Jonathan Freedland in an article for the Guardian raises the critical subject of the right balance between positive and negative campaign messages and their effectiveness on the body politic. He does so in the context of September’s Scottish referendum over concern that the ‘NO’ campaign is increasingly characterised by fear, in spite of the fact that the overall message is ‘Better Together’.

The debate now under way has a resonance that extends beyond Scotland, touching all democratic politics. When opposing a proposal, or a government, what’s the right balance of smile and frown?

Negative messaging has a place in campaigning; politicians warn of the results that can follow certain decisions.  The worst British example of negative campaigning was in the 1964 general election when the Conservative campaign in Smethwick included an abusive, racist slur.  The Conservatives defeated the Labour incumbent.

That infamous message delivered the seat but disgusted the country. The positive message best remembered was Harold Wilson’s, ‘for Britain to prosper in the future it must embrace the white heat of the technological revolution’.  This struck a chord with voters more because of its emotional appeal for a new, more modern Britain than its factual assessment of the challenges facing British industry and economy. Wilson caught the mood of the nation and went on to win the 1964 general election.

As 22 May approaches we are right to issue our warnings about the damage that will follow if Ukip MEPs are elected and we are providing balanced positive messages about our MEPs, Europe and Britain’s future within it. However, we are challenged by the smiles (literally) of Mr. Farage.

Farage’s ability to tickle the erogenous zones of large sections of the body politic is self evident. His chummy smile is seducing those who feel neglected, angry and fearful. Farage emotionally connects with his audience who are impervious to any question about the accuracy of his ‘facts’ and the logic of his argument.

Chris Huhne today picked up on this when he wrote, ‘in politics, never ignore emotion….Ukip’s appeal has little to do with policy, and everything to do with fear of change.’

Do we still need one distinguishing positive message that will connect to hearts as well as minds? We are the party of IN, but into what exactly?

In York Nick Clegg came close to what I am still looking for, ‘Liberal Democrats are the guardians of a modern, more tolerant Britain’.

Yes we are:  should we publicly embrace being also the guardians of a more modern, more tolerant Europe? Perhaps that is what ‘being at the heart of Europe’ really means.

* Ian Jones is the Chair of North East region Candidates Committee