Labour's political adverts: Weapon? Or Boomerang?
An analysis of the Daily Mail comments page reveals problems with Labour's attack ads strategy.
The Labour Party has found itself mired in controversy after deploying personalised attack ads to highlight the government's track record on crime (see above).
The adverts are problematic because fears about child exploitation have been exploited in recent years particularly by hard right political movements.*
The result is that conspiracies that were previously confined to the subterranean depths of the internet have risen to the surface and become part of parliamentary discourse.
So it’s not surprising that people were angry that Labour seemed to be leaning into the same tropes. However, Labour advisors are sticking to their guns. And Keir Starmer responded to the complaints with a “double down” opinion piece for the Daily Mail.
How did Labour’s message land with Daily Mail readers?
A wise and very online person once remarked that one should “never go below the line” and read the comments underneath online newspaper articles. But I disagree. There’s actually a treasure trove of useful things to learn from a deep dive into the murky waters of newspaper comment sections.
I wondered if I could learn something by using a bit of code to analyse the discourse underneath Starmer’s piece.
The recent “Red Shift” report by the think tank Labour Together suggests two segments of the Labour base that might be an amenable audience for Labour’s messages.
The "Patriotic Left" (aka Red Wall voters); and
"Disillusioned Suburbans" (aka "Stevenage Woman")
Of all the voter segments identified in Red Shift, these are the ones most likely to be concerned about crime. That said, the “Patriotic Left” are far more hardline in terms of their law and order / authoritarian values. I’m sure many of them read the Daily Mail.
Disillusioned Suburbans are a different matter. I recognise this voting persona from my own experience with focus groups. It is fairly common in these groups to encounter people who say they have switched off from politics and find it hard to listen to the news. According to the Red Shift research these people lean slightly to the right on social values. They are not racist and can see the benefits of immigration. yet they remain pessimistic about the capacity of politics and “big ideas” to change things for the good. However, it’s possible they can be persuaded to back practical progressive policies.
Unlike the Patriotic Left, by definition it’s unlikely that we would find many Disillusioned Suburbans commenting on news stories. That said, I think these two are the voting blocs of most interest to Labour at this moment in time.
Finally, it’s important to point out that Daily Mail reader commentators aren’t the same as a methodically sorted focus group. But Labour strategists clearly feel they can reach Labour-curious voters by writing in the Mail. So there’s some justification in assessing how Labour’s message are received in that context.
Findings: Keir’s op-ed
Keir Starmer’s op-ed was 615 words long. Words like “people”, “crime/criminal”, “labour” were among the highest frequency terms.
In the piece Starmer leaned into his background as a former Director of Public Prosecution. In rhetorical terms, this was Starmer signalling something important about his ethos: his authority, trustworthiness and track record on crime.
He said:
“As a former director of public prosecutions, my life's work has been about making our country safer and more secure,” - Keir Starmer
He mentioned “Rishi Sunak” twice in the piece, on both occasions to deliver the same message that the Prime Minister:
“and successive Tory governments have let criminals get away with it…”
As opinion pieces go it was unremarkable while it made fair criticisms of the government’s record on crime.
What did Daily Mail readers think?
Below is a word cloud and table depicting the highest frequency words used by Daily Mail readers in response to Starmer’s op-ed.
“Starmer” and “Labour” were high frequency words used by Daily Mail commenters. But this tells us little, what we need is some context about the way those high salience words were used. To do this I applied a tool called “key words in context” to delve deeper.
Daily Mail reader “key words in context”
Meaning comes alive when words are seen in context and, as expected, a vivid picture emerged when I analysed the context surrounding the high frequency words listed above. I reviewed the comments and coded them as positive (+), negative (-) and neither (+/-).
(Note: there is an inevitable element of subjective interpretation when coding sentiment. I am not convinced that computers are very good at it, given that most sentiment analysis tools in use today were developed for use on things like Amazon product reviews and search engines. Regardless of scare stories about AI, humans remain the most effective and nuanced interpreters of human sentiment.
In summary, my analysis found:
86% of comments that mentioned the word “Starmer” were negative (101 / 117)
“Starmer” was by far the most frequently used word, yet the comments were almost entirely negative. Below is a screen grab of some of the comments. Daily Mail readers do not seem convinced by Starmer’s background as a former Director of Public Prosecutions.
82% of sentences that mentioned the word “Labour” were negative (74/ 90)
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Daily Mail readers don’t like the Labour Party. Nonetheless, one has to assume that Labour strategists see some value in reaching out to them. Yet the comments are not great for the party.
Around 43% of comments that mention the word “Tories” were positive about Labour.
A slightly more balanced picture emerges when Daily Mail readers were considering the Conservative Party’s track record on crime.
There is certainly a consistent theme of criticism of the Conservatives framed around the amount of time they have been in power. Perhaps there are some green shoots for Labour strategists in this?
Some other findings from my analysis found:
67% of sentences that mentioned the word “criminals” were negative about Labour
53% of sentences that mentioned the word “rights” were negative about Labour
In conclusion
On this specific issue, Labour needs a different messenger if they want to influence Daily Mail readers
On the basis of this analysis Starmer doesn’t seem to be an effective messenger to Daily Mail readers on issues relating to child protection. Perhaps a more effective messenger for Labour on an issue like this would be someone with an unimpeachable ethos. For example, Nazir Afzal OBE, the lawyer who has successfully prosecuted child protection cases.
Comments about Labour were overwhelmingly negative
The Daily Mail along with the majority of UK newspapers is a very right wing newspaper. It’s fair to say that Labour strategists don’t have a wide spectrum of ideological bedfellows when it comes to getting their message out in the media. Yet the Mail’s values - and the values of its readers - are not uniform. For example, on issues that highlight the dramatic decline of the UK under conservative austerity, one can see ways in which the Mail and its readers might be a partner for Labour. But on the specific issue of child protection, it’s hard to see what the payback is for the party.
A focus on the amount of time the Conservatives have held power looks more promising than personalised attack ads
The picture among Daily Mail readers seemed much more nuanced in Labour’s favour when commenters focussed on the amount of time the Conservatives have been in power. Perhaps messaging that focusses on “13 years” is likely to be more effective among this group than personalised attacks.
*For a really good academic discussion of online far right movements and their use of different rhetorical methods, I recommend this excellent podcast series led by Alan Finlayson at the University of EastAnglia.