Should we take political party advertising? Your thoughts please...

[JustineMumsnet]

Hello, Hello,
Following on from this thread I wanted to get your thoughts on the issue of political parties or other pressure groups advertising with us.

At the moment the list of advertisers/ types of ads we don't take (on the basis that they don't sit well with our site aim - to make parents' lives easier - and as agreed in concert with users over the years) is as follows:

Payday loans
Follow-on/formula milk
Baby food marketed to age under six months
Gambling
Cosmetic surgery
Nestle (formula milk marketing in dev world)
Publications, eg The Sun, Nuts and Zoo, which objectify women
Porn
Sex shops
Seaworld

Last election we ran ads from both Labour and the Tories - this time we've only been approached by Labour thus far.

Do let us know what you think.

Thanks so much.

[cozietoesie]

I don't know how influential Mumsnet is but I always think that you run the risk of being 'bought' by the largest pocket book in these matters. How, as well, would you determine eg

• who to display in the event of competing demands?
  
• what types of party political advertising would you agree to and who would scrutinise the proposals for compliance?
  
• how you would reconcile with elements of party stances that didn't accord with basic Mumsnet aims even though the upfront adverts seemed acceptable in their own lights?
  

There would always be the problem of 'who makes the decision and are they 'right' in that decision' - or, indeed, would that decision accord with the views of many Mumsnetters?

My instinctive reaction would be No - although you could always allot (paid) time slots to established parties on the same lines as the television channels I suppose. That would at least be demonstrably even handed.

I'll have to muse some on it I think.

[MrsHathaway]

My instinct is no.

I've typed and deleted a lot of thoughts because none of them was sufficiently coherent.

It would give me a sad, sick feeling to see party political advertising on MN.

[MrsHathaway]

Any webchats coming up? I feel that's more upfront than advertising, and presumably you'd hold yourselves to the same balance/bias rules the broadcasters do in theory.

[TheBoov]

No, it makes you look as if you endorse a given party.

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

I'd say know, but the reasons are not good.

If we assume that advertising works then that means that the party with the most money can afford the most advertising and win the most MPs. I dont think MN should be facilitating the buying of votes.

[diggerdigsdogs]

What Theboov said.

[PausingFlatly]

My initial feeling is I don't have a problem with you accepting party political advertising, particularly around the election when there's a lot of it about.

But I might change my mind on that depending how it panned out. If there were a permanent ad for one party, for example, it could feel like an allegiance to that party and discourage new readers from joining. And as PP have said, how does one cope with an ad from a party whose basic stance doesn't chime with MN aims?

Hmm, that's a Don't Know from me.

[HeartsTrumpDiamonds]

Yes, you see I wouldn't want to see BNP adverts because to me that is bordering on inciting racial hatred and so on - which definitely does not make parents' lives easier - and if you are not going to accept adverts from one of them, best not to accept adverts from any of them.

[HeartsTrumpDiamonds]

Sorry, my "yes" should have been a "no"

[SetPhasersTaeMalkie]

When I read the thread title I did wonder what the problem could be?

And then I thought how I'd feel if I saw a UKIP advert...

So the answer is no from me.

[WipsGlitter]

Do you mean follow on milk or formula milk? Or both??

[JustineMumsnet]

@MrsHathaway

Any webchats coming up? I feel that's more upfront than advertising, and presumably you'd hold yourselves to the same balance/bias rules the broadcasters do in theory.

We have Nicola Sturgeon on Tuesday - still hoping to fix a time for Ed Miliband. Liz Truss coming next week too most likely though not fixed a time yet.

[JustineMumsnet]

Thanks for the input so far. We have taken political ads before now and one lined up for labour to run over next couple of days. Our principle has always been that we offer the same rate to all parties and we won't do anything other than straight display.

[RitaCrudgington]

Adverts for formula milk for young babies are illegal in the UK Wips so MNHQ don't need to have a policy about that.

[TheWildRumpyPumpus]

I think the problem I remember from the last election was that the ad you ran for Labour just said 'Vote Labour' in big red letters at the top of the page, which basically looked like a straight endorsement from MN.

If you wanted to look impartial youd basically have to have all the party ads running at the same time.

Also, what happens when a party such as the BNP or another with suspect policies and links comes calling? (I won't lump UKIP in here but would be sick if I saw Vote UKIP plastered across MN).

[avocadotoast]

I'd say no. People aren't going to see adverts from more than one party at once so any single advert is going to look like an endorsement.

[JustineMumsnet]

@HeartsTrumpDiamonds

Yes, you see I wouldn't want to see BNP adverts because to me that is bordering on inciting racial hatred and so on - which definitely does not make parents' lives easier - and if you are not going to accept adverts from one of them, best not to accept adverts from any of them.

Tbh we wouldn't accept BNP ads - in same way we wouldn't have a BNP rep on for a webchat.

[meditrina]

If you are going to accept ads from political parties, then it needs to be all or none.

Is there an actual legal definition of a political party?

And minor parties (including BNP and Respect) couldn't be excluded.

Better to have none, I think.

[cozietoesie]

But for what reason, Justine?

I can fully understand why you wouldn't accept them myself - the idea would quite horrify me on a gut level - but whereabouts would you draw the line?

This is now a mature site with multiple users of different views and an instinctive 'Heck No' from certain staffers is no longer sufficient to inform decisions I suspect. Or at any rate not in some cases.

[cozietoesie]

Yes - that's probably safer and easier, meditrina. (Although I wouldn't want to get into the secondary area of political sponsorship. That can be for another day.)

[cozietoesie]

No indeed - they're not required to be. But perhaps it might be better if they adopted that stance and of their own volition?

[smellysocksandchickenpox]

How about allowing advertising from independant candidates only, as a sort of "positive action" to redress the imabalance between the parties and the indis when it comes to campaigning?