Steerpike Steerpike

Watch: CCHQ spoofs Burnham’s cringe AI clip

Like it or not, in this day and age, success in politics requires a strong presence on social media. A sizeable following, paired with witty and authentic content, can genuinely shift popularity ratings and boost an MP’s prominence, regardless of party.

Sir Keir Starmer’s excruciatingly cringeworthy and try-hard social media output did him no favours. But the slick digital operations around Nigel Farage, Rupert Lowe and, yes, even Andy Burnham have helped increase their exposure and win them supporters.

While many will no doubt hanker after the days when talent, ideas and acumen determined political popularity, one upside of the social media game is that it has produced some very creative spoof content. The latest example comes from CCHQ.

Despite having just weeks to prepare for the small matter of how the hell he is going to govern the country, Burnham yesterday saw fit to film a social media video in which he rates AI depictions of a future ‘No.10 North’ out of ten. The clip, directed and edited by his digital team, amassed close to one million views on X alone.

Not content to let Labour have all the fun while the country burns, some bright young sparks at CCHQ decided to crash the party. They clipped the footage of Burnham giving his ratings out of ten – except, instead of showing versions of ‘No.10 North’, they inserted a selection of Ed Miliband’s most hideous pictures. The montage ended, of course, with the famous bacon buttie snap.

No doubt there are a million more important things for parties to be focusing on, but the Tories are clearly going all in to take the fight to Labour on the digital battlefield. In the battle for clicks, CCHQ has decided to bring home the bacon.

Steerpike
Written by
Steerpike

Steerpike is The Spectator's gossip columnist, serving up the latest tittle tattle from Westminster and beyond. Email tips to steerpike@spectator.co.uk or message @MrSteerpike

This article originally appeared in the UK edition

Topics in this article

Comments