Might 18 Doughty Street end up poisoning the well of British Politics?

Recently the people of Peckham chose their Conservative candidate to fight the next general election in an open primary and hustings. The man the Conservative party chose to preside over the evening was the flamboyant Stephan Shakespeare – former educationalist, campaign manager for Lord Archer’s London mayoral bid, co-founder of Yougov, and now Internet television pioneer.

As he did with YouGov, Stephan Shakespeare is harnessing the power of the Internet to break new ground – this time as the financial backer and head of online TV channel 18 Doughty Street. Mainly a benign and relatively safe News 24 for politicians, Doughty Street has recently branched out in to new territory – the American style personal attack ad. First there was a subtle attack on Gordon Brown’s policies, then last week there was a much sharper, more blatant, more personal attack pulling apart Ken Livingstone’s character.

18 Doughty Street’s attack on Ken Livingstone, artistic though it was, had a basic flaw. The message – ‘Ken’s a commie-sympathising left-winger’ shocked no-one. The public know what he is, and Londoners voted him in anyway. Though the message was weak, in the process of stating the obvious Shakespeare’s video producers set out to drop a bucket of shit over Livingstone’s head, embracing the near-fanatical polarity of American political discourse. ‘Ken has been to Cuba – he cares about Cubans more than you’ stands up about as convincingly as saying ‘David Cameron was photographed hugging a husky – he wants to have sex with a dog.’

The principle of attack ads is simple – keep them short, keep them cheap, make plenty of them, throw lots of shit, and a little bit of shit sticks each time. But then inevitably the political parties adapt, and before you know it there’s shit flying in all directions. After a time politicians are standing in so much shit that the public can’t stand to be near any of them – we lose, the public lose, democracy loses.

Why Stephan Shakespeare believes that British politics will be improved by running personal attack ads, I don’t really understand. He probably doesn’t believe it – his goal is doubtless less lofty: he wants a Conservative government. That means winning an election, and if Labour and the Lib Dems are too slow to adapt to his ads he can prepare them safe in the knowledge that he’s the only one heading in to the next election ready-armed with a bucket of shit. He may have the upper hand for only one election, but in the present political environment one is enough.

The real danger in 18 Doughty Street’s new ads is their ability to sidestep election law. If a political party wants to run a TV ad in an election, it can’t – it’s confined to the Party Political Broadcast. Stephan Shakespeare on the other hand, though embraced by the Conservative party – as in Peckham – is not a Conservative party employee. So long as he doesn’t collude with his party, he is free to use his own money to act as the unleashed attack dog of the Tory party at the next election if he so chooses – rolling out as many films as his wallet can stretch to.

18 Doughty Street’s first attack ad was a national policy attack. It’s taken very little time for Shakespeare’s men to produce a video on a regional level – across London. Imagine what would happen if he went to the next level – local – in an election. In many parts of the country a Conservative sympathetic local press could fall over themselves to give coverage to locally targeted video attacks.The Liberal Democrats must decide how we will respond to this potentially poisonous new practice. Some may call for an air of aloof disdain, others may call for the regulation of online political ads in elections, still more will say that it’s a free country, and if a wealthy man wants to use his money to influence political debate and doesn’t seek to do it in secret then he’s free to do so. Personally, I favour that latter argument. In a liberal democracy, a man (no matter how short-sighted) must be free to attempt to poison the well of political discourse – but his opponents must be equally free to try and stop him.

There seem to be three courses open to us. The first is to hope that the Livingstone ad was a one one off, pray that Shakespeare comes to his senses and we don’t see the like of it again. The second is to beat him at his own game and prepare our own bucket of shit – we have, I believe, equally wealthy and net-savvy backers. The third is to forensically rebut each and every attack he makes against us.

At the last election Channel 4 ran ‘Factcheck’ – a rebuttal service that operated both for and against all parties, seeking to cut through claim and counter-claim and bring out the truth as they saw it. Come the next election, we could have our own version of Factcheck.

Parties are often reluctant to rebut for fear that doing so may give a story legs that it wouldn’t otherwise have. That’s a valid concern – but there’s nothing stopping the party from, say, having a page on its website where it forensically rebuts opposition attacks, without fanfare. As the election continues, we will have a long page demonstrating how low our opponents are prepared to stoop to issue misleading information about our party.

Of course, there is a fourth option – in many ways the easiest to implement, and perhaps the most appealing. Do nothing, and in the process take the hit. Hope that Shakespeare will turn his fire more on Labour than he does on us. It’s a deeply risky strategy – particularly if Doughty Street does indeed ‘go local’ with its video campaigns. Imagine if David Rendle faced such ads when trying to regain Newbury – or Sue Doughty in Guildford. For the sake of our talented candidates in Tory marginals, inaction should not be an option.

Read more by .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.


  • Angus J Huck 21st Feb '07 - 12:08am

    It says something about the sleaziness of British politics that a man like Stephan Shakespeare, who made such an ass of himself backing Jeffrey Archer, can reinvent himself as a serious player.

    Shakespeare does have to be careful, though. It is an offence to publish false statements of fact relating to the personal conduct or character of a candidate during an election (not quite analogous to defamation, since it is necessary to prove fault). As his chum, Archer, found out, it is sometimes not possible to buy one’s way out of clink.

    Negative campaigning does, as you have accurately observed, depress turnout, and that tends to benefit parties of the right.

    Ignoring attacks is rarely successful. But responding to them may be equally perilous, because the attack – rather than the respective merits of the parties – becomes the dominating issue.

    Throwing mud ourselves is dangerous, because we will never be completely squeaky clean. It will always be possible to find something unpleasant to say about some of our candidates. Tories are far worse human beings than ourselves, but we’re still not perfect.

    If the UK really does go down this road, who is going to choose politics as a career?

  • The rules are also much more relaxed than on parties, so there’s much greater scope to hide when your money has come from if you operate as a third party.

  • As I understand it, that was always the point of Doughty St – to do opinionated news & to abandon the slightly faux neutrality of current british broadcasters. That doesn’t mean that such pieces all have to flow from the same political perspective, or from anyone’s personal agenda. That depends on who chooses to engage with it.

  • The reason that mud sticks is, in part, that the public has a very low opinion of politicians and is therefore predisposed to believe negative things about them – the “you are only in it for yourself” response. In my experience there are very few people who go into politics with the primary aim of doing anything but working for the community, and the more that negative campaigning takes a hold the less likely it is that people of integrity will wish to involve themselves in politics: there are councils where the level of personal abuse between the parties is such that I would not be politically active if I lived there. Once negative campaigning becomes entrenched it is virtually impossible to regain public respect for the political process.

  • It's a two-horse race 21st Feb '07 - 8:46pm

    Why are the Tories selecting a candidate for Peckham – is it a target seat for them? All very strange.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • User AvatarDaniel Walker 17th Oct - 10:18am
    @Catherine Jane Crosland "isn’t exactly a candidate for the Nobel peace prize" Leaving aside some dodgy winners of the Peace Prize (Kissinger springs to mind),...
  • User AvatarJane Reed 17th Oct - 9:31am
  • User AvatarArnold Kiel 17th Oct - 9:00am
    Catherine Jane Crosland, being a pacifist and against all weapons is an interesting and legitimate standpoint. Believing in the necessity of a defence-capability is equally...
  • User AvatarRuth Bright 17th Oct - 9:00am
    Katharine - you have brought about a valuable and moving discussion here but it is not enough for the emphasis to be on a victim...
  • User AvatarArnold Kiel 17th Oct - 8:41am
    Not only was the referendum a victory of the past over the future, but most of the victorious felt also protected from its consequences through...
  • User AvatarCatherine Jane Crosland 17th Oct - 7:36am
    "The greatest man-made force for peace and progress in human history"?? Matthew, even apart from your non inclusive choice of language, this sort of wildly...