It’s a solid rule of campaigning that you shouldn’t go negative on an opponent who poses no threat to you; after all in doing so you stand to lose a lot more than you could ever gain. With that in mind it’s worth considering the decision of the Labour Party in Crewe and Nantwich to attack Miss Great Britain title holder Gemma Garrett for apparently spelling ‘Britain’ incorrectly in the condolence book for Gwyneth Dunwoody. Not only did Labour’s attack provide Gemma with the opportunity to get media coverage she otherwise wouldn’t have received, but it also allowed her to challenge Labour’s implicit attack that she’s simply a ‘dumb blonde’:

“This is precisely the low, petty and underhanded sort of action which contributes to the overall impression that politics is a sleazy and grubby business. It is ironic that Labour, which is supposed to cherish the rights of women, created this cheap, wrong and stereotypical image of me intended to suggest that any girl who happened to be blonde and to look good cannot spell. It is risible and sad that they have stooped to this level of personal abuse which even included a barrage of verbal abuse directed at me by party workers. It all tells me that we need a new sort of politics which will engage peoples’ interests and help turn back the dull tide of cynicism which has dogged this country’s political life for so long now.”

So in one swift move they made themselves look desperate, by attacking someone who wasn’t a threat, and, frankly, mean. As Democratic media consultant David Doak pointed out a few years ago in an article (not online) about negative attack ads:

“Be careful if an ad is too mean (making fun of someone is mean); it can tell the voter more about your client’s character than it does about your opponent’s”

I wonder what Labour’s campaign in Crewe in Nantwich is saying about their character?

[Hat tip= Darren Lilleker]