In the recent campaign over the European Constitution Referendum, I've noticed a lot of ad hominem attacks from the Labour Party. Apparently it's now an acceptable form of argument. Take, for example, the Labour party's advert in favour of the European Constitution. All that it shows is five pictures of the most recent Tory leaders. Whuh? And the Labour Party Political Broadcast? Nothing but an anti-Conservative tirade. It was laughable.

So what does everyone think of this kind of politics? What's the situation like where you are? And is there any way of solving this problem?

It's always been a kind of politics, because demagoguery is often more easy and more effective than actual stances. I find it unacceptable, it runs rampant across the pond too, but there is little we can do in the matter.

Awwww... it's so CUTE! The ickle Brits have finally discovered the joys of smear campaigns! They're getting more and more American every day!

...

Yeah, the last Saskatchewan provincial election was pretty terrible. One giant smear campaign by the leading New Democrats against the opposition Saskatchewan party. Made me ashamed to be a New Democrat supporter, really. I agree with them politically, but it wasn't a very clean campaign, and that disgusted me. Reminded me of the ads that are run on American TV stations at election times.

Really makes me want to whap something.

I love American campaign commercials. The ironies and stupidity of the ads are hilarious. They are just plain sad.

/spam

Boy howdy!

"[Insert name of political opponent here] is an evil evil person. They would stop at nothing. They even tried to smear [insert name of political ally here] with libelous statements! How dare they! They must worship Satan!"

</spam>

Oh god. Yes, they usually play the soundtrack of some horror-film in the background and speak in an incredibly dramatic voice of the sheer wickedness of the candidate in question. It's just silly.

In the last local election in my little corner of the world, a candidate who used a horrible smear tactic against the other candidate actually lost because people were disgusted. So it works both ways.

That's very true. It's a fine line that one has to walk. To gain power, you must convince the public that the opponent is a bad, bad person... however, if you cross that line, the public will react very badly to you.

I'm feeling oddly Machiavellian today...

Things like that are a symptom of when a state has become a two-party system. When there are only two choices, it's easier to discredit the alternative than it is to convince the electorate to vote for you on your own merits.

THIS makes my skin crawl. Blair (the funky vicar) has been the first to actually buy into the totally superficial 'give'm punch and pie and they're yours' American style popularity contest politics ... When the little weed came out in front of the cameras, in Bush ranch in Texas (or something) with his black jacket, black shirt, not tie, black jeans and (for crying out loud) with his goddamm thumbs hooked in his goddamm trousers, nipples spread and 'surveying the scene' like John wayne, standing next to big-brother bush, I actually did have to go for a bucket.

Smear campaigns, like comparitive advertising, are against common decency and a direct insult to the intelligence of the populace. It has to stop. Cockmongers who can't come up with something better than "Look at him, he's smelly" are not qualified to be in a position of responsibility. Sack'em now.


Music and politics are too serious to be given to businessmen.

Indeed, it's not a pretty form of political campaigning... and it amounts to little more than blatent slander. Fox News has a habit of bagging out Democrats for their character before they even get into their policies, and in the worst cases they don't even bother.

But I'm afraid that character does play a part in politics, whether we like it or not. For sure, sexual preferance and basically everything that doesn't relate to politics should be out of the debate, but questioning someone's character on legitimate grounds shouldn't be looked on in the same eye as the rest.

This is very true. If a person is an embezzler or a fraud, it's hardly someone you want running your country. Like most of the Saskatchewan Progressive Conservative caucus (which was mostly arrested and whatnot after the scandals came out... oh, tenish years ago).

Political name-calling is petty and juvinile. It's digusting to read through history books and have just as much written about the pre-election mudslinging as what the canidates actually stood for. True, character should play a role in who you elect, but I don't concider the names I was called as a child a good judge of my character, so why should I care what grown men call each other during an election? This kind of dodgy compeigning also seems to be meant to allow canidates to hold an ambiguous position on controversial subjects so as to get a wider range of votes, by only saying what's wrong with the other person but never what's right about them.

If accusing people of embezzelment and fraud in a smear campaign is an accepted method of trying to get elected, then it immediately becomes valueless. Bush is obviously in to the whole thing for those exact reasons and yet still got voted in. People just don't know what 'criteria' means anymore ...

Is there any 'good politics'...

Any intelligent voter will see through it anyway, so kind of a moot point. Apart from which I don't vote for any of the 'active' players. Let them play their games, it's all good to have a giggle at.

Actually we've had smear campagining down to a fine art for a few hundered years before America was even collonised.

[probably incorrect history lesson] One of the most read of the recorded examples is Shakespear's 'Richard the Third'... where (contrary to historical evidence) the Yorkish king Richard is partrayed as a nephew killing sadist with possible rapist tendencies... this at a time during the Tudor monarchy where such portrayal assists in the public's acceptance of the Tudor line. However, this kind of politicking has been going on long before even that. The Roman Empire being one of the earliest and most prolific to record such manouvering, even the middle kingdom of the Egyptian empire bringing up examples of smear campaigns in the royal courts... [/probably incorrect history lesson]

Perhaps you're right in one thing though. We are getting far more like you Americans in our presentation of politics, especially under our current PM's administration. It has't quite gotten as bad as the blatant and biased fox network approach, but given time I'm sure we'll catch up.
______________

Back on topic...

There is a fine and delicate line between a Smear Campaign, and the factual presentation of political (or other) wrongdoing.

The test you could adopt is:

1) Is the information accurate (has it been exaggerated or even made up?)

2) Is it important for the public to be given the information? Should the public know this - will it help them make an informed decision as to whom they are electing?

3) Is it relevant to the election / office being contested?
______________

If someone has broken the law then any allegation should be made to the relevant authorities. Using this as a tool to win an ellection should onlly occur early on (so as to allow for a replacement candidate and only if the authorities have failled to act).

Playing on soicietal or even communal prejudices is totally reprehensible - eg. trying to 'out' someone in the hope that the homophobic vote will swing it against a gay/bi candidate. The UK tabloid rag the Sun - once doctored a photograph of a Labour candidate in a marginal bye-election during the mid 80's. They made the male candidate look more feminine (in the photo they printed of him) and loosely implied that he was gay. He lost the vote. Sickening really, but that's the Scum for you.

Fortunately, the British public generally react badly to personal attacks. This Conservative poster backfired as a number of people complained to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Coming from one of the two forum anarchists this is going to sound a little stereotypical... but, politics is the way current society is run, I don't like it, but if you support stateism, and most people do, politics must be 'good'. It does exist, not much granted, and if we are going to live with governments, we should make the bastards honest. Good politics is around, but generally everyone ends up playing dirty because it's an easier way up the political ladder. In the end though, the only way you can get up top, change things the way you want to change them, and then stay where you are to make sure that your work isn't undone, is by being honest, and by extension, representing your people as best you can. We should hold them to higher standards, their failure is ours too.