From Tony Blair as Bambi to William Hague with Thatcher’s hair, political adverts are often incredibly silly. So why do they keep getting made?
I have no strong views about Keir Starmer’s attack ad, in which he accuses Rishi Sunak of letting paedophiles walk free. I have managed to keep abreast of the objections, though. Some think he shouldn’t have personalised it, since Sunak has only been in parliament since 2015, and paedophiles have been walking free since, oh, ages before that. Others think that Starmer has opened the floodgates for the Conservatives to be extremely personal and vindictive against him. This is a rather quaint and sweet, and also stupid, view of the Tories, that they never say anything unfair until someone has hurt their feelings first.
The problem with personalised electioneering is not that it’s unfair – someone has to be held responsible for government decisions, and it may as well be the prime minister. No, it’s because it’s daft. Attack ads start off understood only by the four people in the room where they were devised. I bet even the graphic designer responsible for photoshopping Margaret Thatcher’s hair on to William Hague’s head in 2001 wasn’t completely sure what the point was – is he masquerading as Thatcher, but is actually different from her? Or is he pretending to be different, when he’s actually Thatcher 2.0? Or is it just better when prime ministers have hair? Never mind!
Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
