Today I noticed a piece of political communication that raised my eyebrows: this one-day poster campaign by the Tories to highlight Labour's support for the government's 1% cap on public sector wage rises (a cut, in real terms) but opposition to the government's 1% cap on rises in benefits.
You might think I'm being pedantic (it is my job, after all) but I think what they've come up with doesn't quite come off. When you have as few words as this to play with, as will always be the case in a billboard poster, the message needs to be totally unambiguous, and I don't think this is.
The 'by' makes it fall down: it suggests Labour support putting up benefits by an amount greater than workers' salaries, which obviously isn't the case. On realising it's not the case, the floating voter on the Clapham omnibus might then find himself wondering why the Tories had put up such a misleading poster, and ask himself what else he can't trust them to be straight about. It also raises the question: which workers?
My suggested wording (assuming that mentioning a 'cap' would be too Westminster villagey) would be as follows: 'Labour want to cut public sector wages. They don't want to cut benefits', perhaps followed by 'Only the Conservatives stand up for hardworking people.' This leaves out that the government also want to cut public sector wages, so is perhaps a bit more ruthless, but also I think a bit clearer. Or they could just have gone with 'Today Labour are voting to increase benefits more than public sector wages', or better still "more than nurses' and teachers' wages", if it has to be a one-day-only ad.
Commentators on left and right seem to agree that this is an effective message (as long as the Tories don't overdo it). It might be a smart political strategy — and if they really can divide the country into 'strivers' and 'skivers' in self-identifying strivers' minds they'll have pulled off quite a propaganda coup — but tactically I'd say they've missed a bit of trick with this effort.
Am I missing the point entirely by trying to deconstruct the dog whistle? Possibly: my straw man in Clapham might well not get as far as realising that, taken literally, the poster is nonsense. The strategy, then, relies on confusing voters more than convincing them. That might work: but why take the risk when a clearer but no less convincing alternative exists?
Am I missing the point entirely by trying to deconstruct the dog whistle? Possibly: my straw man in Clapham might well not get as far as realising that, taken literally, the poster is nonsense. The strategy, then, relies on confusing voters more than convincing them. That might work: but why take the risk when a clearer but no less convincing alternative exists?
No comments:
Post a Comment