Attack ads are meant to distract from wealth inequality

There’s nothing screams desperation like attack ads.

Politics has always been a blood-sport. Statements are stripped out of context. Minor infractions are prosecuted as if they were global atrocities. “Oh my God, Zack Polanski once returned a library book late!”

Then there’s the dodgy bar charts printed all over official election leaflets. To me, they say, “Don’t trust these people with public money, they’d fail GCSE Maths.”

Labour stoops to new lows

While I was canvassing in the Gorton and Denton by-election a few weeks ago, I was appalled at how low Labour had stooped. With my own eyes, I saw an advertising van with big screens on it saying the Greens would let your daughters be used for prostitution. It didn’t work, of course. They lost exactly half their votes and Hannah Spencer romped to victory.

Coming into the local elections, Labour were 2-0 down at half-time and just resorted to kicking people in the 2nd half. In Newcastle, they’ve been served with a legal cease-and-desist notice for printing a fake antisemitic statement and attributing it to a Green candidate.

Statement from Newcastle Green Party pic.twitter.com/Z4dFtT6d3e

— Newcastle Green Party (@NCLGreenParty) May 5, 2026

It’s gone from desperate to comical. In Monument, the local Labour Party distributed a printed leaflet saying Green candidate Jamie Driscoll only recently joined the Green Party!

It’s not really a secret, mind. After all, we announced it at a press conference. All they’re doing is highlighting the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have left Labour.

Apparently, after joining the Labour Party in 1985, and joining the Green Party in 2025, I’m jumping on a bandwagon. Presumably, I’ll join another party in 2065.

Compassion needs nurturing

The vast majority of voters are put off by these antics. They expect their political leaders to behave professionally and demonstrate emotional maturity.

Sadly, our political system bakes in some perverse incentives. Politics tends to attract those with strong emotional motivations. That often boils down to compassion, anger or narcissism. In the bear pit of conflict, anger gets reflected, narcissism gets fed, while compassion needs nurturing by constant contact with the people you’re representing.

The real insight in all of this is that far too many politicians are unable to process complex political questions. If you start from the assumption that you’re right, because, well, you’re the ‘good guys’, then you close your mind to evidence and alternative analysis of evidence.

Anyone who thinks there is a one-size-fits-all answer to running a modern nation state is in for a shock. “Growth, growth, growth” – the Starmer-Reeves ‘plan’ – unravelled immediately. Deporting immigrants – the Farage ‘plan’ – would create a catastrophic economic shock. Badenoch wants to do both.

That said, continuing with the status quo is a non-starter. Any kind of tinkering around the edges ignores that climate change, wealth extraction and healthy life expectancy are all getting worse. Growth – especially sustainable increases in living standards – need healthy, educated people. Not rampant poverty and stressed public services.

An electoral coalition that can survive cheap attacks

If we want to take people with us, and build an electoral coalition that can survive the attacks, we need to be honest. We need to be clear that we reject trickle-down, and intend to build a sustainable, egalitarian society, where everyone gets the chance to flourish.

Once you cut through the smoke and mirrors, you’re left with a few foundational beliefs. Those sceptical about change actually think things like: “the bond market won’t allow it”, or “wealth taxes will cause capital flight”, or “public investment will cause hyperinflation”. They won’t, but you need the time to explain why.

That, above all, is what the attack lines are designed to prevent: a serious discussion about how we could rewire our economic system to serve the people who do the work. Because once that happens, it’s apparent that reversing wealth extraction is not only possible; 99% of people would be better off. Even the remaining 1% would live in a safer, healthier Britain.

So next time you see the attack ads, reject their framing and respond with: “Why aren’t you trying to fix wealth inequality?”

Featured image via the Canary