Tories take a chance on negative campaign

The general election campaign descended into probably the most negative and personal of any post-war campaign yesterday, forcing Labour strategists to consider whether to respond in kind or head for the high moral ground in the belief that Michael Howard has hurled a boomerang into electoral space.

Going negative has a long and perhaps dishonourable history in Britain. In 1945, Winston Churchill broadcast his famous "Gestapo" warnings about what life would be like under Labour.

Through the years, the most memorable adverts have been negative: Yesterday's men; Labour is not working; Labour's tax bombshell; Demon Eyes; Vatman.

Allegations of lying have been made before by Labour, notably about John Major and tax in 1995. But the accusations have never been quite as personalised and pervasive as Mr Howard's.

The Bishop of Oxford, Richard Harries, entered the debate yesterday to rebuke the Tory leader. He said all three main party leaders were honourable men: "I think that it is quite wrong to imply that any of those three is somehow fundamentally dishonest, whoever it is."

Mr Howard was unrepentant. "I'm not going to be stopped from telling the truth," he said. "When something needs to be said I will say it. I will carry on saying it."

Mr Blair shrugged off the attacks, accusing the Tories of running a nasty and unscrupulous campaign and descending into desperation. "Leave them to their personal abuse," he said. "I am proud to be leading the only party in this campaign with a serious programme for the future of this country."

Labour hopes that Mr Howard is himself so discredited that his attack lines will not work. In the words of one strategist: "You have to have permission from the voters to go negative, and he does not."

A former adviser to Number 10, speaking before the leak of the attorney general's advice on the Iraq war, said Mr Blair should stay out of the mud slinging. "What hurts is damage, not lying," he said. "In 1992 the Tory 'tax bombshell' charge worked against us because people said 'higher taxes will damage us'. But Tony Blair is not a scary politician, there is no Labour secret agenda, that's why they have to accuse him of being a liar. But it doesn't work."

He added: "People will elect liars who run the economy well. Labour must prove the Tories policy will push up interest rates. That damages people."

Labour officials point to polls showing that negative campaigning is increasingly unpopular with voters. The most substantial study of political advertising in the 2001 election, undertaken by David Sanders and Pippa Norris, concluded: "The comparison of attack broadcasts by Conservative and Labour shows that the results backfired, as both had unintended consequences of increasing support for their major opponent."

At the same time, deep down Labour fears "going negative" may work. It is especially effective if it plays into a live issue, and resonates with what voters already feel about the person under attack.

The most recent example was in the US presidential election last year, when John Kerry's failure to respond to allegations made by the Swift Boat Veterans destroyed his credibility. The veterans' ads worked because they tapped into a sense that Mr Kerry had a "character issue" and a record of flip-flopping on important decisions. Like the best negative campaigns, they undercut the candidate on his strongest ground, in Mr Kerry's case patriotism and war record.

British elections have been littered with attack adverts. In 1987, Labour ran a string of attack adverts in newspapers, with slogans such as: "Under the Tories your child's education could depend on just one book - your cheque book".

Lord Philip Gould subsequently explained: "Advertising is best at attacking the enemy rather than putting forward a consistent viewpoint. Our theme was that we care: our advertising said the Conservatives did not."

There is a large body of academic literature on negative advertising, with some of the leading authors arguing that the practice tends to depress voter turnout. They say political consultants know this, and use negative campaigning for this very purpose.

As independent voters are driven away by all the negativity, the voting public is reduced to its partisan extremes.

America 1988
The case of Willie Horton

The campaign
Convicted murderer Willie Horton, released from prison for 48 hours under a Massachusetts state law signed by the Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis, went on to commit a rape. Campaigners for the Republican George Bush Sr wanted to undermine Mr Dukakis's record as Massachusetts governor since his record was his strong suit, but feared a backlash over negative campaigning. Instead, an independent Republican group's advert in 1988 blamed Mr Dukakis for releasing a convicted murderer.

The verdict
The advert appealed to white fears of being attacked by black men, and many Democrats saw it as a contributing cause to Dukakis's crushing defeat at the hands of George Bush, the current president's father.

Britain 1997
The demon eyes of Tony Blair

The campaign
The demon eyes advert, sanctioned by John Major, was hailed by the advertising journal Campaign for playing successfully on public doubts about Tony Blair and achieved the equivalent of £5m worth of free publicity on the back of a £125,000 spend.

The advert was described as unacceptable by the Advertising Standards Authority, who asked the agency M&C Saatchi to withdraw it on the grounds that it was dishonest and sinister. Campaign claimed the advert "in classic style picks up on a nagging doubt about whether [Mr Blair] is sincere".

The verdict
A book, Explaining Labour's Landslide, argued the Conservative's whole campaign had been disastrous. Research found the public dislikes negative campaigning - nearly four times as many electors said the "demon eyes" campaign made them more likely to vote Labour as said it made them less likely to do so.

The Tories later admitted the campaign had not worked since the voters did not regard New Labour as a threat to British stability, or a return to old-style socialism.

Australia 2001
'We decide who comes here'

The campaign
Australian prime minister John Howard famously used gun boats to repel the Norwegian boat Tampa claiming it contained 433 Afghan asylum seekers who had to be repelled. It was alleged that families had thrown their children into the sea to blackmail their way into the country. The allegation was proved false but it inspired Howard's campaign slogan: "We decide who will come into this country." Australian politics has always been tough, but this was one of the toughest yet. He carried the majority of the Australian people with him as he thumbed his nose at international norms in handling refugees, and gave up on previous legal obligations.

The verdict
The episode not only assured the government of victory in the November election. It is also altered the balance of forces in Australia in a fundamental way. His critics claimed he realised that he could appeal directly to popular instinct and bypass the kind of fussy moral arguments advanced by the educated, left-leaning section of society his government called the "elites".