LABOUR has been given free publicity worth £5 million because of a row over allegedly anti-Semitic advertising images that appeared only on the party’s website, public relations experts said last night.

Jewish groups have expressed outrage over Labour’s adverts on Tory tax-and-spending plans. One, showing Michael Howard as a hypnotist, is said to have strong echoes of villainous racial caricatures such as Shylock or Fagin. Another portrays Mr Howard and Oliver Letwin, the Shadow Chancellor, as flying pigs.

The Tories have demanded the withdrawal of the adverts and Mr Howard fuelled the controversy by accusing Tony Blair, who has attacked negative campaigning, of failing to practise what he preaches.

There was also criticism from Robin Cook, the former Labour Foreign Secretary, who said yesterday that indulging in the “black arts” of negative campaigning would alienate voters.

Last night the two images were removed from the party website, although Labour says that the timing is coincidental.

The party insists that it is innocent of racism. It said that the hypnotist advert was based on the BBC programme Little Britain, which ridicules stage hypnotists.

A senior party figure defended the adverts, saying: “They were part of a consultation exercise with party members who have voted overwhelmingly for a different image. They have only been reproduced widely in newspapers because right-wing journalists and the Tories have got their knickers in a twist.”

Mark Borkowski, who runs a public relations company, suggested that the row had given the party publicity. “Any advertising agency will tell you that the trick is to get your brand talked about. This will have got publicity which Labour would have had to pay at least £5 million for in the marketplace,” he said.

Another media-buying executive said: “I’ve never seen such a non-issue in my life. I’m a Conservative supporter, but I did not detect any anti-Semitism in these proposals.”

The Advertising Standards Authority, which ruled against a Tory advertisment depicting Mr Blair with “demon eyes” during the 1997 election, yesterday confirmed that it no longer had powers to intervene in such cases.

Although it had received a “double figure” number of complaints about Labour’s website, a spokesman said: “Since 1999 it has been the case that political advertising has been exempt from regulation.”

At the same time, the Commission for Racial Equality sought to take some of the heat out of the issue. It said: “Just as we dismissed any suggestion that Michael Howard’s remarks on immigration and asylum last week could be characterised as racist, we see no evidence that [the designs are] intentionally anti-Semitic.”

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, spokesman for the Reform Synagogues of Great Britain, attacked the “poisonous” images used by the Labour Party. “It crosses the fine line between genuine political attack and unacceptable anti-Semitic undertones,” he said.

Ned Temko, the Editor of the Jewish Chronicle, told BBC Radio 4 that images of Fagin and Shylock were linked to centuries-old prejudice, but he said that he would be astonished if Labour officials had deliberately sought anti-Semitic images.

“I like to think this is a cock-up rather than a conspiracy,” he said. “I don’t detect an inherent anti-Semitism in any of the parties’ election strategies.”

Times Recommends

• Everyone will get vaccine against swine flu
• Artificial sperm and the race to build a baby
• BBC jets out stars to tout for prizes