Fagin, Shylock and Blair

THERE are two great anti-Semitic personas in English literature. Both were created by men of genius, William Shakespeare and Charles Dickens, in works of genius, The Merchant of Venice and Oliver Twist. Both portray a stereotypical Jew as avaricious, ruthless and cunning. The names of both of these characters are so familiar that they have entered the language. They are Shylock and Fagin.

Yesterday, The Mail on Sunday rightly published two striking photographs side by side. Both are carefully staged, with a Fagin figure holding an old-fashioned pocket watch on a chain. The first is a picture of Barry Humphries actually playing Fagin. The second is a Labour Party poster of Michael Howard, carefully chosen to fit the Fagin image.

The second picture has, of course, been doctored by Labour. The watch and chain have been added. The relationship between the two poses is obviously intentional; there is even an unusual knot in the watch chain that appears in both. We are intended to associate Mr Howard with Fagin, that is with a sinister Jewish criminal as seen by anti-Semites.

This is part of the Labour pre-election campaign. Another Labour Party poster, to be seen on the Labour website, shows Michael Howard and Oliver Letwin as two flying pigs. Recently Mike O’Brien, the Trade Minister, wrote an article for a Muslim newspaper that questioned whether Mr Howard could be trusted to support Muslims. Last year Ian McCartney, the chairman of the Labour Party, compared Mr Letwin to Fagin.

The steering group for the Labour election campaign consists of 12 members, led by Alan Milburn and Alastair Campbell. It includes Darren Murphy, who is the Downing Street press officer. All 12 are close to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister himself should be regarded as fully responsible for the policies of his campaign, which is largely run by his political friends.

The posters have not been withdrawn since the first complaints were made. The advertisements were designed by Trevor Beattie, whose agency was responsible for the FCUK “shock” advertisements for French Connection. He is highly professional; he does not achieve his results by accidents.

This brings together three ugly elements in political advertising. “Shock” advertising is designed to promote controversy. Even in writing about this advertisement, I may be falling into the Milburn-Campbell trap. How better to get across propaganda against Michael Howard than to get the press to protest against its anti-Semitism? Creating controversy is the basic formula of shock advertising. It does, of course, have the disadvantage of turning Labour into a FCUK party. It is the dirty end of the advertising business.

The second element is the decision to open the Labour campaign with “attack” copy, going for the man, not the ball. This is backed up by polling evidence that Mr Howard is not a popular leader, though he is both decent and competent. Unfortunately, the American style of negative political advertising has proved to be effective in campaign after campaign — most recently by George Bush’s destruction of John Kerry. It may not be good for the political process, but it works — and it pays to get one’s blow in first, as Labour has done.

Some people would put this down to the ordinary rough and tumble of politics. I would agree that politicians must be allowed some latitude in electioneering, though I find most shock-and-attack advertising pretty distasteful. It is the third element that is unforgivable, particularly from a party that so often praises itself for its freedom from racial prejudice. There is never any excuse even for mild anti-Semitism; it is a dangerous and virulent poison. The last British politician to exploit anti-Semitism was Oswald Mosley; is it now Tony Blair?

The trouble is that anti-Semitism, like attack advertising, works only too well. There are several times more Muslim voters than Jewish voters; they are part of the target audience. The Labour campaign is not intended to be overtly anti-Semitic; but it looks as if it is playing on the Tom Tiddler’s ground of anti-Semitism.

They knew what they were doing. They are the most experienced, the most professional, the most ruthless operators in the political attack business. When they hint that the Leader of the Opposition resembles a Jewish villain, they must know the rest of us will take the hint, or at least to note that he is Jewish. Unfortunately, some voters are anti-Semites who will rise to the bait.

Behind it all there stands the figure of Mr Blair himself. This is his campaign. His closest political and personal adviser is Mr Campbell, the leading figure in this campaign, as in so many successful campaigns of political defamation in the past. Mr Blair is careful to avoid personal responsibility. He wipes his own fingerprints off the smoking gun.

Mr Blair does not go into the streets and make anti-Semitic speeches. He does not even give the message of the Fagin advertisement: “You should not vote for Michael Howard because you cannot trust the Jews.”

But Labour wants to destroy Mr Howard as a political leader by using his Jewishness against him. They know to a hair’s breadth what they are doing.

Of course, any anti-Semitism has been denied; the purpose of the operation is to raise the controversy and then withdraw. But the Fagin image will linger on, and those voters who do not like Jews will have been reminded of their prejudice, by modern advertising techniques and, alas, even by this article. But it is a dirty, dirty, dirty business and it disgraces both the Labour Party and the Prime Minister.

William Rees-Mogg (editor) The Times of London