Am I being too cynical here?


by Sunny Hundal    
April 30, 2008 at 8:38 am

So David Cameron admits that he hasn’t exactly kept to his promise of “ending Punch and Judy politics”. Well there’s a surprise. The king of sarcasm, Justin McKeating, nails it:

David Cameron has admitted he has not managed to keep his pledge to “end Punch and Judy politics” - blaming the fact that calling the Prime Minister a cycloptic psychopath has proved a better strategy.

“I will absolutely hold up my hand…this is a promise I couldn’t be bothered to deliver,” the Tory leader said.

“Look, what would you do? You can spend all day formulating policy and listening to the petty concerns of voters. But when your spin doctors tell you that portraying the Prime Minister as a hapless, lonely weirdo is an easier way to win the general election, you jolly well need to sit up and listen.”

He said prime minister’s question time was “an adversarial system” adding: “Of course we don’t have a policy worth a candle. When standing up and making thinly veiled innuendoes about the Prime Minister’s sanity has proved a sure-fire way to get ahead in the the opinions polls, who needs them?

“I do accept that I take a rubbish approach. It is rubbish. I don’t make any apology for that.”

Writing in the Daily Mail, Peter Oborne, perhaps the only reason to read that paper, said this last week:

There is always a herd instinct in British politics and David Cameron has confidently placed himself at the head of an ugly, baying mob. Like all mobs, Cameron’s brutish band of brothers has little interest in decency or decorum.

Just like the Tory leader today, Tony Blair very rarely attacked his opponents on matters of policy. Instead, like Cameron, he concentrated on personal issues. Blair portrayed John Major as weak, dithering and the victim of events. Cameron does exactly the same to Gordon Brown today.

Admittedly, I’m not a fan of this silly politics either and anyone who’s surprised Cameron went back on his promise should really go back to the comments section of Guido Fawkes and stay there.

But are attack ads so bad? The Libdems unveiled two attack ads this week, with Boris and Ken in their sights, and both have been universally panned by commenters on Libdemvoice. Ok, they’re not funny but I don’t see a problem with attack ads.

Aren’t they the future, given that there are no broadcasting rules on YouTube and the Libdems can release as many as they want without worrying about Ofcom? Who wouldn’t be seduced?

Will the British public really be repelled by it all? Or is it more that we wish the public would not be seduced but as soon as its proven they work (like in the USA), then everyone will jump on the bandwagon?


Print it   |   Trackback   |   Comments feed   |   to del.icio.us   |   to Facebook
Filed under: Blog , Media , Realpolitik , Westminster

4 Comments   ||   Add your own

  • We have a tight comments policy aimed at fostering constructive debate.
  • We believe in free speech but not your right to abuse our space.
  • Abusive, sarcastic or silly comments may be deleted.
  • Misogynist, racist, homophobic and xenophobic comments will be deleted.
  • Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy.
at 11:14 am on April 30, 2008
- direct link -  
1.  comment by
     Jennie

If attack ads are the future, we’re all fucked. Yes, the British public hate them, but not because they don’t like to see people brought down (they do), more because if politicians spend all their time slinging mud at each other it reinforces the idea, extremely prevalent at the moment, that politicians are only in it for themselves, only interested in petty infighting and points scoring, not interested in serving the public who elected them, etc.etc. etc.

at 11:24 am on April 30, 2008
- direct link -  
2.  comment by
     ukliberty

“Will the British public really be repelled by it all?”

Yes. The electorate is turned off by negative campaigning. See for instance the Electoral Commission’s report on the 2005 election. Negative campaigns influence people not to bother voting.

If you see low turnout as a problem, negative campaigns are part of that problem.

at 12:54 pm on April 30, 2008
- direct link -  
3.  comment by
     Leon

I’m not sure how you can not be a fan of ‘punch and judy’ style PMQ’se yet like attack ads?

at 7:47 pm on April 30, 2008
- direct link -  
4.  comment by
     ad

Not to be cynical, but I think this blog has shown far more dislike of the Tories, than liking for Labour.

If that is what people want, they are quite likely to be given it.

Post a comment using the form below


 
· About the author: Sunny Hundal is editor of Liberal Conspiracy. He works full time as a journalist, commentator, blogger, activist and general layabout. He was voted Guardian blogger of the year in 2006. Also at: Pickled Politics, Comment is free, / sunnyh*at*liberalconspiracy*dot*org

· Other articles by Sunny Hundal
Campaigns
Latest comments
» Different Duncan posted on To the sceptical and uncommitted...

» Dan posted on To the sceptical and uncommitted...

» Dan posted on What is Nadine Dorries MP's real agenda? (pt 4)

» john b posted on To the sceptical and uncommitted...

» Matthew Sinclair posted on To the sceptical and uncommitted...

» ac256 posted on To the sceptical and uncommitted...

» Tom posted on Forza, Viola

» thomas posted on Forza, Viola

» john b posted on The Fritzl case and media hypocrisy

» Steve B, UK posted on Punch, Judy and Clusterbombs

» Negating Nadine « All About Nothing posted on What is Nadine Dorries MP's real agenda? (pt 4)

» Kate Belgrave posted on Sitting on abortion in Labour

» thomas posted on Sitting on abortion in Labour

» Kate Belgrave posted on Sitting on abortion in Labour

» Kate Belgrave posted on Sitting on abortion in Labour