many people actually know about the issues or how the parties stand. They will know one or two, and they will have preconceptions about the parties and leaders. But they will not really be as informed as you might think.
Think about it. If all you knew was looks, would you be more attracted to Jude Law or Ron Jeremey (personalities aside!)? That is how most people think. So negative ads seek to make opponents look as bad as they can, so that people turn to the alternative.

[Erik]

Negative campaigns works in some cases.
But I doubt they work in a multy-party system because if two parties are throwing mud the other parties wil win.

During the last local elections in the Netherlands we had some negative campaigning for the first time.
A right-wing party (VVD) was attacking our labour party, but labour was still the big winner and in places like Amsterdam they then refused to form a coalition with the VVD (who came 2nd there), choosing a smaller left-wing coalition instead.
So in this case I think negative campaigning was a mistake.

I also think some parties choose a negative campaign because they can't say anything good about themselves.
Why would anybody vote for labour, for example? Other than to keep the conservatives out of course.
Running a negative campaign is realy admitting you suck, but trying to convince people you suck slightly less than the other side.

[gigagaia]

Negative campaigns works in some cases.
But I doubt they work in a multy-party system because if two parties are throwing mud the other parties wil win.

Canada is a multi-party state. It has 3-4 viable parties, which all get seats.

[Erik]

Canada is a multi-party state. It has 3-4 viable parties, which all get seats.

So how did those other two parties do?
Who won those votes the conservatives lost? the liberals? or the other two parties?

[gigagaia]

we had a minority government from the party that was trailing in the polls for a lotof the campaign.
The conservatives lost most of votes to the liberals, but also some to the NDP, which ended up propping up the minority government for quite soem time. Had the NDP not had as many seats as they did, the government could have ended a lot sooner.

[Aristophanes]

Reminds me of Canadian negative advertising.

Cameron reminds me a lot of John Kerry, quite the proverbial flip-flopper/waffle machine. I hope the Tories don't win again until they mature as a party; and being more Labour than Labour isn't a sign of maturity, it's a sign of political opportunism.