Luke Tryl is Director of More in Common. He is a former Director of the New Schools Network, Director of Strategy at Ofsted, and a former Special Adviser.
Having a strong claim to being the world’s oldest political party, the Conservatives have repeatedly demonstrated that when it comes to campaign imagery, they are masters of adaptation.
From iconic “Labour isn’t working” and “Labour’s tax bombshell” posters, to Ed Miliband perched in Alex Salmond’s pocket and Boris Johnson quite literally bulldozing a Brexit Wall, the Tories have shown they know how to tap into the public psyche.
Where then does the Conservatives’ recent tweet (which showed BBC newsreader Maryam Moshiri giving the camera the middle finger (in a private joke with her production crew) below the slogan “Labour when you ask for their plans to tackle illegal migration.”) fit into that picture?
Is it a shrewd recognition that the boundaries of acceptable imagery have changed? An embrace of the maxim “all publicity is good publicity”? Or is it evidence the party has fallen foul of the mistake that more often befalls those on the left: forgetting that Twitter is not Britain?
The case for the controversial advert goes something like this: while some people might dislike it, most won’t decide their vote based on an aversion to swearing. Instead, the very fact that it is outrageous means more people talk about it – which then focuses attention on Labour’s immigration stance. It has the added bonus of riling progressives, who in turn then amplify the message.
We saw something similar in 2019 when the Conservatives engaged in so-called “shitposting”: deliberately bad adverts that sparked engagement through ridicule. One advert about “getting Brexit done” was written in comic sans, the font most popular in primary schools, and was shared far and wide as a result.
This recent post certainly got engagement – at the last count over 17 million views on X (Twitter) alone, surpassing the organic reach of most campaign messaging. It got a further airing across the media, even giving Michael Gove the opportunity to press home the attack on Labour’s immigration policies on the Sunday shows.
But there is a counter argument. The 2019 adverts may have been crude, but they weren’t offensive (unless you were a graphic designer).
We know that working-class swing voters in particular think that politicians swearing on official channels goes against the rules of decency and fair play. The sight of politicians engaging in playground tactics while voters struggle with bills and waiting lists is hardly likely to endear the Conservative Party to voters either.
On top of this, what worked with Boris Johnson and his more carefree persona is unlikely to work for Rishi Sunak, who is instead respected for his diligent work ethic and grown-up style, a reputation which this sort of advert risks undermining.
So, which is true? Did the post make for an important talking point, or did it push the boundaries of acceptability too far? More in the Common polled the public to try and find out. What we found might make CCHQ strategists consider a rethink going forward.
Overall, by a margin of almost seven to one, voters felt that it was inappropriate rather than appropriate for the party to post the image and message. This verdict – that the post was inappropriate – spanned across all sections of the public: Red Wall, Blue Wall, and Tory base alike.
Of course, it is possible the advert still had the intended psychological impact and wounded Labour even if the public disapproved of the swearing. To test that we dug further beyond approval of the advert into how it affected the favourability of the two main parties.
Here again the news is not good for the Conservatives: 44 per cent of the public said the advert made them think less favourably of the Conservatives, just 11 per cent more so.
More importantly, what about Labour? We did find that the public were very narrowly more likely to think less favourably by 18 per cent to 16 percent about Labour having seen the advert. But that slight margin hides significant differences between key voter groups.
Looking just at Conservative 2019 voters who are now planning on voting Labour (the group the Tories must win back if they are to get another majority) they were both more likely to feel less favourably about the Conservatives upon seeing the adverts, by a 52 per cent to five per cent margin, and were actually likely to feel more favourably about Labour, by a margin of 31 per cent to six per cent.
The group most likely to feel less favourably towards Labour after seeing the post weren’t Tory to Labour defectors. No, it was Conservatives 2019 voters who now plan on voting Reform UK. This group (by a 31 per cent to two per cent margin) felt less positively about Labour after seeing the advert. But what Reform voters think about the Labour Party doesn’t really matter to the Conservative’s electoral prospects.
Taken together then, it seems not only do people disapprove of the style of advert in general, but where it has had the intended effect, it has been with entirely the wrong audience – risking driving swing voters further into the hands of the Labour party.
The good news is that this is unlikely to be a game changer and will likely be quickly forgotten. But it does offer a warning to the Conservatives that, even in the digital wild west, not everything goes. Tory strategists would do well to look to Ron De Santis’ much hyped campaign which has flopped in part because it ended up being too X/Twitter obsessed, using memes that made sense to the very online but seemed frankly bizarre to anyone else.
The Tories should remember that sometimes the classic playbook is best. The best advert this month came from Labour, who posted a simple graph that showed NHS waiting lists falling under labour and rising under the Conservatives. That ensured that the message – longer waiting lists under the Tories – hit home.
Of course, the Conservatives know this. The infamous post wasn’t shared beyond X; look at adverts the party are running on Facebook (where you are far more likely to meet swing voters) and you see much more of a clinical focus on Starmer’s positions (or lack thereof) rather than swearing.
But starting election year 15 points behind, the Conservatives don’t have the luxury of being able to squander airtime, and need to use every second to try close the gap. Rows over unpopular social media posts don’t help that.
Tory MPs would do well to tell CCHQ they want to see less of the risque or downright rude and dare I say it get back to the campaigning basics.
Luke Tryl is Director of More in Common. He is a former Director of the New Schools Network, Director of Strategy at Ofsted, and a former Special Adviser.
Having a strong claim to being the world’s oldest political party, the Conservatives have repeatedly demonstrated that when it comes to campaign imagery, they are masters of adaptation.
From iconic “Labour isn’t working” and “Labour’s tax bombshell” posters, to Ed Miliband perched in Alex Salmond’s pocket and Boris Johnson quite literally bulldozing a Brexit Wall, the Tories have shown they know how to tap into the public psyche.
Where then does the Conservatives’ recent tweet (which showed BBC newsreader Maryam Moshiri giving the camera the middle finger (in a private joke with her production crew) below the slogan “Labour when you ask for their plans to tackle illegal migration.”) fit into that picture?
Is it a shrewd recognition that the boundaries of acceptable imagery have changed? An embrace of the maxim “all publicity is good publicity”? Or is it evidence the party has fallen foul of the mistake that more often befalls those on the left: forgetting that Twitter is not Britain?
The case for the controversial advert goes something like this: while some people might dislike it, most won’t decide their vote based on an aversion to swearing. Instead, the very fact that it is outrageous means more people talk about it – which then focuses attention on Labour’s immigration stance. It has the added bonus of riling progressives, who in turn then amplify the message.
We saw something similar in 2019 when the Conservatives engaged in so-called “shitposting”: deliberately bad adverts that sparked engagement through ridicule. One advert about “getting Brexit done” was written in comic sans, the font most popular in primary schools, and was shared far and wide as a result.
This recent post certainly got engagement – at the last count over 17 million views on X (Twitter) alone, surpassing the organic reach of most campaign messaging. It got a further airing across the media, even giving Michael Gove the opportunity to press home the attack on Labour’s immigration policies on the Sunday shows.
But there is a counter argument. The 2019 adverts may have been crude, but they weren’t offensive (unless you were a graphic designer).
We know that working-class swing voters in particular think that politicians swearing on official channels goes against the rules of decency and fair play. The sight of politicians engaging in playground tactics while voters struggle with bills and waiting lists is hardly likely to endear the Conservative Party to voters either.
On top of this, what worked with Boris Johnson and his more carefree persona is unlikely to work for Rishi Sunak, who is instead respected for his diligent work ethic and grown-up style, a reputation which this sort of advert risks undermining.
So, which is true? Did the post make for an important talking point, or did it push the boundaries of acceptability too far? More in the Common polled the public to try and find out. What we found might make CCHQ strategists consider a rethink going forward.
Overall, by a margin of almost seven to one, voters felt that it was inappropriate rather than appropriate for the party to post the image and message. This verdict – that the post was inappropriate – spanned across all sections of the public: Red Wall, Blue Wall, and Tory base alike.
Of course, it is possible the advert still had the intended psychological impact and wounded Labour even if the public disapproved of the swearing. To test that we dug further beyond approval of the advert into how it affected the favourability of the two main parties.
Here again the news is not good for the Conservatives: 44 per cent of the public said the advert made them think less favourably of the Conservatives, just 11 per cent more so.
More importantly, what about Labour? We did find that the public were very narrowly more likely to think less favourably by 18 per cent to 16 percent about Labour having seen the advert. But that slight margin hides significant differences between key voter groups.
Looking just at Conservative 2019 voters who are now planning on voting Labour (the group the Tories must win back if they are to get another majority) they were both more likely to feel less favourably about the Conservatives upon seeing the adverts, by a 52 per cent to five per cent margin, and were actually likely to feel more favourably about Labour, by a margin of 31 per cent to six per cent.
The group most likely to feel less favourably towards Labour after seeing the post weren’t Tory to Labour defectors. No, it was Conservatives 2019 voters who now plan on voting Reform UK. This group (by a 31 per cent to two per cent margin) felt less positively about Labour after seeing the advert. But what Reform voters think about the Labour Party doesn’t really matter to the Conservative’s electoral prospects.
Taken together then, it seems not only do people disapprove of the style of advert in general, but where it has had the intended effect, it has been with entirely the wrong audience – risking driving swing voters further into the hands of the Labour party.
The good news is that this is unlikely to be a game changer and will likely be quickly forgotten. But it does offer a warning to the Conservatives that, even in the digital wild west, not everything goes. Tory strategists would do well to look to Ron De Santis’ much hyped campaign which has flopped in part because it ended up being too X/Twitter obsessed, using memes that made sense to the very online but seemed frankly bizarre to anyone else.
The Tories should remember that sometimes the classic playbook is best. The best advert this month came from Labour, who posted a simple graph that showed NHS waiting lists falling under labour and rising under the Conservatives. That ensured that the message – longer waiting lists under the Tories – hit home.
Of course, the Conservatives know this. The infamous post wasn’t shared beyond X; look at adverts the party are running on Facebook (where you are far more likely to meet swing voters) and you see much more of a clinical focus on Starmer’s positions (or lack thereof) rather than swearing.
But starting election year 15 points behind, the Conservatives don’t have the luxury of being able to squander airtime, and need to use every second to try close the gap. Rows over unpopular social media posts don’t help that.
Tory MPs would do well to tell CCHQ they want to see less of the risque or downright rude and dare I say it get back to the campaigning basics.