To regulate or not to regulate: the great political ad debate

In the UK, political parties are not allowed to broadcast ads. But that’s basically the extent of the rules around political advertising – everything else is fair game.

As a result, political ads are notoriously edgy, with personal grievances quickly becoming public as the parties take increasingly libellous – and yet largely unchallenged – potshots at one another. From the Conservative Party’s 1997 award-winning ‘Demon Eyes’ advert to the Labour Party’s 2001 ‘Be Afraid’ poster (which showed then Tory leader William Hague with Margaret Thatcher’s hair) it has long seemed that nothing was safe from attack.

More recently, the dubious claim shared on the Brexit bus – promising that the NHS would get an extra £350m a week if the UK left the EU – might not be attacking any other parties, but it certainly made an impact and got a clear message through to voters.

This year alone, political advertising controversies and so-called ‘dirty tricks’ include Labour getting backlash from MPs in their own party about controversial social media ads claiming that Rishi Sunak doesn’t want to see child abusers jailed, and Alba party posters being banned by media firm Global.

Making such inflammatory claims is an effective method of amplifying the message behind the ad as the outrage sees it being shared wider and for longer, effectively giving it a longer shelf life. With ‘fake news’ increasingly blurring the lines between conjecture, exaggeration and truth, the need for clarity seems more important than ever.

To regulate or not to regulate?

Something of an expert in the nuances of political campaigning is founder of the Political Advertising blog and long-time advertising professional, Benedict Pringle.

He believes that political advertising plays a crucial part in society, especially in the run-up to elections, adding that the content of political ads can have a “broad remit” as long as they remain “decent, honest, and truthful”.

Alba Party general secretary Chris McEleny takes a slightly freer position, advocating for the advertisement of “any legitimate political opinion”, including satire. He questions the need for any industry regulation surrounding political adverts.

Pringle firmly disagrees, arguing that the industry “needs more regulation”. Clear rules and sanctions exist in the commercial sector, implemented by watchdogs such as the Advertising Standard Authority and Ofcom, he says, so why can’t this be implemented with political advertising too?

So who is the current industry regulator? Spoiler alert – there isn’t one.

The UK’s advertising regulator, the Advertising Standards Association (ASA), does not regulate non-broadcast political ads due to concerns about impartiality and legal restrictions around the freedom of political speech, particularly around democratic elections and referendums.

McEleny says these freedom of speech concerns are still relevant, while Pringle argues that without any national regulation in place media firms are forced to make independent decisions, struggling to appease everyone while weeding out unacceptable ads.

“The current situation is far, far worse,” he says. “We’re already seeing businesses and media platforms imposing their own ad-hoc rules, which leads to complications and confusion.”

Media giants and freedom of speech

Pringle is referring, of course, to Google recently implementing its own political advertising regulations, closely followed by Meta. The platforms clearly felt an obligation to step in and do something, but without clear laws in place, media firms, advertisers and the public have been left frustrated and confused about what’s acceptable.

For his part, McEleny believes this is “fundamentally flawed”, adding that allowing media firms to take regulations into their own hands is “dangerous”, and “simply cannot represent freedom of speech”.

McEleny also highlights the extent of Global’s ad space in Scotland, which he says effectively grants the media giant the power to obstruct campaigns and parties of its choice from engaging with potential voters.

This, he argues, poses a question about the freedom of political speech around democratic elections. He cited Global’s refusal to allow the depiction of King Charles in The Alba Party’s latest rejected poster, due to its own advertising rules, contending that if the ad had supported the monarchy, it might have been permitted.

“Picking and choosing sides is dangerous,” he emphasises. “Media firms taking matters into their own hands means they get to choose the narrative.”

Are political attack ads ever reasonable?

Looking more closely at Labour’s most recent ‘problematic’ social media campaign, can it ever be okay for ads to criticise or attack political opponents?

Pringle believes it can, but says the attack must be “accurate and reasonable”, with an element of “valid reality” about the claim. Ultimately, he says, they must be factually correct.

McEleny agrees that Labour’s implication that Sunak’s sided with sex offenders was “in bad taste”. He also points out that posting it on their own social media platform means anyone, even children, could see it. This is not the same, he believes, as The Alba Party using political satire and caricatures of Rishi Sunak to convey a point which he says is “no different from a broadsheet cartoonist”.

He notes that The Alba Party even offered to remove the depiction of Sunak, reminiscent of a popular campaign used by the SNP in the 1980s, but Global insisted that it was the words, not the images, that were deemed to be “derogatory”.

Typically, voters are left feeling cold when politicians bicker in the House of Commons. Is it the same when they bicker on social media and across billboards?

This, Pringle has statistics for. Some 36% of those polled saw Labour’s recent ad creative, meaning it was effective in cutting through. And while 12% were left feeling less favourable about Labour – not ideal, he adds – 17% felt less favourable about the Conservative party.

“Ultimately it works, but people didn’t think it was fair,” he says.

Pringle also stresses the need for a new industry-wide standards body to handle these contentious issues, sparing media firms from having to make decisions independently.

Referring to a case in 2019 when an anti-abortion group aggressively ran an insensitive billboard in the constituency of a pregnant MP. Unable to sue due to freedom of speech and with no regulatory body to turn to, the MP turned to Clear Channel, who removed the ads, both apologising for the delay and facing the advertiser’s anger.

“Were the adverts decent? No, but they were not illegal either,” he says, pointing out that similar situations will continue to arise without regulation.

Both sides of the argument are clear: a line is being drawn in the sand over what political advertisers are allowed to showcase, whether political parties like it or not.

Without the guiding hand of a regulatory body, disputes over who gets to define that line will persist. Currently, it’s the media firms making that call, and it’s a situation that leaves virtually no one satisfied.