Politics, PR & Marketing

BOOK REVIEW: I'll have what she's having

2011-10-24T13:35:00.002+01:00

Bentley et al, (Alex Bentley, Mark Earls and Michael O’Brien (2011) I’ll Have What She’s Having: Mapping social behaviour, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 146, $22.95/£15.95) in this short and accessible text, explore the phenomena surrounding social interaction and influence. Their question is how do we understand copying. More specifically, how do individuals learn from one another, influence one another and to what extent is man a rational independent actor or simply a follower. The discussion begins in the Pleistocene era, when man had to learn how to survive. Here not only do we observe social learning but understand how it was written into the human genes. The authors argue that the same mechanisms within human cognition exist; they have simply evolved from learning how to survive to how to survive within modern society. Therefore the rules of copying no longer simply follow a ‘copy if better’ norm, although this may help us to understand how technological innovations spread [think of the touch screen], but now relate to the creation of social norms. Social norms are often created through marketing communication, promoting a product as the ‘must have’ item, as well as political communication. The so-called ‘movement for change’ around Obama was a form of group think inculcated through the power of the campaign messages.

The power of a social cascade is thus highlighted as the way in which individuals believe they are acting independently but are actually being influenced. Influence in the 21^st Century is likely to be from many sources simultaneously, those who are our friends or whom we follow on social media, the media we read but also the people we spend time with during our day to day lives. Our lives can be described as a rich collage of influences, each being processed and weighed in our minds prior to acceptance or rejection. What is less clear is how cascades start and, in particular, how unintended cascades occur across a society. Why, for example, might parents choose to give their child a name that ends up shared with a third of other children born at the same time? Surely this is not intentional, and may well be innovative in each particular case, or copying someone famous without realising that others would do the same, but why do people independently choose the same innovation? The authors explain four cognitive conditions. When there are few options and few sources of influence a process or rational choice occurs, possibly because the choice is actually a no-brainer. Where there are many options but few sources of influence, so everyone is behaving differently, the decision amounts to nothing but a random guess. If there are few options but many sources of influence this results in directed copying, individuals looking to those who they respect and copying their choice. It is when there are many options and many sources of influence, but yet copying is evidenced and a behaviour appears as the choice of the majority, that we have undirected copying. The challenge is identifying the reasons for the copying, something the authors cannot fully explain.

Political choice is often described as a rational choice, and perhaps following Bentley et al’s schematic there is a reason. Choices tend to be limited, in particular realistic choices for who would be president or party of government, and sources of influence tend to be polarised. However, does this always result in a rational and deliberative choice outcome? Those who are reliant on media with particular partisan biases, or adopt one during a contest, may well fall into directed copying. The choir of voices supporting one party, the UK Sun newspaper’s reporters’ backing of the Conservatives perhaps, can lead to a predisposition to adopt the ideas as your own. There may also be a range of random guesses taking place. While there may not be many similar options, the options may seem very similar and even overwhelming to those who have little political knowledge. Unless there is a clear direction from the media, peers or other respected sources of information, voter choices may amount to little but a random guess once in the ballot box. It is more difficult to consider how undirected copying takes place within a political environment. There may often be many sources of influence, given that most campaigns are dominated by marketing communication. Equally there may be the perception that there are many similar options, or at least an overwhelming choice may exist. Can a combination of influences, from peers, the media, opinion polls, lead to undirected copying? Can we explain the bandwagons that brought Tony Blair or Barack Obama to power in this way? The challenge here is would anyone admit to copying and if not how could we detect such behaviour?

The book is aimed at the expert, though accessible due to its brevity it would be a challenge to newcomers to the topic and offers few signposts to further reading. However, the role of the book is to raise some important and interesting questions about individuality and its limitations. No human would want to think of themselves as having similar thought processes to those associated with sheep or lemmings. Few would ever admit to blind following. Yet we can see in the cases of suicide bombers, rioters on the streets of London, or participants in protests that escalate from peaceful marches to public insurrection, that blind following happens. If Bentley et al explain a significant percentage of human behaviour within their schematic then they demonstrate the amount of power that is held by social influentials. These influentials may be benign figures, or the creators of marketing communication or political propaganda; if it is the latter who predominate in our society we may not like what we find when we map social behaviour.

No cracks in the consensus ...yet

2011-10-11T15:13:00.013+01:00

The recent party conferences by the Conservative, Liberal-Democrats and Labour parties underscore what unites rather than divides the major political parties. All have now subscribed to the austerity agenda in response to the global financial and economic crisis, although there is some disagreement on the pace of cuts. All the parties have also completely abandoned any aspiration towards a return to the free higher education most of our MPs once enjoyed. Ed Miliband effectively (and probably prematurely) conceded the principle of the debate over tuition fees to the coalition government by arguing in his conference speech that Labour would lower the cap of tuition fees from £9,000 to £6,000.

Perhaps more significantly there still appears to be no serious public discussion of the reduction in corporation tax proposed by George Osborne last year from 28% to 24% over four years, although Miliband did suggest he would claw this back from the banks and private equity firms which were the whipping boys for much of the speech. By 2014 corporation tax in the UK will have more than halved since its highpoint in the post-war era of 50% in 1949 when Britain really was in an economic crisis. The 24% corporation tax will put us well below the US (at 39%) or Germany (at 33%) and closer to the tax rates of Saudi Arabia and Russia (20%). This reduction is of course being paid for by students and others at the sharp end of the various austerity measures, yet the opposition has failed to campaign on this slashing of corporation tax and so the mainstream media have maintained a polite silence on the topic.

From across the Atlantic however, comes a potential source of trouble for the major parties. The Occupy Wall Street movement has spread to 25 cities in the US and has had an unusual degree of support and understanding from a broad coalition of disgruntled voters and even sympathy from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and mainstream political figures like Nancy Pelosi. Should the success of the movement continue, building on an awareness of record rates of inequality, there is a chance it could spread to Britain. The possibility of copy-cat demonstrations gaining mass support in London as winter approaches seems remote, but much depends on the public mood of those sections of the population most affected by the cuts, including the 100,000 public sector employees expected to lose their jobs by early in the new year.

The mass protests in Greece and riots in England over the summer are further reminders that civil unrest is a real possibility. Demonstrations of the type seen in the US or Athens may not take place, but if the pla nned occupation of the London Stock Exchange for the 15th October or similar future protests gained significant support it could put all three parties on the back foot. Each has been accused of ‘collusion’ in enacting a corporate-sponsored political agenda (be it Labour’s promotion of costly PFI projects including hospitals); deregulation of banks and financial services (Labour and Conservative); rolling back planning restrictions in the interests of property developers (LibDem/Conservative) and so on.

The extent to which the three major parties are seen to be ‘in the pocket’ of big business and pushing a discredited neo-liberal agenda may in the end do real damage to British democracy and could lead to even higher levels of voter disengagement.

Reconnecting with voters might be regarded by political observers as essential for all three parties. However, the perception that powerful lobbyists, private and corporate donors and multinational threats to relocate production (and accompanying beggar-thy-neighbour tax policies) are the real drivers of party policy may yet produce a coalition of citizens who are disillusioned with this politics as usual. Should this coalition find a sustained collective voice (either on the streets of Wall Street, Athens or London) and if a coherent set of demands emerges there may be the first cracks in the current political consensus. When 20,000 veterans of the First World War marched on Washington in the spring and summer of 1932 and set up a tent city opposite the Capitol - President Herbert Hoover (whose austerity measures were so unpopular) sent in four troops of cavalry and four companies of infantry to clear the encampment, which was torched. The failure of Hoover’s austerity measures led to the massive election victory of Roosevelt in November 1932 on the promise of a programme of employment through the New Deal. The lessons of history seem blindingly clear as the satirical magazine the Onion recently noted.

Should a similar movement of civil disobedience provoke public sympathy either here or in the US there is a chance for the kind of movement that could make real demands on a system that has appeared deaf to alternative strategies for dealing with the current economic crisis. At that point real political differences between the parties could make a comeback and our democracy would be all the healthier for that.

The classic US political advertisement

2011-09-26T15:18:00.003+01:00

Why is this advertisement a classic? Because of the well-trodden path in terms of the style, structure and the way in which it tries to evoke a whole series of emotional reactions among the audience.

It starts with the here and now. Obama is president, he is speaking, making promises. This cuts then to news reports which are selected carefully to demonstrate all that Obama offered has not been delivered. The music would be appropriate for a thriller, just when the hero is in danger. The hero here is America - of course. But then the saviour arrives. the music becomes upbeat, faster, the images faster, positive. Rick Perry promises a new form of leadership, the one that America deserves, all is suddenly right with the world.

The narrative is simple and all too common. The situation is bad, this is the blame of the incumbent. But there is an alternative. The imagery, music and words all associate Obama with negatives - the use of the word Zero especially. Is Perry building a 'from Hero to Zero' narrative for Obama? Perry is associated with all that is positive, sunlight, warmth, bravery and Americana of course. The classic comparative ad as if it had been lifted from a shelf and the images changed. As American as apple pie but also as universal as the debt crisis, this is the narrative that underpins so many election campaigns.

A map of party support in the French blogosphere

2011-09-08T14:55:00.002+01:00

The original and further detail, in French, can be found here. What this is essentially saying is that the socialists have the greatest number of conversations within the tightest knit community. It does not necessarily indicate influence, but can be read as reach perhaps. The pattern is largely static since 2007, Segolene Royal's Segosphere was fairly dominant, maybe contributed to her coming a close second, but is no indication of real political support or even of getting into the second round. What it does indicate though is that, online, each party (except the extreme left/gauche) has an active strongly networked hub of supportive webloggers pushing messages out.

The fact that politicians chose to come back is an irrelevance

2011-08-12T10:24:00.004+01:00

This rather damning quote from Sir Hugh Orde, head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, is one of a number of refutations to statements made by Prime Minister David Cameron and Home Secretary Theresa May among others. In the aftermath of the 'riots' in London, Birmingham, Salford and Manchester (and elsewhere), the media are now focusing on the question of responsibility. Was the situation handled well, or at least in the best way possible in the circumstances, or badly and inappropriately given the scale of the problem. The fact that most politicians were on holiday was presented as a void, the return of the prime minister, recall of parliament and appearance of Mayor of London Boris Johnson on the ground was argued to fill the void. The strident language of senior politicians presented as a way of characterising the nation's response to the events. Cameron has ever attempted to speak for the people, to synthesise public emotions and attitudes and give them rhetorical voice. The frequently repeated lines from government talk of criminality, thuggery etc, not revolt or riot, thus the core criticism of the police is that their response was based on dealing with public disturbance and not crime. Cameron's statement, however, puts him at odds with the police who in effect are leading operations.

The argument is being presented in a way that suggests Cameron's return gave the necessary leadership that ended the disorder. The police only acted appropriately after his return, this gives him significant political capital. However, the refutations undermine that capital. It can be perceived as a political manoeuvre. The word 'irrelevance' is key to this. Whether the argument will run and run is a question, certainly with the context of cuts to police funding there is a chance that the police themselves will use the events of the last few days as an argument for retaining current funding if not more. If the police are able to demonstrate it was their leadership and not that of Cameron, and that he is trying to take the plaudits on their behalf, it could damage his reputation. It is after all a matter of trust. Whose version of events to we accept? Who has the credibility? One could suggest that Cameron would be well advised not to mess with the police and be seen as backing them not questioning them within the current climate.

Should the government dictate the academic research agenda

2011-03-28T10:20:00.003+01:00

The notion of governments controlling the work of academics brings to mind the regimes of Stalin or much academic work in Communist China, where still the works of Mao Tse Tung, Deng Xiaoping et al are core to the curriculum for degree programmes. However there are equally benign interpretations, channelling funding into research into medicine, or even the ways in which to maximise the effectiveness of health campaigns. The prioritisation of the Big Society agenda has sparked fury according to an article published on the Guardian website yesterday. The key problem is because the agenda is largely in slogan form, it is far easier to design the questions when considering how to approach seeking cures for cancer than to consider what to ask about a largely nebulous concept. However, for academics this strikes of government interfering in the act of knowledge generation. The reaction is to ask how a government is allowing an "ill-thought-out, half-formed Tory election idea to divert precious funding away from genuine research".

Perhaps however, academia is missing the point. Around ten years ago there were a number of projects focusing on the Third Way, not to mention a number of colleagues engaged in PhDs asking about the future of socialism, ideology, party politics etc. Largely this was also a slogan that lacked substance, in hindsight now it simply is another label for centrist, managerial politics; perhaps the same verdict will be reached when studies of the Big Society emerge in five years or so. And that is the main point, we need to research to explain this, government cannot just be scrutinised by the media but also needs to be rigorously challenged by the academic community. That challenge needs to focus not just on day to day policy, usually via the media, but long term focusing on the relations between political institutions, the economy and society (big or not).

Unlike Stalinist USSR, China or other less free nations, the government can direct the agenda but not the outcomes. Research should look carefully at the Big Society. Research should question the extent to which society is broken, where the fault-lines are, and how they can be repaired. The various initiatives need to be examined, analysed and placed side by side with economic policy to examine how substance matches rhetoric. We also need to understand the extent to which government can push an agenda, how the media impacts upon acceptance and so how the citizen feels they are a part of a Big Society, do they want to be, and in what way. Without this research the danger is that government will produce its own research, this will be questioned, dubbed inauthentic and unreliable and we return to the policy initiative simply being rhetorical. Independent research is a powerful tool which needs to be linked into governance and society, I think we should embrace the Big Society agenda and raise important questions about the future of Britain. not because the government says we should but because it is important for all who are part of our society.

Alpha Dogs: How Political Spin became a Global Business – BOOK REVIEW

2011-03-06T12:21:00.006Z

In Alpha Dogs James Harding, Times Editor and former Washington correspondent for the Financial Times, charts the birth and evolution of the political consultant business in the US. Focusing on the partnership between cinema verite film-maker David Sawyer and Ad man Scott Miller, the brains behind the ‘Have a Coke and a smile’ campaign, Harding explains how these two idealists moved into becoming political consultants, started their own agency SMG and exported their model across emergent democracies. The model at the heart of their consultancy was very simple, and one that any modern day consultant would recognise, get inside the heads of the consumer, craft the message, go negative, pre-empt events, tell your story and sell it out. It was this toolkit that was tried and tested getting Kevin White re-elected as mayor of Boston in 1979 and then adapted through numerous unsuccessful (yet very lucrative) forays into South America to be refined in order that they could stage manage the overthrow of the Marcos regime in the Philippines supporting the 1986 campaign of Cory Aquino and two years later unseating General Pinochet in Chile. While the SMG team of consultants could at this stage be arguably on the side of God (or Good) and not Mammon, this was to change over the next decade. Their public failures in Peru and the increasing profit that could be earned from Junk bond sellers, tobacco companies saw SMG shift to a more corporate client portfolio. Miller left, Sawyer was ousted and the consultants spread far and wide across the political spectrum of America and beyond. SMG evolved to become Weber Shandwick, a major force in the public relations industry with a solely corporate focus.

While Harding appears sympathetic to the main characters of Sawyer and Miller, as well as many of the other characters that emerge as key or bit-part players in the SMG story this contrasts to his evaluation of the SMG legacy. While they may have talked of ‘electronic democracy’ of television making key players of the people and putting politics into peoples’ front rooms and not hidden in smoke filled board rooms, Harding contrasts this with the techniques used in order to oil this new democracy. Quoting the words of many consultants a story is built of the evolution in political communication ushered in by SMG. Joe McGinnis is quoted talking of ‘style becoming substance’ and that “The medium is the massage and the masseur gets the votes” (p. 80); for SMG selling a candidate was really about manufacturing an illusion and voters bought these illusions. Overall Harding’s assessment is “a decline in the national conversation, a less meaningful politics, a politics of soundbites and slurs, personalities not policies, image and a lack of imagination” (p. 224). Perhaps this assessment is one that Harding would extend to much of the public relations industry, given the critical tone taken when charting the shift to caring for Mammon and extending the SMG model into the corporate world.

As with many accounts of journalists, this is highly readable and accessible while also being extensively researched combining data from 200 interviews with many of the participants with academic works, SMG strategy documents and contemporary media accounts. It is therefore very important for understanding how the evolution of the political communication industry, how it became professionalised and what consultants would define as being professional. Ultimately, tools aside, winning appears to be everything. Whether it is regimes with dubious records for human rights or not, the well-meaning but inexperienced leader or the politico, the consultant can create the compelling narrative of either the self-less moral candidate or the hard-working professional politician and sell them as a brand. The belief is that the consumer democracy is sovereign, so the tools do not matter, consumers can make up their own minds. Yet when one considers the use of data in order to shape campaigns, the cognitive psychology which underpins message creation and the use of negative attacks one does wonder the extent to which consumers really are sovereign or are just manipulated and confused. Harding brings this contrast out well and hence this represents an important account of the industry and its impact upon the conduct of electioneering and political campaigning globally. He questions this impact, hope is hinted at residing in digital democracy but it is also noted that this is now the terrain of the consultant. The masseurs are now found building territory in social spaces online, Harding perhaps will find that the modern day SMGs will adapt that original toolkit and continue to find ways of manipulating electorates while still covering their techniques with a democratic veneer. They have created a political marketplace, for both personalities and their skills, but is this actually a democratic marketplace? Harding suggests it is not and it is hard to disagree.

Why a social media strategy has huge resource implications

2011-02-09T15:58:00.005Z

It seems many organisations believe it to be important to have some form of social media strategy. The lure of reaching new audiences in new ways using Facebook or Twitter is certainly an attractive proposition. It is easy to view these tools as resource neutral. Unlike a website they are free, there is no need for outlay on the design of building of your online architecture, it is there and ready to use. However, the implications of appearing on a site such as Facebook is that you are joining a community and every community has rules. There may well be a degree of expectation that you will interact: answering questions and dealing with customer service enquiries publicly within the architecture of that site. Equally there is an etiquette that needs observing. If you are linked to should you thank that person, should you respond to a follow Friday recommendation on Twitter, the list goes on. How do you respond?

The issue is one of resources and a report by University of St Gallen is well worth a read to fully understand fully how to consider what the appropriate social media strategy should be given the resources at hand. This month's Communication Director, provides a snapshot of the resource implications (see the table below).

Even if strategy amounts to monitoring, which should be almost de rigueur for any serious brand, this is time consuming. Thus we find that on every scale, social media increases the workload rather than simplifying the work of someone working within communications.

Research found this to be the case with MPs and recently we have been analysing Internet usage within the European Parliament from a number of perspectives (data analysis ongoing so don't ask just yet), with a follow-up questionnaire to capture these kind of issues as well as strategic differentiators. With MPs and the UK Parliament, resources (time and support) were key determining factors; so it is not simply the case of should we go 'interactive' but can we and what do we do if people interact. How is the new communication environment to be managed and how can the ecosystem be both worked with and monitored to make sense seems one of the greatest challenges for those working in 21st Century strategic communication.

Book Review: Politicking Online

2011-02-04T13:51:00.002Z

The subtitle to this collection of essays, edited by Costas Panagopoulos, is 'The Transformation of Election Campaign Communications'. The book seeks to map out the ways in which the tools facilitated by online technologies are changing political communication and how campaigners are adapting to the online and digital environment. The analysis is purely focused upon U.S. politics, apart from two chapters, one covering Germany and the other Spain; which do not really offer a real comparative element but place developments in the U.S. in the context of global developments. We find offline inequalities prevail between presidential, gubernatorial and house races, with the lower in the political order a candidate is standing the less likely they are to be campaigning online. We also find that campaigning online can matter, though this is mediated by a range of variables and what comes across clearly is that online and offline must work contiguously in order to generate awareness, support and GOTV. In terms of learning how campaigning work, we learn how tools must be used in combination with one another and how the very latest tools can be used both to measure impact as well as gaining support.

The last of the essays provides some evidence of a Facebook effect, though the discussion does temper the findings putting them into a wider context. The fact that the essays look at social networking sites and new and untested shows how fast paced innovations are. Not in terms of innovations in campaigning but in the social uses of online tools which in turn drive campaigning. Despite being published in 2009 the book seems a little dated purely because of Obama, it raises the question whether academia can fully keep up with real world developments their uses within society, business or politics and their impacts. But, as with all good academic works, Panagopoulos leaves us with five lessons that both those engaged in political campaigning as practitioners or researchers should learn. Adaptation is key, he argues, within practice one has to adapt to new social communication styles and use the same tools as those with whom we wish to converse. Equally academia needs to adapt to new theories that help explain these new practices and their impacts. In practice it is key to know the limits, and this equally follows within academic study where we have to understand that new techniques cannot always replace but complement those which are tried and tested. While it seems odd for a study of U.S. campaigning to say look abroad but there are always lessons to be learned and practices to adapt to independent of how superior the developments in the U.S. are due to the resources used within campaigns. Academics also need to map across nations, not simply focusing on single nations; comparative studies offer means to truly understand the nature of evolution and revolution in terms of campaigning practices. The final two lessons suggest we should all stay alert and keep up. Minor developments can be easily overlooked, but turn into key innovations and so both practitioners and academics should look at each other's work more closely in order to understand and reflect upon what can and should be guiding the search for the communicational edge.

This book provides the grounding for these lessons and offers much thought-provoking data. While it may date quickly, as many studies of campaigning do, each essay provides a basis of understanding within one area of campaigning which we can use as basis for comparative work of both a temporal and spatial variety. Hence, this book should really be on the shelf of anyone interested in political campaigning and the impact of new technologies.

Head in the Cloud? How can we harness the wisdom of the crowd?

2011-01-31T15:59:00.004Z

Is there any value to the idea of 'the cloud'? Problem-solving by posting a question 'out there' and seeing if a response comes? It could be the scariest experience to anyone who feels they need to gain advise from 'real' experts, or doubt there is any sense in what is sometimes known as the wisdom of the crowd. But don't we often do this anyway? If you rely on ratings on review sites when buying books, CDs, DVDs, choosing hotels, restaurants, bars (even wedding venues), then you are relying on collective intelligence. Reviews of cars, computers, B2B services, are said to be frequently used when seeking advise; how do we know any review is any more credible than another; furthermore can we really trust the 'expert' (paid reviewer) any more than the unpaid reviewer or is the latter inherently either more trustworthy or less of an expert? More interesting, how can the idea cloud be used. Are there bright ideas out there being untapped? Can they help organisations do things better? Or are we just inviting chaos into every aspect of life? Governments talk of organising groups that they can consult on issues, somewhere in the Big Society is an idea of collective action and wisdom - are there better ideas out there or would this just invite partisan commentary and negativity? Are focus groups ways of harnessing random ideas or only for testing existing ideas - having run them you often find that you cannot just ask what they think of 'X' but they insist on saying 'Y' would work better. Should more be done or less? Really interested in any thoughts on this!

If nothing else, social media can tell you if you got the message out

2011-01-27T10:10:00.003Z

Due to the immediacy of public input an commentary, it is now simpler to assess the extent to which any set piece event is able to capture attention and also whether you got the message across. The US President State of the Union (hashtag #SOTU) is one such event and key to this is firstly capturing attention and secondly getting the message across.

Mashable produced some great analysis of what the social web was talking about when discussing the the SOTU. It certainly captured an active audience, 400,000 tweets is a significant number, and of those the majority talked about issues relating to education and the economy, they also note clear spikes in issue attention suggesting Obama is leading the online commentary. This, however, is an engaged audience who not only listen to SOTU but wish to add commentary and debate the issues. Sadly there is no sentiment rating to assess the extent of whether they were largely supportive or not.

A more representative sample was used to test out whether Obama's messages got through to the audience. An article in New York magazine shows two word clouds, one for Obama's speech and one from recall among 4,000 of the audience. Obama's cloud is dense and full of the sort of language one would expect. There are a lot of issues raised but also those buzzwords 'new', 'people' and references to nation and national identity with America/American/Americans. The 4,000 viewers picked out a less dense package of words. Aside from education, the key terms were descriptive as opposed to the terms Obama may have liked to have had resonate. Words such as 'Inspiring', 'hopeful', 'optimistic' describe a mood as opposed to issues - this tells us something about what audiences pick out however. But then there is the major key word they heard 'Salmon' - not a major policy area!

What do we learn from this, well we can get instance responses from an audience. Usually this would be the most engaged group however. This may look pretty positive but this may lead to a false sense of security about how you led an agenda and how politically aware the majority of people are. Asking a mass audience shows that what you think people heard may not always be what they actually left with in their minds.

Book Review: Britain Votes 2010

2011-01-25T11:26:00.003Z

It is now traditional for Parliamentary Affairs to produce simultaneously a special edition of the journal and a book covering various aspects of each UK election. Britain Votes 2010, edited by Andrew Geddes and Jonathan Tonge covers all the main issues relating to the election one would expect and want to find in such a resource. The results and subsequent negotiations prior to the formation of a coalition are covered in excellent depth, with specific chapters on the campaigns in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland providing rich detail on campaigning and voting patterns and their impact on the election result. There are also chapters covering the campaigns of the main parties, and one on finance which shows the disparity experienced between the 'rich' Conservatives and their opponents. Despite inequalities in campaigning ability and funding, the result was not a disaster for Labour which suggests that there is more to voting behaviour than a flash campaign. The one clear 'effect' is the swing against Labour among Sun readers shown in the chapter on The Media by Dominic Wring and Stephen Ward. While Cleggmania may have been instigated by the first Leaders' Debate and Duffygate by then PM Gordon Brown being caught off-guard by television, but neither these nor innovations online translated into votes; maybe there is still a detectable Sun effect after all. Chapters on gender imbalances, in both media portrayals and despite selection procedures, economic and foreign policy and attitudes towards European integration and immigration round off the book. Perhaps more could be said of the minor parties, though they seemed to have little overall impact beyond the election of Caroline Lucas as Britain's first Green Party MP. Overall, therefore, this book represents an excellent resource that reminds us of the detail as well as providing in-depth analysis of a range of issues and some interesting thoughts for the future of British democracy.

The one issue I would raise about reporting on the election is the often repeated line that 'On 6th May 2010 the British electorate spoke, but it was not entirely clear what they said', a line originating with commentators on May 7th when interpreting what a hung parliament meant. It seems that actually it is clear that the voters as individuals were able to make their own decision on how to vote but collectively there was no winner. Basically it seems the clear outcome was not that any voter tried to engineer a hung parliament but that there was a failure by any party to win over a majority. Despite his flaws, Gordon Brown remained a better PM (perhaps safer pair of hands) than Cameron. Cameron failed to make a case for his social re-organisation and replacing Big Government with Big Society (as Martin J. Smith points out in the book). Voters may have warmed to Nick Clegg but still not seen the Liberal Democrats as a viable government. Hence, despite all the usual campaigning activity, and the added dimension of leader's debates which received record viewer figures for any British political programme, there seemed to be little impact on public opinion from the campaign. Of course we cannot say this with any degree of safety, as it is unclear how many individuals changed their minds due to any specific event during the course of the campaign, but it is striking how pre-campaign polling results seemed to be reflected in the results, notwithstanding minor underestimations of the Labour vote holding up.

These issues are all raised in the book, an analysed in depth where possible. While it is perhaps one of many texts that will emerge on the election its coverage and quality will place it as a key resource for understanding how the British voted in 2010, the potential impacts and how this election should be understood within the context of patterns of campaigning, party performance and voting behaviour for years to come.

Have a very Partisan Xmas

2010-12-15T17:58:00.004Z

The Conservative and Labour Party are giving us a treat for Xmas, both a little bit of fun but conveying a strong party message. For a whole £5 you can buy the Conservative supporter in your life Ed Miliband's Policies for Britain, a 204 page notepad. Yes folks its blank, but its a fun notepad.

Less costly, but allowing fun everyday between Dec 1st and Xmas is the Coalition Advent Calender, behind each is a broken promise to remind you why Labour argue you should not trust the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats.

All good clean fun, and all very festive, but as both can be shared an opportunity to get a message relayed across social networking sites.

Vodaphone's failed viral campaign #mademesmile

2010-12-13T16:25:00.003Z

Its a great idea, you want to get a bit of positive word of mouth. You start an online campaign and so do a bit of crowdsourcing. You find an appropriate hashtag (the symbol which placed before a term allows searching and grouping of tweets) and invite Twitter users to say what 'makes them smile'. In theory it creates a buzz about the brand and gets coverage online and offline. More importantly, in theory, it associates the brand with the making people smile. Well this was what could have happened for Vodaphone in a parallel universe when they offered free phones to those who told the world what made them smile.

The major mistake was to not take into account the environment for the brand. If you are a brand ticking along just searching for a bit of positive coverage it can work fine. Tetley, the tea company, invite users to send in pictures of their mugs to 'The Gaffer' at @tetley_teafolk; it seems to be going ok but Tetley don't have enemies. Vodaphone face significant criticism for not paying taxes in the UK. UK Uncut, campaigning against cuts and tax dodging, invited their followers to hijack #makemesmile. Very soon it became a trending topic, the content said it all. See this article for examples.

Just like Labour's #changewesee, Vodaphone managed to attract opponents which shaped the messages at key times. Conservative/LibDem supporters placed a lot of observations of negative changes they saw on Labour's site. The lesson is that letting the online crowd have control over your message is a dangerous one, but the outcomes can be predictable. Basically if your brand is in trouble, possibly avoid giving your critics a space on your own website to say what they think. It can end up with your opponents getting the positive coverage and not you!

Election 2010: party expenditure accounts released

2010-12-10T15:40:00.005Z

The Electoral Commission has released full details of the party and candidate expenditure from the 2010 UK General Election. There is a lot of detail but there are two key headlines. Firstly is the overall party expenditure compared to one another. As the first graph shows, the Conservative party spent twice the amount as Labour, £16 to £8 million, the Liberal Democrats spend was just over £4 million. When one considers the outcome, it seems Labour got a better bang for bucks; or of course the actual spend has no impact in terms of votes. The disparity between spend and outcome though is quite stark. Of course the Ashcroft funded target seat campaign may explain this, that the money was channeled into specific areas as opposed to a largely national spend but one must wonder about return on investment.

In terms of wise spending, the Conservatives spent an inordinate amount on advertising while Labour focused on direct mail (unsolicited material to electors). That is the one clear difference in terms of communication strategy.

Looking at the overall figures for how spend was used (above graph) we get a degree of an idea of how parties campaign. Spend on direct mail is virtually equal across the major parties suggesting this is the key route used to reach voters. How effective this is is questionable, much direct mail goes straight into the bin, but with targeting and personalisation there is now a finely-honed direct mail strategy. Advertising is high spend and the Conservatives clearly led, with hoardings most heavily used and often carrying negative messages. Interestingly market research is central to each party's campaign, so informing the direct mail strategy, you can even see a bit of green showing the Green Party were equally serious about targeting. What does it all say about the professionalised, or strategy led, election. Awareness using advertising aside, it seems it is the direct route with communication targeted as well as possible that is the prefered mode of communication. Directly to voters, using a range of persuasion tools, yet under the media radar. The online media could be a supplementary means for delivering such messages, especially email, but they lacked the databases, one wonders if this will remain a a feature for the next contest?

Graphs taken from EC website

Will bare breasts deter Muslim Fundamentalists?

2010-12-03T16:14:00.002Z

That is from entering a country, not if they are in the course of a terrorist act that if all the women stand up and rip off their tops will they suddenly stop what they are doing and run away. But the idea is serious, the Dansk Folkspartie (Danish Peoples' Party) believe that if they include candid shots of topless women on Danish beaches will will deter fundamentalist Muslims from choosing to settle in Denmark. Writing in the Telegraph, Praveen Swami quotes their foreign policy spokesman Peter Skaarup arguing: "I honestly believe by including a couple of bare breasts in the movie, extremists may think twice before coming to Denmark". Swami argues this is flawed as many young Muslims are obsessed with sex, his article has also lots more analysis and is well worth a read. The flaws are obvious but wonder if in branding a nation using certain images they can attract or deter people choosing to migrate to and settle their - an interesting poser for nation branding!

Will Facebook messaging replace Email? Probably Not!

2010-11-18T13:20:00.002Z

Email is on the decline as a communication tool, and some claim were are observing the start of a trend which sees other forms of online communication taking over. In particular, some claim, the new integrated text, chat and messaging service offered by Facebook. A recent Pew Report highlights the use of a range of technologies for communicating, Text remains on top, followed surprisingly perhaps (or to me anyway) by phone calls (Cell and landline have daily use by 30-38%), face-to-face and then online with email languishing at the bottom with 11%.

As the Pew team note, however, this is demonstrating that different tools are used for different groups. Closest friends with whom we share phone numbers are texted and spoken to, and we are likely to see some of them each day and so have 'real' conversations. There are then a wider circle of friends who we communicate with online, they will be within our Facebook network and some linked to via instant messaging services aided by their prevalence across smart phones. Email is now the most formal level of communication. It has become the equivalent of a letter in the modern age. Young people will communicate formally using email but are unlike to use this for informal communication with their friends.

This suggests that email will not die, but its use will be modified. It also suggests a more social dimension to communication that needs to be understood perhaps. That tools that can be used to communicate directly to individuals are only appropriate for certain types of communication. There may be a use of social networking for promotion, but it is not a channel for advertising but socialising across geographical spaces. Equally, communication tools are no longer built for a purpose only but shaped by usage and to understand how to communicate you must firstly understand how people communicate to one another and want to receive communication from different sources - friends, organisations etc. Usage sets the rules, and it is not necessarily the usage built into the design. Food for thought perhaps

A thought on representative democracy

2010-10-13T17:06:00.004+01:00

I am leading a session on representation with my students on Friday and thought I would offer some thoughts, not on the content but on the general concept of representation within a democracy. Of course, we know how representative democracy works. Every five years or so (normally) we elect individuals to represent the geographic area in which we live and they disappear off to parliament to work on our behalf. Implicit in the UK system is that this is a very broad interpretation of working on our behalf, and often it is the good of the country that is the key driver for decision making, though party whips tend to control voting. There is very little sense of delegative democracy happening, where MPs will vote in the way a majority of their constituents direct, and no mechanism for actually gauging public opinion by constituency anyway. So there is a question regarding how representative democracy is at the very simple level. Who do MPs work for is a big question, they rely on the party for their position as MP, they can be deselected, and on their party leader for a career beyond the backbenches, but technically the voter is the employer as many state on their profiles on Facebook.

Perhaps in light of the expenses crisis the assumption is that most MPs actually work for themselves anyway; this would be unfair as many do a good job as servants of the constituency. They promote a range of local causes as well as defending individual and group rights and taking cases to councils and beyond. They also act as advisers and give weight to campaigns. It is said there are divergent levels of service, with those MPs who enjoy safe seats being more relaxed about their presence locally and those in marginal seats being very keen to be seen as the defender of all things local. But the key thing here is being seen. Many MPs in safe seats so the same job as those in marginals, they just don't need to shout as loudly about their work.

Often representativeness of parliament is linked to the age, gender and ethnicity balances, while some predicted parliament would be younger, more feminine and more representative. This was not the case, with only a 2% increase in female MPs. But does that matter? While there perhaps should be a 50/50 split, with the geographic link it would still mean one-sided representation at the constituency level. The big question is about feeling represented. There are a range of value-laden 'should' demands of MPs in terms of how they should act as representatives (beyond expenses and all that relates to that type of behaviour), but many of these are quite unrealistic for any individual MP representing up to 100,000 people while also having a full time job in parliament. This puts the onus on the represented to go out of their way to be 'represented' and so show they have power; but in turn that is impossible if everyone actually did simultaneously demand the time of the their MP. MPs are not the only route to representation, but the fact that they are the formal democratic link places a burden upon them.

So students (or anybody) both for discussion here and in class, how can representative democracy work more effectively? What mechanisms can strengthen the links and ties between MP and those they represent? What realistic models are there for representation? And, a really big question, does the day to day campaigning nature of politics get in the way?

One negative perspective of political campaigning

2010-10-08T14:16:00.000+01:00

While walking down the street in Edinburgh one day a Member of the Scottish Parliament is tragically hit by a bus and dies.
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance. "Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around here, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you.
"No problem, just let me in," says the MSP.
"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."
"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the MSP.
"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the lift and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and blether about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the Scottish people.
They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne. Also present is the devil, who really is very friendly who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the lift rises. The lift goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.
"Now it's time to visit heaven."
So, 24 hours pass with the MSP joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.
"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity." The MSP reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell."So St. Peter escorts him to the lift and he goes down, down, down to hell. Now the doors of the lift open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and rubbish.
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the rubbish and putting it in black bags as more rubbish falls from above.
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder "I don't understand," stammers the MSP. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of rubbish and my friends look miserable. What happened?The devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning. ....Today you voted."

The Conference season is over: but who cares about Conferences?

2010-10-07T09:22:00.003+01:00

I have been advertising my blog to my new students as a 'learning resource', yet nothing has appeared here for a while. Ooops, books, journal articles and life got in the way, so has Twitter! Too easy to share a link. However, given that we now start a new period of politics in the UK, parliament reconvenes, a spending review is imminent, and a coalition government now has to show substance as well as unity, I thought I would add a few thoughts on what to expect based on the events of the conferences.

Party Conferences are strange events. They were once spaces for deliberation. Where the party met and set a direction. Well sort of anyway. Perhaps that is more the ideal than the reality, but the often bitter arguments that took place in history show them to be more about the party meeting than presenting itself to the nation. As James Stanyer records in his book covering the evolution of conferences, they are now far more a media event than a place for policy making. And the media play a key role in translating events to the wider public, but they also need to make a story about each conference.

The Liberal Democrats perhaps had the toughest job. Conference is supposed to be a place for policy debate, easy when you are the third party but not so when you are junior partners in a coalition; and they are junior albeit punching above their weight. Leader Nick Clegg had to sell the coalition, the tough decisions, and also position these within Liberal Democratic values. Tough tasks which in the end the media suggested he did well but the talk of splits was constant and all those questions about whether Vince Cable was on message or really a socialist did not help the cause. Their problem was the multiple audiences, not only the party but the media, their Conservative partners and the voters they hope will stay loyal and those they need to persuade to support them in the future. Tougher given that most of these audiences will be served more by the media than by live coverage of events.

Labour in a way stole the show. The dramatic finish to the leadership contest saw brother beat brother and the media handed a fantastic soap opera story line. The Milibands became a modern day Cain and Abel, a real life Grant and Phil Mitchell. Ed, the victor, became 'Red Ed', and Neil Kinnock got 'his' party back. For an opposition party the first conference after an election is less important. It is more about rallying the troops and showing an element of acceptance, humility and setting out a course for reform. But the story was one of factionalism and David Miliband's exit was interpreted a number of ways: petulance, disappointment, disillusion, rejection of the result. Ed Miliband has a long journey but perhaps as a new leader his start was unhelpful and could be compared to the treatment of William Hague as incoming Conservative leader in 1997. Rejection of the party by the voters allows for negative coverage, criticisms of the choice of leader override positives, their history is more important than their future. The continuing story will be whether Ed buries Blairism (whatever that was) and New Labour, and how he can unite the party as a positive opposition monitoring government.

The Conservatives was, in contrast, the damp squib that never really lit up coverage. When the big story is that Conservatives are split over reforms to a universal benefit you know that there is little to say. Cameron's performance equally was seen as solid but unexciting. Abandoning his script-free style, this was a careful speech that seemed to spend equal time attacking his predecessors and thanking his supporters: not much policy really just a little more flesh on the 'we are in it together', 'Britain needs you', Big Society narrative of society he has been developing. The interesting aspect was his expressed commitment to the coalition and partnership with Clegg.

So they return to parliament, for Labour it is rebuilding a brand around Ed Miliband to engage those who are dissatisfied with the coalition. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats need to retain their own identities and present an unified image as a coalition, simultaneously. The media will be looking for disunity in the coalition and the partner parties, as well as signs of socialism from Red Ed. Should be an interesting time to study political communication!

The 'Online' Labour Leadership Campaign

2010-05-27T13:27:00.005+01:00

Looking at the party websites created for the election there were two key functions. First they provided information for floating or wavering voters around the key issues - mostly mapping on to the key concerns as identified in Ipsos MORI polls. Second they gave space to activists and tried to mobilise them by creating a sense of community, providing urgency and giving hope, and putting them in contact with one another to create an offline community. The leadership campaign does not face the challenge of reaching the floating voter, people who are often less involved in the issues and if they do visit party sites are searching easy cues to help voter choices. The potential leaders are speaking to an active and involved audience, Labour party members and activists who will determine who the leader will be through the act of voting as well as through activism on behalf of the leaders. Given the power of the Internet to connect organisations to the more involved publics one would think this would be a key campaign tool.

What is surprising firstly is the bracketing off of the campaign site from the MP's site with only David Miliband providing a direct link and his brother Ed linking via a news item. Andy Burnham's site can be found easily via Google, Abbot and McDonnell do not feature and none of the sites are that prominent. Though there are references to a site for Ed Balls, all that can be found is his MP website, this does not mention the leadership race. So the first issue is a lack of search engine optimisation or enmeshing between different platforms. Constituency facing websites funded by parliament cannot of course be used for government campaigns but a link is not breaking the rules; so one feels the first opportunity is lost.

Websites are now a key promotional tool. These are the single place that an individual can present themselves as they wish their potential supporters to see them. Looking at the websites of the Milibands and Burnham what so far can we assess of their campaigns?

David Miliband has gone for the weblog style and so all news items can be shared and commented on. All comments are positive - so far - but this is about giving an impression of accessibility. It maps on to the ethos of the get involved section which copies many of Obama's techniques in terms of organising local events. There is however a lot of promotion - the wall of faces of supporters; but it maintains the mixture of information provision and interactive elements that appear to be emerging as a new model of Internet campaigning.

Ed Miliband's site is pretty much the same. It is slightly less crowded, there is no wall of supporters but the blog style presentation, comments and sharing features and links to social networking sites all mirror the style of his brother's site. This reinforces the idea that there is a style of campaigning site - a genre as Foot and Schneider suggest - and candidates and parties at general, local and European elections, as well as contestants within this sort of race, are increasingly adopting and adapting to their objectives.

A different approach is however adopted by Andy Burnham. You cannot enter the site without signing up to his campaign; this is immediately off putting for those who are unsure and concerned about giving away personal data. On the plus side it provides Burnham with all the emails of those who sign up and gives him permission to contact them. Then what happens, nothing. You sign up you get the confirmation email and you get the Mail Chimp sign up confirmation; there is no campaign website it is just a splash screen. So he offers no information about what a Burnham led party would be like, why he wants to lead; all material that is essentially staple to convincing of the seriousness of his campaign or the validity of his candidacy. Perhaps he is relying on more face-to-face forums, perhaps on personal contacts or other communication means, perhaps he believes that the majority of his supporters are offline, or perhaps he feels the resources needed are too great and not cost effective. It is unusual however in the modern era.

The extraordinary choice made by Burnham aside, clearly the Milibands have recognised the value of the Internet and are using it to both connect with their supporters, activists and party members. The sites are slightly different in that the top half of David's page is about him and the promotional aspects; Ed focuses more on the Web 2.0 features and the site is simpler and less cluttered. Both however fit to the new style of political campaign websites, information and interaction are both represented, often in equal measure, in order to provide the impression of openness and accessibility as well as the sense that there is a community of support around the candidate. It is all still about promotion but of a more co-created variety than has traditionally been the case.

PS: If anyone has an address for the sites of Abbott, Balls or McDonnell do let me know; I did try to find them!

Book Review: Game Change

2010-05-18T09:39:00.003+01:00

There are usually a few books that come out after each US Presidential election, but 2008 really seems to have led to a whole industry of writing. The first, and in my opinion best, overview of the campaign was Dennis W. Johnson's Campaigning for President; a book that takes an overview of the key innovations and explains why Obama won. As an edited collection it is able to cover a lot of ground with contributions from a range of academics - to understand what the campaign was about this is the one to buy. But for those who wish to get inside the campaign Game Change is something quite special. Subtitled 'Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime', this tells the insider story of relations between those contesting the presidency, between the presidential and vice-presidential candidates and details the biography of the campaign. Authors John Heilemann and Mark Halperin are journalists and the project seems to have been approached from the perspective of an investigative journalist. Interviews have been conducted with a range of front line and back room operatives central to the campaign and the picture painted is one of both strategic thinking and deployment of resources as well as pragmatic seat of the pants flying that at times verged on panic. Wonderful stuff!

So what do we learn from this? The story of the bitter rivalry that blew up between the Clintons (Hillary and Bill) and Obama is striking. When the visible aspects of this were only the negative advertisements, to get a sense of the personal side to the contest is fascinating. In particularly Hillary Clinton's blinkered disbelief that the 'upstart' would not only take her on but force her to accept defeat. The chaotic organisation, or at times disorganisation and disfunctionalism within Clinton's team is also striking; this contrasts with Obama's slick operation that, although not without its problems, kept on top of strategy and perhaps this led to the emphatic victory in the race. Biden was a temporary spanner in the works, but soon got his game together and he is a marginal figure in the story largely. The John Edwards story is a further sideline but nonetheless an amusing aside, as he stumbles along badgered by his wife and dogged by rumours of an affair and subsequent love child it is clear why he never made any impact and never got a position in the Obama administration.

The McCain story is shorter and details the thinking within the campaign as they drift from frontrunner to being dead in the water to the emergent victor (of the nomination) in a matter of months. Again the disfunctionalism in his team is striking, but the real story is Sarah Palin. Her introduction, rise to stardom and then public and private meltdown, with hints of her verging on psychological collapse, is a fascinating and somewhat tragic story. The decision to include her in the campaign was ill-planned, and without full checks on her ability or background. While she showed herself to be an initial competent performer this did not withstand interrogation. Her brand crashed and burned very quickly, those advising her were probably as much to blame as McCain for choosing her and Palin herself.

The focus stays on Obama and the Clintons a lot, perhaps as that was where the real story of the 2008 campaign was. There is little said of the online machine Obama's team built; beyond this being a rich source of campaign finances. Also there is much about the Reverend Jeremiah Wright issue, yet little about some of the other events of the campaign - Joe the Plumber does not feature for example despite his name being constantly referenced by McCain in the third and final debate. In fact the latter stages of the fight seem to be a footnote when compared to the detail on the process of winning the nominations, a time when Obama and Clinton where the big game in town. However, despite some detail some readers may expect to feature being absent, it is a fascinating read - an series of in-depth insider accounts of a campaign written in an accessible style and at times reading like a political thriller. Great fun, but also a great insight into the world of the political strategist

So what now in UK politics

2010-05-07T10:05:00.002+01:00

Quite a night, and one of those you realise that had you gone to bed early at 10 or 11, got up early at 6 or 7, you would probably have not wasted so much time watching talk about an exit poll that started off being treated as being highly spurious but turned out to be fairly accurate. It seems we are now in the unknown territory of a hung (or balanced) parliament, though this may not be fully certain. Adding in the notionally safe seats that are yet to declare at 10am Conservatives have 298; Labour 254 and LibDems 54. There are a further fifteen that are marginal or clearly unpredictable. If the Conservatives were to seize all of those they would be on 313, with Labour and the Liberal Democrats unable to gain more so requiring more than a LibDem-Lab Alliance while the Conservatives need only to team up with some of the 17 others (of course some alliances are far more likely than others). So the election outcome is still to be decided and it will be London and the North West that are most likely to make the decision.

The results may well remain unpredictable, and often seem to be linked to a constituency based context. In adjoining constituencies there were swings to Plaid Cymru from Labour and the reverse declared within minutes of each other. Lembit Opik lost, possibly due to the high profile of his love life over politics, but other Liberal Democrat personalities like Adrian Sanders and Mike Hancock seemed to cruise home.

The polls may well have been fairly accurate. The dip the Liberal Democrats experienced seemed to carry through to the election result and there may well have been some hovering pencils in a number of seats. Perhaps the fear campaign regarding a hung parliament, pushed by the Conservatives, had an impact on floating voters decision making.

We are now in a situation of manic spin, like reeling drunks high on caffeine (which some of the party spokespeople may actually be by now) they are all claiming that no-one has won and no one will accept defeat until the very last moment. The UK is now having its Belgian political experience, sadly Herman von Rumpey is unavailable to mediate and sort out our problems (though as EU President he may have some influence).

On the final note, I do feel sorry for all those MPs who were hard working but lost their jobs on the back of national swings. Two I really feel for having met them are Andy Reed and Jim Knight, both good local MPs who hung on against the odds previously.

The online election battle

2010-04-20T16:39:00.002+01:00

Some interesting stats based on election search trends among on line users. Firstly the post debate interest in Nick Clegg seems to be continuing and he may well now be far better known then he was a matter of days ago. While there seems to be interest in Samantha Cameron, there is less so in David himself as he lags behind Gordon Brown, though this may not reflect actual traffic to sites of course, only searches!

1. nick clegg +500%

2. david cameron wife +180%

3. gordon brown +120%

4. samantha cameron +110%

5. labour +110%

6. david cameron wiki +90%

7. david cameron twitter +80%

8. conservatives +50%

9. conservative party +50%

10. david cameron poster +40%

The LibDems can also find great comfort in the numbers of fans they have on Facebook, though they lag behind the Conservatives.

* http://www.facebook.com/conservatives - 51,000 fans

* http://www.facebook.com/labourparty 26,000 fans

* http://www.facebook.com/libdems - 46,500 fans

Equally this appears to be a doubling of fans across all parties indicating heightened interest in all things election related. Does this indicate that the Internet is becoming a significant source of information for voters, and so also a significant battle ground that for the first time will be ignored at the parties' peril?

I never knew Iain Dale was in Bucks Fizz - or why MPs shouldn't dance

2010-04-20T10:55:00.003+01:00

A Total Politics video encouraging us to make our mind up. Some 'interesting' lip-syncing and dance moves from a variety of MPs and candidates. Have to say Alastair Campbell is the only one who seems to keep his dignity.

Labour's Manifesto Launch Ad: Smart or Dumb?

2010-04-12T14:04:00.002+01:00

This is the advert promoting the manifesto of the Labour Party of the UK. Given that this is engaging it may get seen quite a lot of people, I can see this doing the rounds on Facebook etc. But is this a smart way of communicating their message, making simple and easy to digest and understand. Or is it dumb, or rather too dumbed down, trivialised and lacking substance. It could be seen as the bullet points for a grand plan, or a series of rather vague promises. It could be seen as patronising or reaching out and making policy relevant. What does anyone think?

And so it starts

2010-03-29T09:24:00.003+01:00

There was even discussion in the Belgian version of Metro newspaper last week regarding how negative the UK General Election campaign would get. This was a reaction to the rehiring of M & S Saatchi and speculating how they would use attack advertisements; there was also talk of Lynton Crosby returning: the man who thought it a good idea to call Blair a Liar during the 2005 campaign.

For this to work the receiver must accept and recognise the criticism, if they do then the Conservatives may have an impact with this; if the receiver does not see it as justified then it will be rejected and the Conservatives will be seen more negatively. I note the media picked up on these so they now have received wide coverage and cannot simply be used to shore up support among devout Conservatives - those most likely to support any attack on Gordon Brown. It is a risky strategy and one that could put off many of those unsure how to vote. The reason is that this gives no positive reason to vote Conservative, only a reason not to vote Labour. If they are not avid consumers of political information they may only be exposed to a series of negative messages from each side - result being abstention. The problem often seems to be the case that strategists focus on a game between the key players within a bubble of their own construction; the effects more widely are not always considered and the result is that the voter is not placed at the heart of the campaign. The big question is whether the hard sell approach works in politics - I see little evidence of this!

Perceptions of leadership

2010-03-26T13:14:00.002Z

An interesting report from the Institute of Leadership and Management on perceptions of the major political leaders in the UK, business leaders (Richard Branson, Karren Brady and Rupert Murdoch) as well as three other major national leaders (Barack Obama, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy). The report highlights the problems all parties face in winning over public opinion during the forthcoming General Election.

The main finding relates to their Leadership Quotient (shown above), on which Gordon Brown is bottom (Branson top) but none of his two rivals come out of this well it has to be said. Cameron is highest on 5.66 (out of 10); in a context of Branson scoring over 8/10. Clegg is in a close second with Brown lagging behind. But when looking at the qualities behind these, Cameron scores badly for integrity; Clegg for leadership abilities; Cameron does very well for communication and engagement and, while Brown scores worst for having vision, no party leader is perceived to be clearly possessing vision.

The representativeness of the sample is dubious, or at least in terms of representing the UK electorate, as 21.1% would vote for other parties which suggests they are unusual compared to the mass electorate or are not UK voters. When looking at voting behaviour however, Cameron is not winning over all the disaffected Labour voters, the split is even between him and Clegg. The overall reports concludes that Brown should work on communication and engagement; Cameron on demonstrating ability and integrity; Clegg meanwhile needs to also demonstrate ability to lead. "Gordon Brown in particular has a real challenge. While he has a core of strong supporters who rate him highly, the problem is the low opinion of the majority. Many of these people have moved away from Labour and have deep reservations about his vision, his communication skills and his ability to engage them, and build commitment."

While none of this is in any way earth shattering, it is interesting that these judgements match much media commentary regarding the leaders and generally reflect doubts already voiced widely. What it really seems to show is how close the contest is and perhaps what little overall differences there are between the leaders as overall packages. None has the support awarded to Branson, or indeed Barack Obama who has second place but is deemed as being better at communication and having the highest integrity. Perhaps the challenge for both leaders is to erase those last minute doubts that many voters may experience - do they trust either Brown or Cameron fully, and who do they trust most?

The WOM election?

2010-03-18T20:40:00.004Z

Missed the original article by Douglas Alexander in the Guardian, but he argues that 2010 will be the word of mouth election, all about people talking politics to one another and convincing friends etc to vote, perhaps, and further vote for a particualr party. it is a theory, though his claim that "elections have always been won by getting out there and talking to people" may actually be less and less accurate over recent years. True it may be that doorstep campaigning wins over far more voters than a television advertisement (party/political election broadcasts are nothing more than this), as may long term communication within constituencies from their MPs, but whether people talk politics unprompted is questionable.

But actually Douglas Alexander is talking about 'word of mouse' in 2010 or he seems to be veering that way in the video, he wants people to contact friends and tell why they should vote Labour - extended the change we see message via the keyboard and mouse. Oddly though, the email going out to Labour list members does not reinforce the message of contributing to the campaign but receiving. The invites are then about signing up to the party Twitter feed, becoming a fan on Facebook or getting the iPhone app - this enables the party to communicate to you and does not automatically mean involvement. The idea of word of mouth online is a good one, while donating your Facebook status to a party (as was allowed during the 2008 US presidential campaign) may not win votes, an endorsement from a friend just might. But will they actually encourage public endorsements, from members or supporters, by word of mouse? Politics is still something that some are very reluctant to talk about, especially party politics. Also it may not be cool to be into politics, let alone to support a party, and can support for any of the current parties in any way be spun as cool? It is an idea though and as a mobilisation tool a good one, provided there are more like those who currently cheerlead for Labour on Twitter (see @bevaniteellie as one very vocal example).

Is electoral politics in terminal decline?

2010-03-16T08:44:00.004Z

Two bits of data suggest this is the case. A sharp decline in turnout which never dropped below 72% 1945-1997 (with a peak of 82/83% 1950/51) but in 2001 fell to 59% and only rose 2% in 2005 despite some arguing the contest would be closer. There are a number of factors that drive turnout, one being the extent to which votes matter. While many voted in 1992 to try to ensure victory of Labour or Conservatives, and again in 1997 to kick out the Conservatives it seems, the foregone conclusions of 2001 and 2005 would clear depress turnout.

One reason for that is engagement in party politics itself. Tribal politics, which pitted capital against labour, is a feature of history and what has resulted is a lack of ideas in politics and a convergence around the centre ground. In order to differentiate themselves, parties enter into empty oppositionalism and attack politics. There is a lack of a narrative underpinning party manifestoes and so it is more about selling a party as 'least likely to cut core public serices' than competing approaches to governance. Research suggests that this process of marketisation of political policy making and campaigning has a sclerotic effect on voter engagement. It simply promotes a ‘hard sell at any cost’ approach using bold statements that focus on image not substance. While it is argued this is a response to lowering engagement and involvement, so political messages must require only peripheral processing and not deep cognitive engagement, this lack of interest may actually be exacerbated by the style of communication.

Turnout figures also however mask a stark political reality; that not only is there a lack of choice but that there is also a representational divide in Britian. In 2005 the highest turnout was 77%, the lowest 34%; some voters were engaged! There is a big disparity between Marginal and Safe seats! The former see a keen contest fighting for every vote; the latter see little contest and are likely to have a lower level of representation from their MP. This may seem a contentious point, but having moved between constituencies in recent years I note receiving newspapers, flyers and a significant amount of literature from both the MP Annette Brook across a four year period, as well as her opponent in the 2005 election. In four years within the Poole constituency I have not heard anything from MP Robert Syms, nor even seen him in the media: it would appear he makes no effort to publicise his work for the constituency at the very least.

The separation between an air war (via the mass media) and the ground war (on the streets and doorsteps) can be highly important in terms of maintaining a representational connection as well as achieving electoral victory, and could be crucial in 2010. The Air war is likely to be highly negative aimed at getting committed voters out and convincing those who already lean towards one party or another. The negativity will appeal only if the receiver agrees with the foundation of the attack; if they feel it to be inaccurate or too personal the sender will suffer. The Ground war, in contrast, will be about persuading by personal contact and making policy relevant to lives and localities. But only the key voters in the marginal and target seats will see a ground war; this two tier system will remain as long as the UK uses the first past the post voting system. Voters need to be asked and convinced, most are not!

A further set of indicators relates to trust in politics (standing at 24% currently) and general interest in participation. 80% are interested in politics (though this drops to 35% in the most deprived areas which are also likely to be safe Labour seats) yet only 15% are interested in an active role and only 27% feel they have any say in how the country is run. Self-efficacy in the UK is very low and, following the expenses scandal, can only be lower.

Leader debates may be the one positive element in the air war. Controls demanded by the parties will reduce audience spontaneity though. On the other hand, they may also be more like PMQs and full of rhetoric and attack and not setting out clear reasons for electing any of the participants. So the debates may only be peripherally processed and not play a role in providing informed choices. The media will also have a key role to play. The danger here is that focus will be on minute performance issues and political substance will be ignored or forgotten. This may be the case with much media coverage of the contest, their perspective being of a horse race with a focus on strategy as opposed to political choice, and highlighting personal failings and gaffes; does this encourage particapation?

Much has been said about the effect of the Internet, that it will come of age in 2010 and that there may be an Obama-isation of political campaigning. Parties will try to use the Internet to increase awareness but UK politics lacks an Obama, and the parties find it hard to develop participatory campaigns. MyConservatives.com centres around local candidates in marginals but struggle to gain supporters. In the marginal seat of Mid Dorset and North Poole, candidate Nick King has four supporters and has raised £150; not exactly demonstrating high engagement – perhaps the product (politics firstly, perceptions of elected representatives, and the party, not Mr King) is the problem! Activists will be trying to innovate and mobilise but can they touch the hearts and minds of the masses?

Due to the Internet, more voices will be heard, and some will be new ones, but largely they are megaphones for the parties. Greater co-production of the campaign will occur but outside party sites, and a lot will be satirical. Labour’s change we see site, I am told, gets more negative ‘Changes’ than positive and there are a few ‘negative’ changes shown on the related Facebook site; debate online regarding the site then centres on censorship rather than the aim of the site which should provide citizen endorsements of Labour’s tenure. The fact that the majority of pictures are uploaded by Labour candidates and activists tells us that either ordinary citizens do not see positive changes or they cannot see the point in engaging.

Because of all this, turnout is likely to show the same mixed pattern as in the last two contests with engagement being higher in the marginals. There may well be a slight average increase if the contest stays close however. It is highly likely that voters will select the best MP, locally, or the least worst leader and some may remain unsure till very late in the campaign. But will anywhere near a majority engage and become involved in electoral politics generally, let alone in the campaign of one of the parties. Based on current indicators related to the voting system, the level of negativity already circulating, and the nature of engagement online via party sites and across Twitter, it seems not. It will be a dirty fight and for many engaging in that fight will be anathema despite the powerful arguments for making an informed choice.

But does this suggest electoral politics in in terminal decline? Probably. Politics needs to be made relevant beyond key voters in marginal constituencies, perhaps this suggests revising the voting systems; it also needs to be part of everyday lives, suggesting better communication. Policy making should be closer to the people, either via effect representation or forms of direct democracy. Ideological space needs to be reconfigured to match modern society and the emotional and personal aspects of the leaders need to be discussed intellignetly to enable both personal and political involvement. News values need to be changed, as does the spin culture within politics; which we accept feed one another. Political communication needs to think not about victory but reception; victory at any cost may be pyrrhic and empty in terms of perceived trust and legitimacy when all that has been achieved is a depressed electorate bored with negative attacks. These were just some of the suggestions, perhaps a combination of all would reverse the negative social trend towards politics?

This is an overview of a debate held on March 14th at Bournemouth University featuring the author, Prof. Barry Richards, Dr Dan Jackson, and Roman Gerodimos.

Is Twitter really fundamental to democracy?

2010-03-14T17:24:00.004Z

Twitter is probably the most over-hyped tool on the Internet, possibly due to the vast array of celebrities that share their interesting, and often not so interesting, thoughts (and promote themselves) with a rather large audience. It is certainly the fastest growing Web 2.0 tool, in terms of uptake at least, and a great source of information. From F1, to cricket, to who is visiting Downing Street, to what offers are on in your local branch of Top Shop, its there and perhaps easier to access than the range of different pages you would need to access from your PC or mobile phone to get the same level of up to date information. There is also the commentary provided by some on their daily diet (for breakfast on March 17th 2009, Stephen Fry had a bowl of fruit) and the one sided @'whoever' conversations that are like listening to someone on the phone and trying to guess the topic. But it is both growing and has uses, but is it really enhancing democracy?

Talking to the BBC, Evan Williams says that it is. The key example of this, or least the one highlighted in the piece written for BBC Online, is that White House press secretary Robert Gibbs has signed up. Williams says "[He's] using it to give these sort of inside peeks from the White House and behind the scenes. He's definitely using it as part of their strategy and supporting Obama. So that seems important because it's really changing the game there." Oddly the tweets from @presssec are not exactly profound (see left) and very similar to the daily information feed that Downing Street offer that are about official visits and suggest little more than demonstrating the President is busy. Its all about image management basically and is both informational as well as political in reality.

So this is not really about democracy. It may demonstrate some air of transparency but this information could be found easily if wanted. What it does achieve is making it more accessible to a wider audience as you can choose to receive it directly rather than having to search the White House website. Interestingly those who are commenting on conditions in Iran or China are perhaps playing a greater role in true democracy but Williams, or the article's author, seem to overlook these.

Will Twitter aid democracy during the UK General Election, indications are not hugely positive. The majority of activity seems to be to make sustained attacks, or rebut enemies attacks, using a public feed to do so. Some may only receive one side of the argument of course, as they group around their own party's cheerleaders, however if you wished to gain a general overview of politics there seems little that is designed to enhance participation. Labour's #mob monday is designed to mobilise activists and there have been a few 'doorstep' references that are parties trying to get momentum behind local campaigning. But really this is about self promotion in the lead up to an important electoral contest, not about the promotion of voting. Parties may say there is a link between the two, others might not; I can see some of this being engaging but at other times being hugely off-putting - like with everything on Twitter, it depends who you follow! Thus such claims are rather bold, and suggest believing your own hype. Sure, if it can be used to make political decision making more transparent or allow suppressed voices within authoritarian regimes to be heard internationally it is a great tool. But largely that represents a small percentage of content and there is no aggregator that separates serious campaigning political communication from election communication designed to persuade an audience. Some sections of the Twitter audience will switch on to global politics, some to party politics, some to celebrities, sports and their friends; they will choose how Twitter is to be used for them and the majority usage in terms of content and follows may determine how the tool is perceived as a way of communicating messages, to whom and what content is appropriate given the audience. As with every new online tool it has potential, but that potential is both positive and negative and there are multiple uses; what is heard will determine how the tool is perceived and what sort of individuals choose to use it.

Just who is being bullied here?

2010-02-22T15:11:00.003Z

It has become a fair question, is it Gordon Brown who is being bullied by a hostile media; Christine Pratt of the National Bullying Helpline - just to maintain balance and perhaps due to the whiff of blood the pack now have; the Conservatives who some allege to be behind Pratt sticking her head above the parapet? Its all really a bit bizarre.

At any point anyone in a position of power can be accused of bullying, people management is a skill which some have and some don't. What the atmosphere is really like inside No. 10 Downing Street is not fully discussed. It is either very tranquil and calm and the leader is benign, or everyone appears to be in constant fear that Gordon Brown will explode in a rage - my suspicion is there is a lot of the former and a little of the latter but that certain events get exaggerated to make a good story. Whether some staff have or do feel aggrieved is something that should firstly be handled internally and not used for political capital at the end of the day; there are after all procedures that any organisation would expect its employees and employers to follow.

What has become rather odd is that some fairly vague allegations supplied by Andrew Ranwnsley and published in yesterdays Observer have become a huge story; tales of Brown's temper are old news and I remember Andrew Marr asking who is Gordon Brown about 4-5 years ago in a BBC special - the opening music was 'Monster' by The Automatic. Brown denied one thing, ever hitting anyone. Mandelson denied a little more than that. Then Christine Pratt waded in to tell the world that her helpline has received calls from employees of No. 10.

Whatever the political argument this is a breach of confidence and as much has been said several times. Why she did this is open to question and the finger has pointed at the Conservative party as engineering this as part of a personalised dirty tricks campaign. Not out of the question and sadly a part of politics - McBride et al are part of a long tradition here. The damage to the NBH organisation and perhaps the Conservatives if links are proven could be serious, especially if there is no evidence that Pratt's claims are truthful. It has certainly brought NBH into the spotlight and a posts here and here have been circulated arguing "if you call the National Bullying Helpline for help, because you believe you’re being bullied at work, and you follow their advice, they might tell your employer that you are the bully, call your grievance vexatious, and leave you in a worse position than when you started". Of course the opposition parties are calling for an enquiry while Labour deny all allegations. The whole affair seems a huge mess to be honest and I tend to agree with Mandelson's comments (which I rarely say) he suggests ""I assumed that this was a storm in a teacup manufactured by somebody who wanted to get some good headlines for his book... It now looks like more of a political operation that's under way, directed at the prime minister personally." I would not personally accuse Andrew Rawnsley, but it does seem rather a convenient series of events and the idea of Pratt talking because she felt that the government was in denial is a rather odd line of argument.

Politics is perhaps becoming too personal and this is a symptom of this. Brown as a figure polarises public opinion. Cameron is not exactly more popular but not as unpopular. But neither should be seen as an endorsement. Attacks seem to be more and more personal, particularly against Brown, and from a wide range or sources. Within the hypermedia age anyone can say anything and it become a piece of political/election communication. Perhaps this is Christine Pratt's role, it was a personal move for political reasons, any more would be an accusation and even this is conjecture. But there is a big why question and it relates full circle to where I started with this ramble. Who is being bullied here? Brown is constantly under fire for being himself, one wonders how much sympathy such attacks earn him and reinforce images of the 'nasty' opposition. It may not matter who did what, to whom, or why; it is public perceptions that matter and it may be that these attacks actually help Brown far more than the range of oppositional forces think as they continue these attacks.

Is it ever appropriate to call your opponent a scum-sucking pig?

2010-02-17T11:00:00.011Z

I blogged a matter of days ago about people getting into trouble for inappropriate tweets. It was based on observations of Twitter usage. It may be the people I follow, but it has become increasingly partisan and polarised in recent weeks and there has been a lot of attack, rebuttal and counter attack. Sensible, objective voices become marginalised and the medium loses its power as a way of engaging some people in more rational political discourse - noted by Andrew Chadwick on Twitter yesterday - a shame. What is the result, that Twitter scandals become magnified and part of what is now bound to be one of the most negative campaigns with no clear separation between what is party generated and what is independent.

That is a different story, and I wanted to highlight two episodes to explore how Twitter seems to be used during the election campaign. In the UK, one contribution to the 'I've never voted Tory' hashtag was under the name of David Wright MP (Labour obviously) and included the elegant argument "because you can put lipstick on a scum-sucking pig, but it’s still a scum-sucking pig". David (pictured right) claims his feed was hacked, which may well be the case, for all we know it could have been hacked deliberately to cause trouble for him or the Labour party - all things after all are possible. The fact that follow-up tweets which were not later deleted included 'must've hit a nerve" suggests claims of hacking are questionable however. The story then escalated and Eric Pickles waded in to demand an apology, this was published on Iain Dale's blog and also picked up by the media. Did he, didn't he, does it matter, who cares; all interesting questions. What it is though is symptomatic of the political discourse on Twitter, which anyone can be drawn into, but once drawn in it becomes difficult to retract (impossible to edit) a tweet and then you have to find some form of excuse.

Similar rows are bubbling across in the US, in Ohio, where there will be a by-election following the death of Senator John Murtha. Democrat candidate Jennifer Brunner is using a tweet by COAST and organisation supported by her opponent Rob Portman (left), which read "John Murtha dead at 77. Good riddance bad egg" as an indication of his character. Her campaign, which has much broader and substantial criticisms of Portman, includes the line "Ohioans are decent people, and we "get" what people are about by what they do" - perhaps as relevant to the reference to Murtha, his links to COAST, and his opposition to spending and taxes (the campaign covered by COAST) over which political arguments are raging.

Twitter seems to be increasingly used as a campaign tool. But is it a wise tool? Well any tool is only as wise as the user and that in many ways is the problem with Twitter. We can suggest that the use of short phrases that can be broadcast to a huge audience is very attractive to anyone running a campaign. But are the short phrases well thought out? One may imagine that the 'I've never voted Tory' hashtag is something viewed only by Labour supporters, no these are monitored very widely. Thus the imagined and actual audiences may be very different. It is ok to produce these simple slogans, but do they actually have broader ramifications when they are as negative as those used (maybe) by Wright or Portman? There was a flurry of excitement when it was revealed that the Conservative Central Office wanted to approve all tweets, not such a silly idea. But, while MPs and PPCs may be controllable, the broader party twitterers cannot. This is where the bulk of negativity comes from and, as Andy Chadwick noted, the outcome will be that there will be a small and highly polarised conversation taking place that replicates the yah-boo of the Westminster floor. It will be of little value to anyone and probably will be nothing more than an afterthought to the election. Sad, for a time I thought it may be the great tool of mobilisation; or will this negativity actually mobilise people?

Can you get in trouble for Twittering inappropriate comments?

2010-02-12T09:13:00.005Z

We know that there have been cases of people being sacked for their Facebook status updates, Twitter seems even more immediate and often is used very unwisely by some. Politicians can tweet from the floor of parliaments, commenting on everything from the rationale behind policy to the tie worn by the speaker (tweets sent during the election of the UK Speaker of the House of Commons evidenced some of this); but are there every repercussions? It may be easy to think you know who is reading your tweets, you have an imagined audience rather than recognising that the world could be listening. Here is a story that Joto Fritz shared with the Democracy Online Forum:

There was a case in the Parliament of Lower Saxony, Germany in December 2009. Helge Limburg, a member for the Greens, used his Twitter account during the debate on the 2010 budget and posted that the speech of the Interior Minister reminded him of HC Strache and Gerd Wilders, two right-wing politicians in Austria and the Netherlands and called him an "unbearable agitator". This was made public during the debate by a member of the FDP (Liberal Party) who read the entry out loud. This led to a heated debate and an excuse [apology of sorts, DL] by Limburg "for the choice of words, not the content". The debate then ended peacefully. So no charging or conviction but heated debate due to statements made on Twitter.

At a forum on the use of social media in Westminster early last year, that well-respected communication expert Derek Draper did comment on the immediacy of Twitter and that he could read comments about himself speaking at events while he was speaking and then use them to steer his speech. You could also use them to attack the opposition also, if they are tweeting. One does wonder when the first case will be brought that questions whether a tweet constitutes libel - surely it must - or slander. Given that it will be one of the election battlegrounds it may be interesting to see if anyone will wish to shout foul when tweeted about or if it will all be just part of the rough and tumble of election campaigning.

Why I love UGC

2010-01-20T11:26:00.006Z

The real bonus with Web 2.0 is that it easily facilitates ordinary web users to create their own content and contribute to campaigns. This was forwarded to me by one of my students, no name! I guess they lean away from the Conservatives!

After a little investigation I found a lot of different posters, all of a similar vein though perhaps less blunt, floating around on Twitter. The site where these originate is very simple and allows anyone to generate the words to fit around the now famous, possibly airbrushed, picture of Cameron. It is a creation of Andy Barefoot who supports neither Labour or Conservatives, maybe a Liberal Democrat (??) and his site has a few more sophisticated versions. But the power of these is that all those online activists can create them, circulate them, some may go viral, a lot of people have a laugh but, in political terms, it may have an impact on overall perceptions of David Cameron. This may not be based on the message itself, though they may be reminders of negatives linked to Cameron's history or persona, the above links to the Labour 'Dave the Chameleon' video and his background in public relations as negatives. But such offhand allusions to a negative message that makes this powerful; impact is based mainly on the fact that people we know (our friends on Facebook, Bebo and social networks or those we follow on Tumblr and Twitter or email contacts) do not like Cameron and oppose him as prime minister. I wait to see the same done to Labour and Gordon Brown, or is deemed too easy a target?

New style of government or new style of gimmick

2010-01-18T16:14:00.005Z

As the ever-interesting (and I do mean that) Dizzy informs readers last week, the Conservatives are clear winners in engagement online. Whether this is old versus new, so there is more interest in the Conservatives because Labour have been around, and in government, for a long time, is a question? It could be that the engagement tools are the right ones, or that people want to engage more with the Conservatives, perhaps as they are seen as the next government, this is not an analysis of the audience unfortunately beyond simple indicators of engagement.

But the party seems to have a new strategy, one that will allow greater public participation in government. They want someone to design a platform, and will offer £1 million, that will create an online public sphere. If you are wondering about the idea of the public sphere, this should be autonomous (possibly in this case), inclusive (definitely), political (as before - and clearly) and rational. A space where people are able to find solutions to common social problems. Such ideas are surrounded by much hype and are attached to many ideals of democracy. There are two ways of looking at the notion of creating public spheres, it can be hailed as a means for getting people empowered and in touch with government, as in the case of this article by Tim Bonnemann, but there are dangers.

It is easy to source a crowd online, after all this was achieved to create the UK's Christmas number one single, or at least to block Simon Cowell. But what sort of crowd will be sourced? You can find a crowd that will decide that hanging is the best deterrent for serious crime, would that be good policy though? Would this allow minority opinions to be voiced? Or just those of extremists? Would it break the spiral of silence or create a new silence, of the majority perhaps? Most worrying would it abrogate the responsibility of a government over decision making, or indeed would a government be tied to the crowd by the terms and conditions of participation. Of course these negative outcomes can be avoided, to an extent, but they need to be considered. Initiatives that bring the governed and government closer together are all worthy of support and encouragement, the danger is though that these initiatives can be ill-considered gimmicks rather than real proposals for public participation in the democratic process. It may take more than £1 million to not only build the interface but also to ensure all the checks and balances are in place; that or we may find a place for consultation and participation that becomes unusable as anything but to embarrass the government that thought it up and paid for it.

Its going to be a dirty fight

2010-01-06T10:39:00.004Z

There is a lot of money being spent on playing up the Conservatives, with a glossy backlit ad dominating Piccadilly Circus at one point over Christmas. But the majority of campaigning, in this period of phony campaigning, is on the cheap and on the web and via email. The above is from Labour which I have been forwarded twice this morning already. This will perhaps be the major impact the Internet will have on election campaigning. YouTube allows anyone to get a video out to an audience (few may watch it but it is a route to publicity). Facebook and Twitter does the same with these photo-shopped ads. It may replace the street hording as it is possible to target them a little better, but may get the same views. They are only peripheral cues, reminders of campaign messages and slogans that will only appeal to those already converted, but they will be used and lot and may encourage some to turnout if they are worried about Cameron caring for the less well off or Brown's various (in)competences!

Will online campaigning make a difference?

2010-01-04T19:23:00.004Z

It seems there is a received wisdom that the Internet played a crucial role in the 2008 US Presedential campaign - and everyone is asking much the same of every other country's election. In this vein, there is a fascinating article on the Channel 4 news site which asks whether online campaigning will be an important feature of the forthcoming General Election campaign. There are real advocates who proclaim that the Internet could fundamentally shift the style of campaigning. Toby Flux from Labour Matters says in the piece that hits, clicks and tweets really count and that 2010 will be the "first general election of the social network age" he, like Labour's Twitter Tsar, believes news stories which break online will dominate the campaign. Others are more circumspect, Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes suggest much of what happens online will be swamped by the deluge of coverage across mainstream media, and I guess their websites also which can steal the audience away from the parties.

It almost seems that Labour want it to make a difference, though perhaps this is dangerous unless they have an online strategy that is yet to be launched as the Conservatives are massively ahead in terms of the blogosphere and the sophistication of their homepage - not to mention the number of MPs using social networks or microblogs. While Kerry McCarthy may be right in saying that online tools can reach younger voters, she may also contradict herself when observing that too much online political communication is in-fighting. It can, as Fawkes says, mean that bloggers (MPs or not) are simple preaching to the already converted and not really encouraging anyone else to become involved.

The key thing seems to be Obama, everyone wants to emulate him and his success. The Conservatives have already tried to create an Obama-esque social network and many consider his model of campaigning to be something to emulate. This misses the point in a number of ways. Former Liberal Democrat communications manager Olly Grender argues in the piece that the campaign "has to have the charisma and hope and excitement of the Obama campaign to add magic dust and that is nothing to do with new media"; it was the man, his image and what he stood for that drew in the audience not his social network. One must precede the other! Also the campaign organisation was very much a grassroots operation that empowered activists, some of this work could be done online, so it worked, but you cannot contrive that and create an activist base (Shane Greer agrees, he just said so on BBC News 24) - perhaps the Conservatives will garner both the enthusiasm and the will to create an offline and online activist base that will push MyConservatives as an important tool - Perhaps! Labour have a less public network for supporters, perhaps avoiding the fanfares and brickbats such tools can bring you.

It seems the media are playing up the idea of an online because it is new, and it is in many ways as the advances in online technologies have facilitated a higher level of use to make it a way of reaching a lot of people. But you cannot guarantee an audience. Perhaps Iain Dale is right, confirming the Downes and Mui thesis that email is the killer application - if you have a big enough database you can reach a lot of people and mobilise them. Perhaps they can also be pulled to other online campaign tools and drawn into the campaign. The Conservatives are far more organised in using email strategically. I hear from them once a week, I signed up to Labour from three emails and have received nothing - either I am on a blacklist or they just don't want to talk to me, or they are not using their database very well (anyone from Labour know the answer?). Liberal Democrats are less frequent and the e-newsletter is less flashy, but they also seem to have grasped email.

Online campaigning needs a pull - an audience needs to be drawn to the sites of parties, their social networks and their Twitter feeds. Obama provided a pull unique to him it could be argued (I think it was unique to the time and mood); in the context of low trust in politicians generally; when the party leaders have been around for a while; when support is not unequivocal for either party and many may be voting for the least worst option, parties in the UK need a big pull factor if the Internet is going to be a vote winner either as a tool for activists or for voter engagement.

Is Brown really Britain's worst dressed man?

2010-01-04T11:54:00.003Z

GQ magazine have published their best/worst dressed man list, something which is usually of little interest to someone like me (probably as I would fall into the latter category - before anyone else says it!). It is unclear exactly who all the panel of experts that determine the rankings are but they include fashion designers/gurus/experts. Interestingly Gordon Brown has come out as worst dressed, though he is in interesting company with Boris Johnson, Russell Brand and Peter Stringfellow, and only narrowly beats French President Nicolas Sarkozy into second place. David Cameron, in stark contrast, is eighth and the write up talks of him being Britain's next prime minister - which does make one wonder if the review is politically biased in some way.

The bigger question is though, is Brown really that badly dressed. How could this be given he must have a wealth of staff to advise him on presentation (though admittedly they have had little impact in a number of areas thus far). Is there a lingering perception of him as someone bad presented and badly dressed that overrides our reading of each individual appearance? Is there a bias against him regardless? It is interesting that he emerges bottom, especially when the story on the BBC news site is accompanied by a picture of him looking quite smart - or is that just me? The question is, is it just Gordon who never quite looks right, or does he actually dress badly?

Election, what election

2009-12-14T13:17:00.004Z

Once again we are given indications that a General Election is due 'early', perhaps in March, as opposed to June 2010. Why is this on the agenda is a question? This benefits the Conservatives in two ways, firstly they want everyone to be thinking about a General Election. They need people to be making choices as early as possible and want to keep sustained pressure on public opinion and, of course, on Gordon Brown. But they might also want to try to re-live that moment a couple of years ago of the election that never was. If they can build up the expectation of an election, and again it fails to materialise, will it further impact on Brown's reputation? Of course we know Brown is waiting for his moment, and is working hard to improve his standing among the public - the first prime minister since Churchill to spend the night in a war zone for example - Cameron's problem is he has to wait and pressure is the only weapon an opposition has in effecting the date of an election.

What have birds and Maude the Cow got in common?

2009-11-24T16:55:00.004Z

They both Twitter! No really, how successful this has been I do not know. Maude is the Anchor Butter mascot, and has been twittering for a while.

The function is purely brand awareness despite the fact that the tweets rarely mentions the brand it is a way of gaining attention and delivering audiences to the brand homepage. The outcome, they hope, is that next time one of the 1,329 followers, or perhaps friends made aware of the twittering cow, are at the spreads aisle of the supermarket Anchor is front of mind and that purchase maybe even helping that cow survive. The trick is to have the attractive anthropomorphic mascot to front the campaign - think Alexander Orlov who likes comparing his fellow Meerkats - perhaps Tory Bear can do the same in a political context.

You need cheerleaders

2009-11-24T10:25:00.003Z

It is unknown what impact the blogosphere has. There is some academic discussion of it acting as an echo chamber for ideas; basically that the messages of a brand, politician, political party or journalist become repeated and circulated across weblogs. Thus it can amplify messages or, by amplifying the messages of one party, it can reduce the impact of opponents. While there are active Labour and Liberal Democrat bloggers, it is the Conservatives that have the most organised, most followed and most sophisticated support in the blogosphere. Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes have become pseudo political celebrities as well as reasonably respected commentators (more the former than the latter) and there are a number of others such as Dizzy and Tory Bear with a significant readership. These may well be significant players among those who follow online debates. Guido mainly now seems to attack Labour at every opportunity, this critique of a party election broadcast is a particularly good swipe at the Labour spin machine

I have only seen one Labour blogger doing the same, Recess Monkey (whose amusing response to the video, if not to the criticisms made, is below) in fact left wing bloggers seem to also take a critical stance a lot of the time.

So the Conservatives have a lot of cheerleaders online while Labour, it seems, are failing to make any breakthrough in this respect. This may be symptomatic of the party's standing; it may be a failure to mobilise supportive bloggers, it may be that this simply not done in Labour circles. If there is an impact, and cheerleaders are important in amplifying messages and getting messages across to new audiences then Labour seem to be seriously lacking here.

The power of the viral

2009-11-23T12:18:00.004Z

The trick with viral campaigning is make it funny, make it something everyone understands and make it something everyone gets (in terms of a joke). While this may not find resonance with everyone, and you can criticise it as nothing more than a cheap joke, it is very quick turnaround for a political party and is nicely current.

Of course this is just the start of the deluge of photo shopped pictures that are going to be circulated by parties and their supporters over the next six months prior to an election so the joke will wear thin after a while; but as a one-off it may well get coverage across the Internet. And of course this is its only function, getting seen, understood and retained as a message; anything that derides Labour is doing the Conservatives a favour!

Online campaigning as collaborative diegesis

2009-11-19T16:53:00.004Z

If your first thought is 'Huh' bear with me. I was at an interesting research seminar yesterday run here at Bournemouth by colleague Joe Flintham who was talking of the notion of a collaborative diegesis. Diegesis may sound a complex thing but it is something we are all familiar with, it is the world which is created by any narrative, that which involves us and we are transported to when we read a book, watch a film etc. For Joe, his work is on fiction and collaboration in stories using a range of media (see Hauntology for one of his experimental projects which invited people to add sounds while exploring a 'haunted' table with drawers). I was struck by the idea of a collaborative narrative which builds and develops a story and was thinking of its application beyond the world of fiction.

Here was my thought. Social Networking Sites are naturally collaborative, a profile page on Facebook, YouTube etc can be populated by the creator but also by visitors to that profile. Each contributing comment on a post, picture or video adds to the original item and so provides a further dimension that can be experienced by future visitors. Political profiles, be they fan pages, individual MP's pages or party video sites usually allow comments. The similarity with contributions to something like Hauntology is striking. Some are reflective on the original item; some tangential and related to the host, production values, spelling, whatever; some relate to the meta-narrative (big picture) such as a campaign or contest, values or a world view; they are each personal and had meaning at the time of their posting. Of course there is censorship of the contributions, and perhaps this results in a wholly supportive narrative, this is a necessary feature of oppositional politics. However is something like the contributions to the Post shown on the right, something which seems almost a unique feature of Obama's campaign and presidency in terms of the numbers contributing if nothing else, a collaborative diegesis? Is this creating a world constructed by a collaborative narrative which is enveloping Obama as the character at the centre? Is this narrative not only persuasive, in terms of the endorsements of Obama by the members of the Facebook community, but also transportational; does it conjure the image of a world in which Obama has a free hand, or the world he wants to create, and so why he should be supported. It was an idea inspired by Joe's talk and so all feedback and comments welcome.

Co-producing a campaign

2009-11-18T09:05:00.002Z

There is perhaps nothing more persuasive than a message than comes from someone you feel to be similar to yourself. We are persuaded most often by our friends and loved ones, they have a profound impact upon our attitudes and behaviour on a daily basis; most of the time we are unaware of that impact. Many campaigns attempt to replicate the power of what, I guess, can be called peer pressure. The Conservative party wall of videos, the fan pages on Facebook, all attempt to get the public to endorse a party on the basis that people like them are already doing so.

Barack Obama is doing the same with the issue of Health Care Reform. The campaign ran a competition to make a video that would promote the campaign. The YouTube site claims there have been "nearly 1,000 submissions, 20 amazing finalists, and more than 3 million views" for the call. The have selected a winner: Eric Hurt (the video is below)

The winning video is very simple in its message. It links well to the theme of Organising for Amwerica by offering short future narratives from children on what would happen if they have an accident and need medical care. It is a message to get people to donate to the campaign, to lobby on behalf of the campaign, and so to put pressure on elected representatives to pass the reform bill. The power of this is the people who are backing the campaign, this one video has received 70,404 views and received 135 comments since it was posted eight hours ago; scanning the comments they are all positive about the campaign. The tactics of soliciting people's input and posting on a social network allows the supporting citizens to co-produce the campaign messages and make the camapign belong as much to the people as to Obama. Whether they represent a majority or not it gives the impression of a movement; whether there are any lessons that can be drawn from this and applied elsewhere is difficult to say. Obama has a unique approach to being President, if he wins this campaign he may well be seen to be the ultimate advocate of people power; if not he may be able to shrug this off as a brave attempt to back the people that was thwarted by vested interests on Capitol Hill. It seems that co-production is not just persuasive, but also offers a win-win zone for Obama and the people of the US.

Widget Campaigning

2009-11-17T20:21:00.004Z

Widgets have become quite important in online campaigning. Widgets are simple little devices that allow brands to be promoted across their supporters web sites and various online presences. The problem with this strategy is motivating supporters, or in fact any web user, to want to place that widget on their site.

The Conservatives may have found a solution. The General Election Countdown (right) is part of a wider campaign, spearheaded by party chairman and de facto (if not in reality) face of their campaigns, Eric Pickles. He wants to ensure that members and supporters keep focus on the election and do not see it as a foregone conclusion whatever public opinion suggests. He is an interesting choice, his down-to-earth and amiable manner, greeting viewers of the latest video with 'Hello Chums' gives the impression of an ordinary guy; the serious message of the mountain the party have to climb to win delivered in a serious but friendly manner encouraging supporters to work for the party. The widget allows you to countdown to the election while also promoting the party slogan 'Now for Change'. The countdown itself is quite cool, well perhaps it is to political nerds like me anyway, time for Labour to find their own widget for supporters.

Politician Endorsement

2009-11-16T22:12:00.003Z

Odd to see a politician being used in an advertisement as a positive endorser of a message. It seems the power of the 'Yes We Can' slogan, its symbolic meaning, coupled with Obama's reforms is striking a chord in the US and so is being used to back social messages. No idea why this was emailled to me but thought it was interesting enough to share.

Why winning Glasgow North East was important but meaningless

2009-11-16T16:18:00.004Z

Labour's first good news story for a very long time is their victory in Glasgow North East. While the figures show an increased majority up to 60% and what could be described as a landslide endorsement of Brown's government, such indications may be erroneous. By-elections are strange beasts. It would be nice to see a resurgent Labour party, whatever your political persuasion it is a good thing for democracy. But this is not the indicator of this happening. Turnout was only 33%, Labour's majority was always high (though previously unopposed by the major parties) and their overall number of votes decreased slightly. The Scottish National Party gained around 1,000 votes the other parties made little headway at all. But consider the resources thrown at the contest. The visits made the Labour supporters in this traditional heartland seat feel important. If only opening a local or national newspaper they found their area centre stage with the prime minister (or similar figure) walking their streets. This will not happen at the General Election. The General Election will be decided in those marginal constituencies, here resources will be deployed to their maximum but those voters may be much harder to persuade to vote (or support Labour) than the hardened Labourites of Glasgow. Unfortunately for many local MPs and PPCs, it is the question of who should, or who should not, be prime minister that will dominate the contest. In Glasgow it was a question of do they still believe in Labour, they did, but the election will ask a very different question of a range of very different voters. Thus this is a momentary blip in Labour's fortunes, they need a much more positive note to be sounded at the national level to find a resurgence in time for 2010.

A bit of satire

2009-10-27T15:10:00.004Z

Though there is perhaps the argument that I should have tried harder, I just could not resist sharing this satirical video depicting the US presidential campaign of 2008.

Having watched it twice i think it is slightly pro-Obama given its depiction of McCain as a warmonger and the serious digs at Obama were the discredited 'Osama bin Laden' attacks and his relaxed communication style shown on chart shows and some public appearances. Kind of nice to see the whole contest given a pseudo-South Park make over.

Its all about having a digital footprint

2009-10-22T17:49:00.003+01:00

As part of the CENMEP project I have been reviewing how UK political parties used the Internet at the 2009 European parliamentary election. Looking back at Wainer Lusoli's work from 2004 it is hard to see any significant differences in strategy. Websites are now better constructed using the most up to date technologies, but only if you have the resources. In the case of the the majority of the 25 parties standing it was an online brochure offering little that was engaging when compared to the norms of Internet use across the corporate and not-for-profit sector. The big difference is the migration into social networking sites. Most parties now feature on Facebook, many use Twitter, YouTube is an easy way to promote videos be they sophisticated or home made, Flickr hosts photos of the leader or perhaps candidates. These do offer a new level of engagement, as on the whole you can comment on many of the material posted but I wonder if that is really the intention. Few parties seem to do much that encourages interaction. It seems to be, as the post title suggests, a way of extending the party's digital footprint; being found easily and so getting the message out as opposed to communicating with potential voters. So is the use of social networking little more than a way of advertising for free for political organisations? Beyond a small minority that seems to be the case. But the question is can we expect more, can the interactive features of SNS be adapted for political purposes within the context of a persuasive campaign? The suggestion is that we will see more of this at the UK 2010 election but whether there will be a substance to this online migration is a big question - all thoughts and predictions welcome.

What are the point of parties having shops

2009-10-20T11:25:00.003+01:00

Well if: "you've ever had your heart set on an official Conservative Party mug, an 'It's time for a Change' baby-grow, or even a 'Honk for Change' car sticker, then I've got some good news for you" is the opening line of the promotional email send under the name of party chairman Eric Pickles. The 'goodies' are not exactly original, I am unsure how often 'Time for Change' has been used in some form as a slogan, though it is expected of any challenger when their opponents have had incumbency for a long period of time. Equally Honk for... car stickers were popularised during the contest to be nominee and President in the US - even with a Honk if Hillary scares you variant. I quite like the T-shirts 'Don't blame me I voted Tory' and 'Release your inner Tory', winners of the party's recent competition, and they are quite amusing in a non-political way while getting a message across.

But are these things that will really have any impact in terms of support and visible endorsement or contributing to the party funds? The latter I doubt a lot, and lets face it if there is even an expectation that there will be a financial impact then the party are in trouble financially and strategically. It is the former where these may be important. There are a range of impressions such things convey, wit and humour firstly which can defuse some of the negative impressions of politics. Secondly they are a visible expression of support and may have influence on people if they are seen around. Thirdly, and important in terms of campaigning locally, a team of people wearing Conservative logos and slogans can create a buzz on the streets. It shows a presence, it raises the profile of the campaing locally and gives the impression that there is an enthusiasm and excitement for the campaign.

Perhaps actually this is something that all parties should consider supplying to their activists. A uniform T-shirt that gives the party visibility beyond the rosette or badge. It may not be the latest fashion item or be worn down the shops or in the bar, but as a campaign tool it may have a deeper significance.

Should the BNP be given the oxygen of publicity

2009-10-19T17:33:00.003+01:00

It is a question that seems to be of concern to many at present and opinion is divided; should British National Party leader Nick griffin be allowed to appear on BBC's Question Time? The no argument is based upon whether it is right that a group that holds views out of step with those of a multicultural society should be given a public platform and the credibility that goes with that. There is a danger in censoring the BNP in this way, that is that we silence all opinions we do not agree with and that is a slippery slope away from democracy and the ideal of free speech. The yes argument essentially focuses on free speech and the fact that the BNP is a legitimate political party. Peter Hain questions this on the basis of last week's ruling that they need to change their constitution or be outlawed, and interesting twist that could have some truth if they are unable to conform to the ruling. But there longstanding argument is that the BNP should be allowed to take part in open debates in order to expose their true character. If their arguments are contested openly, their validity questioned, particularly their arguments regarding repatriation, then they may have less credibility in the longer term. It is an interesting idea and one I have much sympathy with; but it very much depends on how the debate goes and who is fielded to oppose Griffin on Question Time - makes it almost essential viewing for all those interested in politics! But there is a big question here, should anyone have a say? Should some views be censored? Or should their ideas be given the oxygen of publicity that may give them credence or see them die under the spotlight of public and media opprobrium? Writing to the BBC, Hain argues "In my view, your approach is unreasonable, irrational and unlawful." but is he correct?

One great put down

2009-10-16T10:45:00.002+01:00

It does seem incredible that anyone can even make the link between health care reform and acting like a fascist dictator but that seems to be one tack of the anti-free health care campaign.

The respoonse "having a sensible with you would be like having one with a dining room table" (sic) is a classic from Senator Barney Frank. It also indicates just how polarised society is on this issue and how it taps into deeply held ideological positions that are engrained within US psychology. For some reason it is just not American for a broad swathe of the society Obama is trying to convince of the efficacy of this policy.

A mere toenail in the body politic

2009-10-12T08:34:00.003+01:00

This is a fascinating interview, Boris may be perceived as a bumbling fool but there is a very quick brain behind the shaggy mop. Maybe it is the training received on Have I Got News For You that stands him in good stead, but he is able to really undermine Jeremy Paxman who was not going for the jugular but was perhaps hoping Boris would go off message. The turning of the tables and being allowed to basically give a party political broadcast is wonderful - something between bluster and fillybuster, perhaps it demonstrates a better and more skillful side to media management than the stonewalling that most politicians offer.

(Shame the BBC wont allow the embedding of videos!!!)

Conservatives try to emulate Obama

2009-10-09T13:42:00.004+01:00

One of the key elements of Barack Obama's campaign was the mybarackobama (MyBO) section of his website. What this did was allow subscribers to network with campaigners in their region, set up their own campaign initiatives as well as be led by the Obama team in terms of phone and door-to-door canvassing. Subscribers also received extensive amounts of emails, mainly asking them to donate to the campaign. The Conservatives are emulating this technique with MyConservatives.com. It is described as an online network, though currently it is a little short of members but it is early days. The activities that the site permits are taking an active role in campaigns in target constituencies; donating; phone canvassing; and setting up fundraising events 'with online ticketing'. It is not clear how the networking aspect will work, particularly for drawing together activists as was clearly happening within MyBO. Also it seems there is no blog in place to be used as a hub for campaigning. It is, however, interesting that an Obama technique has been picked up and transplanted by a UK party; the question is whether it will take off and what role this will play in the election campaign.

Street-Level Campaigning

2009-10-05T17:12:00.005+01:00

It may seem strange to most except Daniel Hannan that there is a huge debate raging in the US about free health care. The anti campaign is talking about this as if it will bring on the end of civilisation, it is talked of as a threat to civil liberty. Obama is of course leading the campaign for free health care and it is an uphill struggle all the way. The communication strategy, as would be expected, is multi-layered including appearances on every primetime television channel (except Fox of course). But the most interesting is conducted beneath the media radar and is at the ground level. The communication is from members of his movement, or so we are told, people like Nicola Aro. The email via the mybarrackobama.com community begins with the campaign message "I was lucky enough to be one of the thousands of people who heard President Obama speak about health reform recently at the University of Maryland. As he told the fired up crowd, "Change starts with people -- especially young people -- who are determined to take this nation's destiny into their own hands.""; it then moves on to ask for volunteers to support the campaign and lobby their representative. The Campus Phone Booth idea is about people calling other people and getting them to do the lobbying for them.

Basically it is an attempt to maintain the power of the movement that supported Obama's campaign for the Presidency. More importantly it is about citizen advocacy, people convincing their peers to get involved and back the President's initiative. It is an attempt to counter the public debate that centres on the negatives. It could be a highly persuasive tool if enough students and young people can be mobilised to run a booth and second can then mobilise others to lobby Senators. It is risky, but if it can tap into support for the initiative, and those being asked to give their time believe that they can make a difference by doing so, it could be a highly successful way of putting pressure on Senate.

#Twinge - Twitter's potential for politics

2009-09-29T08:34:00.003+01:00

At Labour's Conference last night there was an interesting debate on the use of Twitter, interesting because it showed in many ways the full range of attitudes to the use of the Internet and social media within Westminster. The debate was blogged live on Channel 4 news website and via Twitter (appropriately). Of the bits they showed, Tom Watson came over as the advocate. Not surprising really, given his history as a pioneer of new media and blogging in particular. For him though, social media is a way of connecting with like-minded people and given them opportunities to discuss issues of importance. For him, social media enhances democracy; possibly Kerry McCarthy (Labour Twitter Tsar) would agree. Caroline Flint rather sat in the middle on this. She was concerned about the time this kind of interactivity could take but also made what is actually a very good point that social media cannot be used to substitute other forms of interaction. But she also offered the typical political line: "at least you can get your version of the truth out there". So for her it has some uses but possibly more for propaganda and persuasion than connectivity or interactivity. Ed Balls made an interesting point about proving authenticity, and the fact that when you are a Minister people are sceptical that it is really you sending the tweets; absolutely true. He also commented on the fact it is hard to be interesting all the time, yes accept that too. But his comments also showed that his use lacked any real strategy and he was being taken somewhere through the use of social media. So he is led by the bandwagon perhaps, but is perhaps being drawn to communicate in different ways because of that. If anyone wants to seek hope from this it is perhaps in the approach of Tom Watson, the man who wants to bring people closer to politics. However, he may not be alone. Users like Ed Balls may become drawn towards a more inclusive style due to the nature of the communication and the use by one section of the Twitter community. So it may have potential for democracy after all, though still some like to announce what they had for breakfast - fancy boiled eggs now!

Forging a Progressive Alliance

2009-09-21T13:54:00.004+01:00

One the day of the start of the Liberal Democrat Conference the Conservatives have launched a rather interesting tactical video. The video depicts a meeting between David Cameron, Eric Pickles and eight Liberal Democrats who have defected to the Conservatives. The message seems to be that if you are serious about politics, and about wanting a more progressive government then you should join the Conservatives. Indeed, in the email to publicise this, Eric Pickles is explicit in stating "I'm asking them to help form a progressive alliance to get rid of this failed Labour Government. An alliance built on our shared aims of personal freedom, a commitment to the environment, and a desire to protect the most vulnerable at home and in the rest of our world".

The featured defectors include Chamilo Fernando the youngest person to have been short-listed by a mainstream political party to be a mayoral candidate for London; Tarik Mahmood, former candidate for Rossendale Council and the seat of Uxbridge in 2005; Norsheen Bhatti, PPC for Chelsea and Fulham who recently courted some media attention for outspoken comments about Clegg's leadership; and Jeff Clarke who stood for Wirral West in 2005. They are an interesting group that, due to their backgrounds and ethnic origins, demonstrate diversity and openness. They are very much the embodiment of the concept of a progressive alliance, as are the reasons they give for their switch.

On a more critical note, beyond questions of the extent to which the video is scripted and more of an advertisement than a record of an event which are expected of such a promotional tool, this raises many questions about the state of British politics. It demonstrates the weakness of ideology, the fluidity of party loyalty and, perhaps, the hunger for having proximity to power as opposed to a party coalescing around an idea. It is leadership that matters to some, to others it is broad policy priorities; though this perhaps reflects broader society than just those within politics. It also perhaps indicates a further key theme for the Conservatives at the forthcoming General Election. While questioning the record of Labour they also seek to undermine the Liberal Democrats' support and attempt to reclaim the supporters they lost to the party in the South while also winning over previous Labour supporters who now lean towards the Liberal Democrat. This could actually be quite successful, particularly as the arguments are presented not by recognisable Conservative figures but by Liberal Democrat activists. Is it appropriate to ask for switching, well it has been done by all parties in marginal seats using derivatives of 'XXXX can't win here, so vote for... US'; this is a slightly More advanced version that may have resonance with those not fully sold on Clegg as Liberal Democrat leader, who recognise a sense of futility in the fact that the Liberal Democrats will not (or may never) form a government, and who buy into the compassionate, progressive Conservative project!

We Have More To Offer

2009-09-19T14:11:00.004+01:00

Is the translation of 'wir haben mehr zur bieten' the caption of an ad by the Christian Democrats in the current German election campaign.

While there are various readings and interpretations of the phrase itself, juxtaposed with the picture of party leader Angela Merkel and her colleague Vera Lengsfeld suddenly there are other readings and interpretations that may or may not be intended (though it is hard to imagine the pictures are chosen in a random way). Looking at the ad one wonders exactly what it was that the producers, and indeed Merkel herself, wanted to convey and if this is the sort of image and brand connotations Merkel and the CDU want or not. Interesting definitely!

2009-09-16T09:06:00.006+01:00

I have heard a lot of discussions about the use of the Internet in relation to political engagement in one form or another. Political science approaches at the ECPR are becoming attuned to the new 'communicative ecosystem', in particular that it is no longer sensible to talk of a politics as usual when participation at some level is unavoidable - and if initiated by the political actors and organisations or not. Equally, discussions at the Web Metrics symposium organised by Royal Holloway University of London largely centred on understanding the users and fitting that to the strategy of either the research or the organisation.

In terms of political communication what seems clear is that organisations have a choice of whether or not to develop a Web 2.0 strategy, and in considering this the organisation has also to consider what benefits and threats exist. Parties and governments may see open access as a threat, as individuals contribute and so distort the message and make communication unmanageable. However individuals and other organisations see only opportunities. I noted this example from Greenpeace's use of Facebook. Canadian activists have seized two giant dump trucks and a shovel at the Albian Sands open-pit mine north of Fort McMurray and have vowed to remain chained to the equipment until their message was heard. It has received widespread news coverage; however Greenpeace are reaching a global audience via Facebook also, posting pictures and receiving 'likes' from their audience (see screenshot). The reason they may do this is that this might target their supporters better, mobilise support online and gain greater interest in this and their other campaigns. While 155 likes and 14 comments may seem paltry, one has to remember that all the friends of those 155 have been informed of their friends' endorsement. Some may look at the link out of curiosity, and thus the reach increases. Such tactics seem increasingly common and a part of the new networking ecosystem that social networking facilitates. Electoral politics, Obama aside, are behind the curve on this but activists are showing the way in reaching wide audiences quickly and cheaply.

Conservative conundrums

2009-09-15T14:26:00.003+01:00

Is it really six weeks since I last posted, how time flies. Summer is for holidays though, and the trouble with holidays is catching up afterwards, hence silence for a while. But it has also been somewhat dull in British politics. Dull because there is a lot of care being taken as all parties prepare for a general election. The most fascinating struggles seem to be taking place in the Conservative party. While there seem to be a constant stream of rumours surrounding behind the scenes machinations within Labour circles (for example); the Conservative power struggles are very public. The substance is also fairly revealing.

Alan Duncan's off message argument in favour of expenses was dangerous for the new compassionate Conservative brand; thus he was eventually dismissed from the Shadow Cabinet. Interestingly Daniel Hannan's rant against the NHS was simply dismissed as opposed to any form of censure against him. Perhaps this is because he is not a lone voice, given others also spoke out in support of him, but also because there is a groundswell of support for his stance within Conservative circles. However Edward McMillan-Scott is less lucky, he has been expelled for his opposition to the Conservatives' new alliance in the European Parliament and his decision to stand for Vice President against one of the party's new allies.

Perhaps what this suggests is that the party is struggling with certain policies that are extremely close to Conservative hearts. The party is clearly distancing itself from the duck houses that Tory grandees were buying to feather their nests (sorry, couldn't resist). They are perhaps not closing debates on the NHS, though are keen to marginalise them without fully extinguishing those voices. However the position on the EU is irreversible. The party wishes to be clear about its opposition to federalism and will not have that questioned. Perhaps the aim of all of this is to firm up the party's traditional support and amass it behind Cameron. Perhaps there is research that suggests he has more appeal among the floating voter than his own core support, an issue that dogged his early period as party leader. Perhaps what the party is doing is sending subtle signals to their core voters, supporters and activists that the party may have changed but certain values and positions remain.

Gordon Brown in his comfort zone

2009-07-24T14:56:00.003+01:00

This is fascinating, there are some inaccuracies in the text here and there but what I find incredible about this is that here is a completely different side to Gordon Brown. His amusing anecdotes work, he has ideas, why is it then this character does not emerge in Westminster

I think it is comfort zones. Here he is in one. He is expressing ideas to an audience that want to hear and are not waiting to trip him up. He can be passionate here, whereas Westminster is too locked within party politics. An amazing difference. Perhaps demonstrates that some, like Tony Blair and David Cameron have not just the charisma but the mental skills that allow them to acclimatise to the pressures that face party leaders. Brown is a passionate but cerebral politician, he perhaps lacks those skills and so does not appeal to the audience that want simple cues about the character of a leader in the current fragmented media age. Just my thoughts!

Jo Swinson experiences the dangers of SNS

2009-07-15T13:29:00.004+01:00

Social networking is becoming a part of the political communication process for many MPs, and linking up Twitter and Facebook is a way of getting messages out to a range of audiences. A couple of studies undertaken by myself and Nigel Jackson have shown party politics to be the least popular usage of such sites and perhaps this is one bit of clear evidence why not.

Liberal Democrats have the greatest number of MPs using social networking, and there is a logic for them to do things like this by Jo Swinson: advertise what party leader Nick Clegg contributed to PMQs. The mainstream media focus on the battle between prime minister and prime minister in waiting, not the actions of the minor parties to the same extent. So they try to alter this imbalance. However, once they are party political, and if they amass an array of friends or followers from outside of the party circle, they can gain comments such as this. If removed it suggests censorship, if not they have a highly negative, and yes pretty crude, comment about the current party leader on their profile. This can be embarrassing either way. Therefore, there are dangers with using SNS to promote the party in this way as such comments can also be mediated by other members of these communities and the result can be the antithesis of what was intended.

Twitter Control

2009-07-14T15:36:00.005+01:00

I know that Hillary Clinton and John McCain are all now within Obama's team, but one would think that they would not all be saying exactly the same thing and almost exactly the same time. However it seems that the Obama machine is now in charge of all their Twitter accounts and so, if you are sad/unlucky/fortunate (delete as appropriate) to subscribe to all you end up with the feed (left). So who really thought that the live confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor needed that much publicity? More substantially, does this not suggest the stifling of the voices of those included into government because of their talent, I know it is 'only' Twitter, but it suggests a strong control mechanism over public/political communication from anyone with the Obama team. This seems to run counter to the notion of including your rivals and to the open and transparent image of the administration. or am I just a pedant?

No spin, no rhetoric, no bull, no idea

2009-07-14T10:36:00.003+01:00

Have you ever wondered what politicians would be like if they had no special advisors, no spin doctors, they just appeared on camera and spoke like the ordinary guy in the street. This is the late Australian Labour Party senator Bob Collins, he had a rather chequered career but his has to be a high point. I would love to see Paxman's reaction to someone like this.

Packaging Cuts?

2009-06-28T11:17:00.004+01:00

No I'm not talking about the stuff that our beg comes in, but how politicians talk of a cut in spending when they are unable to say they are cutting spending. Labour have put themselves into a rather difficult position it seems: they have to reduce the amount the government spends but cannot announce public spending reductions. So there is a lot of talk about 'cuts' from the Conservatives and various journalists, while Labour politicians talk of maximising finite resources. I actually thought Ed Balls did rather well, though Andrew Marr did not exactly savage him, but he used language very carefully. He talked of demanding savings and 'smarter' and 'defter' spending, so targeted where need is most, though of course if previously spending has not been smart and targeted it does beg a few questions. This of course will be the key wedge issue between the parties, Conservatives accusing Labour of over-spending and reckless economics, while also obfuscating and concealing the true extent of the problems and their cuts. Meanwhile, as Balls frequently stated, Labour's position is the Conservatives will reduce public spending in favour of 'the rich' so appealing to those reliant on public services and fearing a heavy tax burden. If this remains the key issue through to May next year who the public trust most could determine the outcome of the election and there may be many hovering pencils when voters try to work out who is the most believable or least untrustworthy.

Why should we believe either side?

2009-06-25T14:39:00.003+01:00

I have a real problem with negative political campaigning. Evidence suggests that it does work, but only among those who are already supportive of the message and, usually, the sender. They tend to polarise their audience, they are either for or against based on their existing predispositions. They do not convince people however, in fact they have a wholly negative impact on undecided voters and turn them away from the system generally as opposed to simply the person under attack. In order to explain why I use a video circulated by the Conservatives which is a good example of the effects of negativity.

This video asks the viewer to believe Gordon Brown is a liar and is misleading the public over his and the Conservative Party's spending plans and who will make cuts to public service spending. Those who distrust Brown and like Cameron and the Conservatives will believe it and, perhaps, their pro-Conservative voting intentions will be increased. The reverse will be the case for pro-Brown and pro-Labour supporters. That is all fine. But the problem is for the rest of the audience. The Conservatives may be pushing against an open door in terms of public opinion, around 40% indicate they would vote for them if there was an election tomorrow, the question is whether all of these people are likely to change their minds. But even if we assume 40%, it leaves some that may well be undecided or still not totally convinced. The message in the video asks them to trust the Conservatives and not trust Labour, but this can also lead to confusion. There is a further question asked: 'Who should I believe', this leads to 'Who can I trust' and importantly 'What are the motives behind this message'. If the message is deemed to be chasing votes then trust in the sender will be reduced, if also the motives of Brown are questioned then this reduces trust in him also; hence the system suffers as the audience then is seeking an alternative to both or considering abstaining as the choice becomes too difficult. Hence this strategy may actually have a negative impact beyond that which is intended!

Parmjit's Plan

2009-06-22T16:15:00.005+01:00

An election is taking place today, it is purported to be for the most important role in British politics, yet the public has no say and the role may seem to be arcane as it is steeped in tradition. The Speaker of the House of Commons is the person who decides who is, and perhaps importantly who is not, allowed to intervene in debates; they oversee the rules of conduct and behaviour both in the public eye and, at least previously, behind closed doors. Effectively they are an MP who controls the behaviour of other MPs, they are from one of the parties but the role is independent and above party politics, but there seem to be party political advantages to the job as it seems the party with the biggest majority is always keen to shoe in one of their own into the job.

The task of the Speaker elected today will be perhaps a little more complex than has previously been the case, they will be charged with cleaning up British politics and ushering in a new era of transparency. In their speeches many have offered just that, particularly front runners Margaret Beckett and John Bercow. An interesting pitch has been made by outsider Parmjit Dhanda. He stands as something of a revolutionary alongside the other reformers. He has called for a more accessible parliament that does something close to debate roadshows and where the public are able to log on to a website to choose debate subjects. On his blog Parmjit argues: "We need to give ownership of Parliament to the people. Hence Ministers, Shadow Ministers and whips will need to relinquish their control of the Parliamentary Agenda. Through new technology like Internet polling the public should choose the issues for ‘topical debate’. And instead of poorly attended debates lacking atmosphere in Westminster Hall, Parliament should relocate Ministers and the entire apparatus for these debates to Town Halls around the country".

He picks up a very important point here, that there is a huge disconnection between the pomp and tradition of parliament, the way that MPs work and operate and the way that they are governed and the rest of society. Few understand the working life of an MP, few engage with what goes on in parliament, and so while the majority still vote and feel it is a duty it is likely few really understand what it is they are voting for. People need to be brought back into the process. Parmjit Dhanda argues that people are engaged in politics, but on Facebook and social networking sites while parliament chugs along. The big question is whether people would engage or whether there would be the same level of nuisance engagement as the Downing Street polls or would people really get behind such an initiative? While Parmjit is an outsider and unlikely to be in a position to enact his ideas, perhaps these ideas are ones that need to be discussed further as parliament looks to the future and reforms not just the way MPs are paid but also the way they do their business.

Propaganda?

2009-06-19T09:00:00.003+01:00

It is suggested that after word of mouth, the dramatic and entertaining narrative can be a one of the most powerful persuasive tools. The reason why soaps such as Eastenders and Hollyoaks are often used for social marketing and awareness campaigns (safe sex, HIV, child abuse) is that while audiences are caught up in the personal narrative of the character's lives they are also receiving a range of messages about the things happening to that character. The Mark Fowler narrative in Eastenders provided the audience with an insight into what it was like to be HIV positive and how fear-based discrimination impacted on the person and their family. It cultivated new ideas and promoted understanding. Mostly such things are fairly worthy but there is a lot of propaganda and branding as well, US films promote images of the nation and its history as well as ideological perspectives of events; perhaps not so worthy.

It struck me while suffering the second part of May Contain Nuts last night that I was watching another example of this. It was a left wing perspective of society that pitted the underprivileged against the elite with a well meaning, aspirational but in many ways hapless couple caught in the middle with their principles being questioned continually and often failing right up until the end. The Yuppie or Sloane Ranger, epitomised in the character of Ffion (with two F's) exhibited a narrow-minded, self-centred individualistic character that is the product of Thatcher's Britain. But few positives were attached to the character, she expected the mother of the mathematically gifted black girl from the local council estate, refused a scholarship at the Chelsea School for Girls, to be a prostitute and drug addict. While the simplistic plot of mother trying to get her daughter into the school, taking her daughter's exam for her, being helped out by the gifted black girl, and then finally admitting that she had cheated was the central narrative there was far more to it. There was a highly negative portrayal of the values of the private school and its attitude to underprivileged families. There was a damning of the aspirant middle class that are removed from and look down on council estates, secondary schools and the state sector generally.

Little surprise it was written by John O'Farrell, as a left winger this is clearly an ideological perspective of the world that contains a certain degree of truth but builds up characters as rather one sided stereotypes constructed to build a narrative. But its pro-secondary school narrative also has a sense of the personal and political about it. He is a staunch Labour supporter and activist, and his vision of society is consistent with the party ethos whether we recognise that to be the case or not based on the behaviour of the government or its members. Equally he is a governor of Lambeth Academy, so has a vested interest in promoting a rosy view of the state school. None of that suggests anything sinister or serious, and there are plenty of political narratives out there that present perspectives of society from ideological perspectives. The general question is whether these things should be presented as entertaining dramatic and fictional perspectives, or whether there should be a caveat on many of these to say written from a, in this case, pro-Labour, socialist perspective? Just a question!!

Engagement?

2009-06-16T07:53:00.004+01:00

Labour, if albeit quietly apart from when Derek Draper was learning to tell the difference between his RSS and his elbow and getting it wrong, seemed to have really stepped up their online strategy. There is now a 'Believe in Labour' Facebook group but also something that has the appearance of a party wiki. Labourspace seems to post policy ideas and for others to comment on them. Included on the site are videos, rather more professionally made than the average citizen is capable of, but appearing to show people making suggestions. Visitors can also sign up and create their own profile page which shows their posts, what campaigns their support and oppose etc. It also offers a range of ways for visitors and site members to share information and recruit others, so very Web 2.0. The conversation on England (below) shows a core argument, a range of contributions and contributors recruiting others.

Interestingly it appears to have been around for a while, posts go back to the beginning of this year, little could be found that is negative based on a scan of issues, it is very much about the big issues and not the nitty-gritty of policy or party politics but there are a range of small social issues discussed. It seems to be designed for members but is now being made more public via Facebook, surprising really that it was not made more of but perhaps that is the strategy. Have been reading a PhD recently, for the purposes of examination, that talks about relationship marketing and the internal market. What this site's function seems to be is a tool for bringing existing supporters closer to the party and government and perhaps then mobilise them as advocates and activists. The process could be that having signed up and contributed, if some effect is seen based on a contribution then this empowers the individual, gives them a feeling of efficacy, but also recognises who provides them this opportunity; they can tell others etc. Without signing up it is impossible to tell how many are signed up, how active the site is in reality or whether there is any links between activity and political action at the highest level (if anyone wants to share info that would be great) but it is an interesting tool that could be powerful if it has direct initial reach and can be disseminated to a critical mass through word of mouth.

Must Labour lose... in 2010

2009-06-10T16:09:00.004+01:00

A Yougov poll conducted 29/05-04/06 has been used failry bluntly to explain voting for the BNP, but actually it reveals a great deal more about the state of engagement in British politics. In terms of the election itself it is questionable whether it matters, or whether the results can be translated into a national trend; the majority are expressing their views on Britain's relations with Europe or on the British 'political scene'; the problem is that both are transient and as Europe is unlikely to be a General Election issue, and the scene could well change following Brown's reforms, the next election will be framed by a very different context. Perhaps then the other revelations offered by the poll are more interesting.

Firstly, something which we were probably aware of, has been the break in generational loyalty but what is surprising is that this is least pronounced for Labour where 66% of current Labour voters are copying their familial predecessors. Currently Labour has lost the faith of those who are most loyal, but their allegiances are now spread across competitors; hence they may be able rescue their position electorally if they are able to recapture their heartland voters. Of course the erosion of loyalty from Labour is not new, I identified this in research in Barnsley back in 2002 after the famous low-turnout election of 2001, but is is perhaps becoming more pronounced and so leading to more protest voting. However, given that Labour is still perceived on the left and, perhaps more importantly, the Conservatives on the right and for the rich; an image that remains hard to shift particularly perhaps in the wake of those moat cleaners and duck houses. That said it seems that there is little real difference between the perceptions of parties in relation to issues or voter satisfaction. In fact the only slight difference, which one could note and say here is where the voters for any particular party can be identified from others is confidence of prosperity in years ahead. Supporters of the Conservatives and UKIP seem to have more fears than do voters for the more left parties; is this an opportunity for the right? Certainly the figures offer some insights into potential strategies; however the data needs more sophisticated analysis of the raw numbers to really glean powerful insights.

A final point, however, while many talk of media usage and the power of online across all the parties the traditional mass news media predominates; well almost. The BNP website is in many ways the most interactive; interestingly, and despite the media coverage, their supporters are more likely to use party websites (12% over 3/4% the next highest and joint median average). Are the BNP capitalising on the negativity of the mainstream media coverage and gaining direct communication with current and potential supporters, if so this is worrying as not only does this allow for purer persuasion (indoctrination perhaps) but also influence via the two-way communication facilitated on their forum. Something else to throw into the strategy pot.

Animals go to vote

2009-06-06T11:39:00.003+01:00

I quite like this, it is funny in a way, with the animals stirring to the call to vote (reminiscent of Orwell's Animal Farm in a way), it is quite cheaply made (no pun intended) but its simplicity it also its appeal. For those who believe animals should have a political voice it is quite evocative and gets its message over without any negativity.

Reasons to Vote - by the parties

2009-06-03T15:44:00.004+01:00

The recent election broadcasts give an interesting insight into the party campaign strategies. Aside from its rather stark, arty style in places, Labour's is strictly comparative and trying to encourage fears that the Conservatives would cut funding to areas that most benefit the least privileged. Interestingly it focuses on real people or actors and not the leader, perhaps reflecting a recognition that he is not attractive to voters. But the killer sales tool is celebrity endorsement, it is Eddie Izzard that stands at the end to ask for a vote for Labour as opposed to the leader as is traditional.

The Conservatives focus on the leader and repeat the shots from Cameron Direct, so showing him touring the country engaging with voters. Clearly the strategy is to highlight David Cameron as in touch, willing to engage as well as emphasising his good performance skills while also having a dig at Brown's unelected status.

Interesting Liberal Democrat leader leads on the one issue the others ignore, the expenses fiasco. Positioning the party as willing to revolutionise the system Nick Clegg talks directly to voters, on the level so encouraging the perception of him as honest and open. There is no other content; clearly the strategy is to appear the most honest and also talk directly on the issues people 'on the street' and the media are also giving greatest priority.

While the smaller parties focus mainly on the core issues it is interesting to take snapshots of the election broadcasts to gain an insight into the party's thinking. Of course all of these may be of academic interest only as they may have little impact given the negative image elected politicians have earned but interesting all the same.

Caption Competition

2009-06-03T13:39:00.005+01:00

Sorry if you were expecting a picture to add comments to (well you can if you like!) or a prize (which you wont get) but looking at Boris Johnson's Twitter feed and amid his comments on where he is going or what he is doing (there is also public information in his own inimical style: i.e. "World Hepatitis Day today. 1 in 12 people are infected with Hep B or C. Shocking stuff. Get tested chums) but also he forwards links to Twitpics (you can make your own jokes about that) such as the one left. Looking at it I wondered exactly why he was sharing this. OK, there is is at the Tower of London with two beefeaters; but surely this is more like a holiday snap than a picture that indicates a hard working Mayor. On the whole the pictures feature Boris with the great and the good; but it is not just about image and presentation. Boris's pseudo celebrity status means he has quite a following and so gets a lot of comments; few are negative and most are in a very informal style as if one friend is talking to another. The above elicited the below comments.

Several tell him to get his hands out of his pockets, Rosina Carley calls him a 'scran bag' (whatever that is), 'empatt' a gorgeous scamp; it is very jokey and showing affection rather than opprobrium. And my point? Well the informality of him and his followers gives an impression of accessibility and openness. His very deliberate style of informality allows him to get away with a lot and this may be a good model to adopt for political leaders. Rather than the overtly third party approach of No. 10 Downing Street which has now morphed into the USEGOV newsfeed, this seems to be Boris. So could this be a good way of managing your public image?

Aww Cute

2009-06-01T15:55:00.004+01:00

As part of a research project I have the (perhaps) uneviable task of coding a sample of party and candidate websites. A little mind-numbing at times but illuminating also. It is the fun things that stand out, so there may be a lot of observations popping up here over the rest of the week. One thing that surprises me is how dull most websites are, they have the air or something that is a secondary communication tool, something many parties and candidates (especially candidates) feel they need but are not sure what to do with. The most interesting are those that offer a little of a personal touch. On which note full marks to Rupert Matthews, one of the five Conservative candidates for the EP in East Midlands. Part of his site shows the Blue Bear on tour, as below Blue Bear visits Ashbourne and, perhaps less wisely, looks like it has been nailed to a chalet door on the Isle of Wight - made me chuckle! Probably sad but hey, its getting late in the day and i've been at this since 8am.

Why perception matters

2009-05-30T09:31:00.004+01:00

Unsurprisingly polls indicate an landslide away from Labour next Thursday, they now lag behind even UKIP. More interesting is, according to the Times' analysis of the Populous poll is that, on the expenses scandal "Asked which of the leaders had been most damaged, 62 per cent said Mr Brown, 5 per cent Mr Cameron, 1 per cent Nick Clegg, and 25 per cent said they had been equally damaged". This does seem surprising given the fact that the worst excesses seem to have been perpetrated by the so-called Tory grandees with their servants quarters, duck islands and moats; but perhaps it isn't! David Cameron saw an opportunity here and grasped it. Not only can he complete the modernisation of the Conservatives but he also was quick to condemn and investigate those worst implicated while calling for reform. He has also openly called for new candidates to stand to clean up politics in a move more in line with the Jury Team's call than what would be expected of a mainstream party. Gordon Brown seems to have been reluctant to sack anyone of note and also to condemn anyone. Maybe he knows it would be hypocrisy, maybe he cannot afford to lose anyone or maybe he just doesn't know what to do. Given he was already unpopular and seen as indecisive and out of touch this could have been his moment to seize the initiative; he failed again. Thus, when looking at who is most tarnished, the guy doing and saying nothing and seeming to hope it goes away, who already has a bad reputation, is going to be in the worst position. The public are probably ready to believe anything negative about Gordon Brown's leadership style; and he seems to be playing to the stereotype some sections of the media and his political opponents have built around him.

The power of prayer - and a good website

2009-05-26T21:37:00.003+01:00

On one page of the Christian party's campaign site for the European Parliamentary Election was the message 'pray for a good result'; while my colleague was going through all the party sites he passed it on. However, it seems the power of prayer is not working as since this afternoon their site as exceeded its bandwidth and is now offline. Clearly they now need either a lot of prayer or, more likely, cold hard cash! A shame as it was actually quite a well put together site. Unlike that of WAID 'Your Decision', (a shot of which is right) it is cheap and functional, but anything but aesthetically pleasing. Does it matter, if we do live in a visual world where image is more important than function then it possibly does. True, they do not have a great chance of making any impact; but it may prevent them getting their message out to anyone who stumbles across the site or visits out of vague interest just because their home page looks too amateurish. Well that is my view anyway!

Our Divided Politics

2009-05-26T21:21:00.003+01:00

It is common for many to argue that there is little between our parties, they are too similar and promote managerialism above ideology. However it seems there are significant differences between the parties and something interesting seems to be happening to our parties. All this is of course predicated on whether we should trust the calculations of the EUprofiler website which asks your position across a range of hot issues. It can be used from any EU member nation and is designed, I guess, to provide advice on how to vote. For me, however, if the positioning can be trusted, what is interesting is where the parties sit on the two axes (pro/anti-EU and socioeconomics). Unsurprisingly the EU divides the parties with only the Liberal Democrats and Labour being in the pro-EU quadrants and the others they mention (Conservatives, Green, UKIP and BNP) being anti-EU to varying extremes. It is interesting that the Conservatives are the least anti given they wish to join the extreme right anti-integrationist grouping in the European parliament, but not hugely surprising perhaps. But when looking at the left/right socioeconomic axis, the Greens are most leftist followed by the Liberal Democrats; the Conservatives and British National Party occupy the centre ground but Labour are now placed to the right of these parties. The difference is not huge however perhaps is recognition of a perception many may have that the parties are not far apart but Labour have shifted to the right due to their position on civil liberties and ID cards if not on economics. Obviously the position is the result of being gauged across a range of policies but it is an interesting insight into our parties which says quite a bit about where our parties actually sit in relation to one another and what it is that actually divides them. Happy with my outcome by the way

Foot in Mouth Disease

2009-05-21T21:24:00.002+01:00

While busy slaving over marking exam papers, often containing rather strange arguments and phrasing, but it seems the strained logic students display (in the context of time constraints and minds going blank under pressure) is nothing compared to the words of the professional communicators we supposedly have in parliament. Exiting Conservative MP Anthony Steen displayed a bizarre arrogance beign interviewed on World at One, causing Tory bloggers tripping over themselves to distance themselves and William Hague to look deeply embarrased on tonight's Question Time. Gordon Brown declared that he would lose the next election in what he probably thought was a witty retort at yesterday's Question Time; that is the tip of the iceberg of his strange endorsements and condemnations of Hazel Blears. The prefessionalism of politics, the spin and media management has completely unravelled, the parties are focused on trying to rescue their reputations and win points from their opponents and keep the fringe parties at bay. One wonders who is running the country right now, and if they (as a government or parliament) cannot regulate themselves and get their communication right can they really manage the nation. As I type Ben Bradshaw has been stunned by a lady in the audience at Question Time, he cannot answer the claim that Brown should go or why there is a mess; I will be surprised if anyone votes on June 4th, or if anyone votes for any of the major parties, it is the outcome though that we should worry about!

Right, then left, then right again

2009-05-18T16:57:00.003+01:00

Celebrity endorsement is nothing new in politics; Gerry Halliwell was one of many of the 'cool Britannia' set to back Blair's Labour and half of America's glitterati fell over themselves to jump onto the Obama bandwagon. In the UK in 2009 things are a little different. The party that the celebrities seem to be flocking to is the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). Perhaps it is with the expenses furore and fiasco as a backdrop they are emerging as the party with the most realistic chance of seeing off the far right while also registering a protest against the parties in Westminster. Not sure if Nigel Farage would, if he had the choice of celebrities, would choose these. The BBC News shows Frank Carson arguing "I'm disgusted with the way politics has gone in this country and I'm urging people to vote UKIP", though he also talks of ditching human rights legislation which may be unwise. But full marks to former Green Cross Code man Dave Prowse for the soundbite ""I've looked right and left and right again and the only party I can safely vote for is UKIP." Of course UKIP are not alone. The Scottish Greens state the party has the support of "Joanna Lumley, Anita Roddick, Mark Thomas, Terry Jones and Jeremy Irons" though perhaps this is a little dated as sadly Anita Roddick passed away in September 2007.

Does it matter, well perhaps and perhaps not. Celebrities can be looked to as gauges of who to trust; but only if they have the trust and respect of broader society. Joanna Lumley could have an impact currently if she campaigned actively for the Greens on the back of her Gurkha campaign; Prowse, well those of a certain age may remember him (as pictured) or as the body but not the voice of Darth Vader but like Carson he is not exactly a household name. But support is support and it gets the party in the news at a time when the election is suppressed by and framed within the expenses row discourse. Thus nothing positive hurts!

You couldn't make it up

2009-05-18T15:44:00.002+01:00

It has been quite nice to be away for the best part of a week, and so not receiving the daily diet of MP's excess porn on every available news channel. Far better the debate on the merit of the Belgian Eurovision entry. So returning you find the MPs turning on the Speaker for not taking the expenses matter seriously enough; does no-one else see this as a somewhat invidious position given they (on the whole) were taking full advantage of the system they now criticise. The public, rightly, are using every avenue to demand heads roll; parliament meanwhile carries on regardless: bickering amongst themselves and demanding the head of the man who implements (badly or not) but does not make the law. Meanwhile it is the likes of Esther Rantzen and Martin Bell who capture the public mood and hint they may stand against the worst offenders. All this seems to forget that in a matter of three weeks the public can, if they wish, go out and vote. Is anyone really worth voting for may well be in the minds of many. It would perhaps be a result if no-one voted but there is a danger that minority parties will mobilise supporters and so we end up with some very curious results. Now it may not matter if the British contingent of MEPs represent minority parties; however does this effect negatively the extent to which British interests are represented. Will the British National Party be interested in debates on agricultural policy; so will Britain lose its voice totally in the European Parliament? Does anyone else care?

It's easy when you have nothing to hide

2009-05-11T17:30:00.004+01:00

Full marks to my former MP Annette Brooke, she has published her expenses on her website for all to see: a total of £1765.85, interesting that so few are able to do the same and justify their expenditure. This seems utterly reasonable and consistent with my opinion of Annette as a very honest and ethical lady; it is a shame that her and those with a similar attitude to what is justifiable will receive little media attention and instead it is those who are playing the system for every penny that will tarnish the image of all elected politicians. I assume that focus will turn to the Liberal Democrats at some point this week, then perhaps to minor parties who are also getting as much as they can from Brussels, the London Assembly etc etc. One wonders who will benefit out of this and what impact it will have on democracy and the MEPs and councillors that are elected in less than a month. Will the minor parties benefit and how much will those parties use this as a weapon against the 'establishment'. The Jury Team hint it will part of their contribution on Sky tonight, the British National Party have launched an attack on Labour and the Conservatives already; but can either make an electoral breakthrough at a time when turnout is more than likely to be severely depressed and when the parties are going to have to expend energy digging themselves out of the whole some of their elected members have put them in rather than making a case for people to vote for them. Brings to mind that ancient Chinese curse 'may you live in interesting times'; clearly we need more MPs like Annette Brooke to make their defensible and low-level expenses public to try to bring some balance to this highly damaging fiasco that could well undermine British democracy.

By the way: revelations show Sinn Fein claiming £500,000 but never attending parliament; so where exactly were the scrutineers here? Did no-one at any time think about any of these expenses or are the laws that lax? Guess I do not really need to ask that question, the answer is all too obvious.

Explain or Resign!

2009-05-11T09:25:00.003+01:00

The revelations of MP's expenses is perhaps the final nail in the coffin of public confidence in Westminster; all reference to it should now be buried and it needs a proper wake. It also needs to be replaced and that means MPs need to do something. it is something of a travesty that parties and MPs have been saying that the publishing of expenses is going to be 'embarrassing'; the easy comment to make is if it could be embarrassing then why claim for 'a bath plug' etc. Then there is the grotesque sight of MPs squirming on camera saying it was within the letter of the law; suggesting perhaps a 26p wooden spoon is essential for one MP to carry out their work - are they HoC cook perhaps? The rules are of course wrong. Half the country commutes some distance and cannot claim expenses for doing so, they hope their wage will cover that along with all the other bills. Most of us pay for our own home improvements, not it seems MPs, hence these inequities further demonstrate the disconnect between our houses and the Houses of Parliament. This will not be forgotten and it needs action, reform certainly and a reform that puts MPs in the same bracket as the man in the street, but also this needs resolving. If those MPs who have acted within the letter, but not the spirit of the law, cannot appear on camera (or YouTube, or in public letter) and explain their claims to the penny as part of the job as an MP they should resign. I am sure there are many who would like to become MPs, but perhaps a few less than previously if the gravy train is to run out, lets have by-elections or a general election if there are too many and have a new set of representatives with a new set of rules. Of course the problem is that only MPs can decide if this will happen and turkeys are unlikely to vote for Christmas, but if they want to create a new confidence in politics it needs doing and all those with guilty secrets that are difficult to justify should go now!

Cartoon is by Matt of the Telegraph

White House 2.0

2009-05-07T19:58:00.003+01:00

In an era when politician's promises tend to be rhetorical and empty with little sign of being actioned, it is good to see immediate action. President Obama stated in his recent Weekly Address, that government must "recognize that we cannot meet the challenges of today with old habits and stale thinking... we need to reform our government so that it is more efficient, more transparent, and more creative." His pledge was to "reach beyond the halls of government" and engage the public. The result has been to 'be where the people are'; Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, Vimeo, Twitter, YouTube and iTunes. The White House blog post "Technology has profoundly impacted how – and where – we all consume information and communicate with one another. WhiteHouse.gov is an important part of the Administration’s effort to use the Internet to reach the public quickly and effectively". But it is not simply a strategy of reaching out and getting the public to engage with information, as a Politico's review suggests questions posed via social networks are also answered via the White House blog so putting people directly in touch with their government. Is this the future of government? Could any other politician either institute such a strategy, or perhaps gain the level of engagement Obama enjoys; that is the big question? Also, whether it will last is a question though that depends on Obama and the way he encourages the use of these tools and the extent to which there remains an audience.

Attack ads - German style

2009-05-07T14:17:00.002+01:00

It looks quite cool and engaging but basically it is just a negative advert produced by the German SPD (Social Democrats). Rough translation is, The Shark represents the Free Democratic Party who are labelled as financial sharks (unscrupulous free marketeers basically). The 'Coin-head' represents the Christian Democrats who are labelled as self-interested and money-minded. The hair dryer is the left who are, well you may guess this - all hot air. It ends on the slogan "Regulation of Markets, Fairness for People, Responsibility for Europe".

It is entertaining, fairly blunt and to the point, nothing that special but has been circulated around Twitter and Facebook as a 'cool ad'.

Making David Cameron

2009-05-06T16:47:00.003+01:00

The Conservatives are quick out of the blocks in producing an election video and they have, largely, taken a positive tone presenting David Cameron as in-touch with the people, an honest, straight-talker who engages an audience. Using clips of him on trains travelling the country and from the Cameron Direct events answering questions from ordinary people, it presents an image of him and also tells a story. The ordinary people arrive as floating voters and leave pro-Conservative.

Not sure if all the comments, and there are only eight so far, are from real people or party activists (and it is a fair point to ask if there is a difference) but if this is a typical response of an ordinary voter it presses the right buttons. MultipleTom writes "I like the authenticity of this election broadcast, particularly the real people talking about their real views with no regard to party line. it contrasts well against Brown's broadcast which is just him talking into a camera about how wonderful he is". Of course it is construction of reality that fits the narrative desired by the producers of the video, each person is carefully selected, so is each question and answer session to fit the overall narrative - it is well crafted authenticity. To me it is well done, very much borrowing from Obama in offering a the personal (or is that interpersonal) touch rather than the party based, top-down attack.

Will Brown go?

2009-05-06T09:41:00.004+01:00

After an interesting weekend with cabinet ministers firstly backing 'that article' by Hazel Blears then falling over themselves to endorse Brown as leader it seems we are set for a summer of speculation. Every criticism of Brown by a Labour loyalist will be read as evidence that there is a leadership challenge imminent, so it may be a fair question to ask on this basis alone if Brown's position will remain tenable for another year?

Even more problematic, given the number of potential revolts and banana skins that lay before the government, will be the local and European parliamentary elections. Analysis out today indicates that Labour could lose all their councils - even heartlands like Derby - due to a combination of apathy among Labour voters and the Conservatives mobilising their support. An article in the Times suggests that if the projected swing of 12% materialises, which would be required for Labour to lose Derby, then cabinet ministers could lose their seats if there was a similar result at the general election. Clearly those who like a flutter think there is going to be a landslide.

This makes Labour MPs nervous, few can look at their seat and think it is safe, hence they will be staring unemployment in the face in the same way many others are during this recession. While putting them firmly in touch with voters, this is perhaps not quite the connection they wanted. Hence they will look to the reason for their predicament and for potential solutions.

Labour have a problem. There is no immediate successor and it is questionable whether the public would want a third leader within the space of five years any more than they do not want Brown to continue (as public opinion seems to suggest). The other problem is when is a good time to change leader. Major managed to replace Thatcher and get a honeymoon vote to win in 1992, though not without help from a triumphalist Labour party who celebrated a week prior to voting commencing. So could the conference be the best time for a quick coronation?

There clearly cannot be a leadership campaign or election of any great length, though it might generate interest from the public in the party. There does not want to be the emergence of factions around leaders, this would offer a perspective of a divided and weak party trying to cling to victory. But also it seems unavoidable that Labour will lose in June this year and in May of next with Brown as leader. The bigger question is whether an alternative would do better?

Brown's inefficiency seems to be related to his lack of a full time, or in any way decent, team of communication advisers. It is incredible just how often they get it wrong and it can only be compared to the communication disaster that was Michael Foot, but that was 1983 and despite taking over an efficient operation Brown seems to have abandoned all notions of public relations. What the above picture shows is that neither he, not his team, are thinking about image. It does not say he is a bad leader, but it does suggest he lacks full competence. Thus a new leader needs firstly to win over the party, get elected as leader, but then would need to overhaul this team in order to start to build bridges with the voters that would vote Labour but have been won over by Cameron's Conservatives. Simultaneously there is still a country to run and an election to prepare for; and all this in a year. So perhaps the biggest question of all is whether anyone in their right mind would take this on at this point but instead hope for survival at the general election and position to be leader as soon as the dust settles.

So perhaps it is unlikely Brown will go, probably because it is too late and a good successor will not want to be seen as carrying on with the disaster but starting afresh with a post-election blank canvas. Also, it is perhaps not in Brown's psychology to give up. He perhaps sees the problem as his own, but one he can fix, so will not simply shrug and retire. So to avoid a battle with Brown, dividing the already fractured party, and breaking your own career, it seems it is unlikely there will be a serious challenge to Brown this side of 5/5/10.

What ever you do don't panic

2009-05-01T16:13:00.004+01:00

When there are any public crises the public look to their leaders for advice and to have their fears allayed. Hence the PR team backing Joe Biden, US Vice President, who have their work cut out at the best of times, have been trying to back track from a comment that basically says he would recommend people go no where near enclosed spaces. After a television appearance yesterday his spokesperson, Elizabeth Alexander, sent an e-mail to journalists trying to clarify the vice president’s remarks. According to USA Today, Alexander suggested that the specific question dealt with what Biden would tell a family member making an air trip to Mexico: “The advice he is giving family members is the same advice the administration is giving to all Americans: that they should avoid unnecessary air travel to and from Mexico,” she said. “If they are sick, they should avoid airplanes and other confined public spaces, such as subways.” But this is not actually the way the conversation went.

Biden was indeed asked: "if a member of your family came to you and said, ‘Look, I want to go on a commercial airliner to Mexico and back within the next week,’ would you think it’s a good idea?" But he went a little beyond his brief when answering "I would tell members of my family, and I have, I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now. It’s not that it’s going to Mexico; it’s that you’re in a confined aircraft. When one person sneezes it goes all the way through the aircraft. That’s me. I would not be at this point—if they had another way of transportation—suggesting they ride the subway. So, from my perspective, what it relates to is mitigation. If you’re out in the middle of a field and someone sneezes that’s one thing; if you’re in a closed aircraft, a closed container, a closed car, a closed classroom, it’s a different thing" So basically he is saying don't leave your home unless to spend your time in open spaces, fields whatever but no closed, err, containers! Now to be honest it probably is the sort of advice any man or woman would like to give to their family and for them to be able to take; but the economic and social implications of doing so are huge. Basically if those who can afford to avoid human contact do so, little is bought and sold, more bankruptcies and so on. Hence the backtracking by Ms Alexander. But here is another problem, backtracking suggests deception and reinforces the notion that he made a mistake and so dents Biden's credibility. Whoops!

Are bloggers hindering democracy?

2009-05-01T14:17:00.005+01:00

It would be a hard argument to justify, but that is the argument made within the bi-monthly meeting of the New Castle County Council in Delaware, US. It is reported that Democrat member David Tackett proposed to make audio recordings of all council meetings available on the council's Web page in the spirit of being "open, accessible and accountable" to constituents. But this was voted down on the basis that, as fellow Democrat George Smiley argued "bloggers and other observers who don't routinely attend meetings would anonymously use the audio clips to criticize council members". He continued to say "The Internet is the greatest thing in the world to find information, but every day someone's reputation is destroyed using it." So it is an interesting question isn't it. Are those who claim to be exercising their democratic right to express their opinions actually hindering information being made public because they might use it to attack council members? Given the activities of Derek Draper and Guido Fawkes perhaps an argument can be made either way on how pernicious the effects are and to what extent the material used is always in context and used to reinforce a point it actually offers evidence of. It is an interesting question though!

Keep Smiling

2009-05-01T13:15:00.003+01:00

You know how the media were saying Brown looked too dour, serious, out-of-touch, one of his media advisers must have told him to smile more. I have seen facial analysis done, and often the person being analysed can be very surprised to find how they look and what perceptions an audience may have based on their facial and body movement - I always dread a student telling me what they think of my 'performance' during lectures. Brown, I think, must have been told to move his face and body more and to smile. So here he is smiling.

Now, does he look authentic? Err No! Is he smiling at the right times, well he is smiling when he makes positive statements such as "screening those in contact with those diagnosed as having swine flu"; but is this really something to smile about? Err No! The major point is also this is not Brown's key problem. It is the range of problems that have beset him and his government starting with the election that never was, his backtracking, his tendency to procrastinate and talk about logic rather than emotion, it is basically his personality that is the issue. These things may actually make him a good leader, he weighs things up, he does not work with gut reactions but it can also be painted as him being uncertain and inconsistent. So message to the advisor - tell Gordon to STOP SMILING unless he actually feels he has something to smile about and it is a natural smile. Fake smiles are just too obvious and look just plain wrong - or is it just me?

Is this a young David Cameron? Should we care?

2009-04-29T22:24:00.003+01:00

The Conservative Party have denied it officially (though that used to be a clear sign it was true) but the web is buzzing with the question whether this is the first film appearance of the Conservative leader and possibly the next prime minister 'performing' in public.

The question is really does it matter? Twenty years ago Cameron was not asking for the public vote, he was a very different, probably fairly immature, young man. Why should we expect him to have never enjoyed himself and done all the things that a young person does? A bigger question! Given that now there are pictures of so many of us, and in particular young people, on Facebook, in various states if my students are anything to go by, will this be a big problem in 20 years time? Will be expect our prime ministers and ministers to be found in a ton of pictures drunk etc, in fairly revealing clothing, with probably what may be seen as dodgy fashions in the future, but it will be normal. Perhaps also more politicians will say yes to questions about whether they have drunk, smoked dope etc and it will not be used as a way of undermining them. Who knows what the future will hold.

Planning - what planning

2009-04-29T20:15:00.002+01:00

Louis Caldera is not exactly a household name, he is Director of the White House Military Office and the man responsible for organising a photo-opportunity for Air Force One, or at least a replica. The result became headline news as it all went wrong and half of the residents who witnessed the low flyover thought it was a repeat of 9/11.

Now, how could this debacle have been avoided? Well first you inform the Mayor of New York perhaps? Perhaps you inform the people via the press a day or two earlier? Perhaps you have an advance team deployed to let people know what is happening? After all if all you need is a shot of the plane airborne, it doesn't really matter what is happening on the ground and so you turn it into an event in which people can get involved rather than scaring people. Or perhaps you save the several hundred dollars and just photoshop it next to the Statue of Liberty or any other building you wish to for free, after all who would complain. Or you could do what Mr Caldera did and not think it through.

Europatweets

2009-04-28T17:10:00.005+01:00

With Tweetminster and the general explosion in the use of Twitter it is perhaps not much of a surprise to find that the European Parliament on Twitter. Europatweets offers a news feed and links to a significant number of MEP twittering in order, as the site states, to make "Members of the European Parliament closer to their citizens". Visitors to the site are asked to "Follow what they say, react and retweet interesting thoughts". No great surprises so far, however what is interesting is the level of usage compared to the UK parliament, parties and elected members. There are only 42 tweeting MEPs, but between them they have produced 2,365 individual tweets. The UK has four tweeting MEPs with more than 100 followers, Lib Dem Graham Watson, Northern Ireland's Jim Nicholson and Labour MEPs Arlene McCarthy and Mary Honeyball; showing she is keen Labour candidate Anne Fairweather is also a member already and has 207 followers. Only Graham Watson, with 677 followers, looks to be making an impact though; the other 11 have 95 or less. Compare this to Portuguese MEP Rui Tavares, not only does he appear to tweet every couple of minutes at some points, he has 1,233 followers as well as a well read blog; the Socialist PES tweet most closely followed by the Greens. So What?

Well clearly someone is interested in what MEPs get up to, they are creating their own buzz and the citizens of the nations they represent are interested in them. Watson is perhaps a pioneer here, consistent with the Liberal Democrats' approach to new media, but the interest of UK MEPs perhaps reflects the lack of interest in the European Parliament generally. But perhaps it is an indication that such a tool can increase engagement and actually can, in Tavares case, put an MEP in touch with a fair proportion of people and if Word of Mouth is powerful perhaps if all of these tell another nine he may find it pays dividends for him. Will this be the tool for the near future (until the next gimmick comes along) and what role will it and can it play for MEPs and MPs?

Why Labour will lose!

2009-04-28T09:18:00.003+01:00

I am guessing it is a combination of three factors: the media's general hostility to Brown and Labour since the 'aborted' general election of last autumn; the disaster that is Brown's communication strategy and team; and the effectiveness of the communication team within both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. But is is these factors, interacting with a backdrop of economic recession, that has led to the government having absolutely no credibility whatsoever. This is written large in a poll by politics.co.uk which, although there is no detail of how this was conducted or if it was scientific, if true is highly damning indeed. The poll says that 92% do not believe the economic forecasts made by Chancellor Alastair Darling - so in effect only 8% have any faith in him at all. This is reinforced by answers to who has performed best on the economy with Darling in third with 9% (Osborne won a clear first with Vince Cable a very respectable second place). OK, the poll may have been voluntary and loaded up by anti-Labour supporters, and if they do not publish the source or if their own the sampling details we have the right to question that, but it is a powerful and compelling indictment of Labour's performance and that of Gordon Brown as prime minister. If he hangs on as leader and PM there will not be an election until May 5th 2010 at the latest (which is likely as lame ducks tend to hang on) and unless something truly remarkable happens to either boost Brown's standing or destroy the Conservatives' image there surely can be no way back from here?

The last speck of credibility

2009-04-27T20:05:00.003+01:00

Did Gordon Brown have any credibility? It is a huge question, but it seems everything he does puts another dent in his credibility. The latest disaster is his video talking directly to voters telling them he was about to reform MP's expenses. But evidence is he just had not thought it through. The day rate was criticised as being similar to the European Parliament 'clock in and bugger off' payment system. There would still be a lack of transparency, there may still be systemic problems and the public would still be subject to a range of sleaze allegations. But more embarrassing directly for the prime minister is that he has been forced to retract a promise made directly to voters and broadcast online and across every news organisation. Is this his last grain of credibility that he threw away, or did he lose that months ago?

Will the masses speak?

2009-04-26T08:24:00.003+01:00

There is a new addition to the petitions on Downing Street, one calling for Gordon Brown to resign. The deadline for signing up is not until October so plenty of time, Number 10 must respond to all those that are 'serious' receive 200 signatories, well it already has over 8,000. So I wonder what the response will be? An argument for why he is doing a good job (perhaps in similar tone to the response to the Clarkson for PM petition). Or will the party see, if support for this really spirals, this as a call to action. It will be interesting if the media pick this up!

MPs and communication - the problem!

2009-04-24T09:29:00.003+01:00

A fascinating article by Aeron Davis in the British Journal of Politics and International Relations highlights an important issue at the heart of the British democratic system. His research shows, using the Habermas' latter (1996) conception of the public sphere as a conceptual framework, that "the UK parliament is very much oriented around public sphere ideals in both its institutional formation and the cultural norms and values adopted by politicians" (p. 289). This may seem to be an odd assertion, but this is based on a study of the way the committee system works in terms of deliberation and the inclusion of public and expert opinion as well as the fact that MPs will not only be led by their constituency when seeking issues to focus on but also use the constituency as a bellwether for public opinion. So the question thus is why do the public have such a negative perception of parliamentarians?

The answer is simple, this activity is conducted below the radar of the media and the link between an MPs work, individually or collectively, and that of the executive is at best opaque. So the executive lose these links and instead rely on the bureaucracy and not constituents, while the media focus on the actions of the top players. it reminds me of a comment made to me by an MP I interviewed about his communication strategy "the only way I would get into the papers is if I drop my trousers". Davis thus calls for less power to the executive and a broader focus to discussion of politics by the media; I think many MPs (beyond those he interviewed) would agree wholeheartedly. His discussion links to ongoing critiques of government in the UK as becoming too presidential and personality drive and of the media both feeding that while also focusing on politics as a game played out between the party leaders. A fascinating contribution to debates and one that should perhaps be read by those at the heart of government and who make editorial decisions in the main media organisations.

Bizarre Logic

2009-04-23T21:44:00.003+01:00

The British National Party Chair Nick Griffin is not someone I take too seriously too often, though there is a real danger that the party will make gains from Labour, particularly in the poorer, heartland areas, where they can sell themselves as, well, a sort of nationalist socialist party - ring any bells? The party is distancing itself from being racist, and so is tying itself up in knots trying to be non-racist but be nationalist in a racial supremacist manner. The BNP's "Language and Concepts Discipline Manual" for the simple reason that such persons do not exist". Instead the party argues that the term used should be "racial foreigners". In a BBC interview, Griffin argues to call such people British was a sort of "bloodless genocide" because it denied indigenous people their own identity. So the argument is that describing someone as British denies them their own identity: "These people are 'black residents' of the UK etc, and are no more British than an Englishman living in Hong Kong is Chinese." The aim remains to repatriate these 'racial foreigners'.

But this logic is so bizarre to me and simply twists words. Firstly it ignores any notion of birth, if you are non-white (who seem to be the targets of the term racial foreigner) but born in Britain does that still make you a foreigner and where exactly would someone be repatriated to. What if you are mixed race etc etc. Then there is that more profound question, if we really decided that everyone who was not indigenous to these islands should be classified a racial foreigner and singled out for repatriation who would actually remain. What about those of Roman, Norman, Angevin, Viking descent, or if that is too far back what about the Dutch immigrants of the eighteenth century. What the position tries to cover up is that the targets appear not to be immigrants generally, as lets face it most of us can trace our roots back to some form of immigrant, but those of a different race as opposed to nationality.

In some ways it is good the BBC give an airing to Griffin and his arguments, personally I would like to see the party given greater air time. Why, because the problem with the BNP is that they are able to take the high ground and say they are branded as racist and neo-fascist and so are unable to give their side of the story. But if they are given air time more people may be able to see through this thin veil of rhetoric and see that by classifying people born in Britain as racial foreigners you are creating apartheid, segregation by colour, and not making any move toward preventing a 'bloodless genocide'. Griffin could be an MEP in the matter of a month, sitting on the same group in the European Parliament as the Conservative Party (a bad decision by Cameron), only 3% more votes are required - there's a thought

#budget: the twitter-tariat

2009-04-23T11:32:00.004+01:00

While the budget itself was pretty much leaked and spun to death for the week prior to it being delivered to the house and so most of the supposition aired, what I thought would be interesting is to see how new media facilitated greater input. The current fad (or revolution) depending on your take is Twitter. The use of the hashtag allows for anyone to join a debate and express their views in 140 characters. You can argue that allows for little that is profound, quite true, but it does allow short statements and the sharing of links so not entirely a waste of time and something unable to facilitate expression.

So what did the contributors to #budget contribute. Firstly, much are links to media or party comments, and this is not surprising given the paucity of space, or the amount of comment appearing on the day. Many are asking questions, so linking into and starting person-to-person conversations - 'anyone gain' was a favourite. In terms of tone, while there seems no party political bias from the majority of users, most who comment on specifics comment on the negative parts - either it does not help the poor enough, or that a tax on 'fun' has been introduced etc. This suggests that few are willing to explicitly make positive comments, or perhaps see positives in the government's handling of the economy - in other words it may reflect a human condition of the glass being half full or a global negative attitude towards Labour. The final point is those that use Twitter for party political purposes act, expectedly, as cheerleaders for their parties and leaders. So attacks on Clegg and Cameron particularly as being ineffectual or lacking substance (the two major remarks) were often rebutted.

So what does all of this suggest? Well there is an independent voice emerging on Twitter, however much is lead by mainstream media and the party line; so there is a lot of publicising other's arguments (usually established commentators) or defending or promoting your own party. Some within that are linking to their own blogs but these are in a minority outside of the main media commentators. For a range of unknown reasons, the temperature of the debate was anti-Labour in terms of presenting a predominantly negative take. However a small minority did ask questions and sought engagement with others via Twitter.

There was also a sense of ennui and not expecting anything good to come of it in both the comments prior to and reflecting on the budget. There was a lot of powerlessness in the tone suggesting, as one Twitterer put it, "I've been shat on, I knew it was coming but couldn't dodge it". My favourite by the way: "digitaltoast: Spoilt for choice if I want to watch pompous twats failing at playing with money tonight: #Apprentice or #budget news?" Perhaps this summed up a general mood of anti-politicians as some did comment that they all said little of substance to the wider audience but were instead locked into point scoring.

An interesting insight into the politically engaged online 'activist', active in terms of sharing comments and giving voice to a range of social groups. One wonders how important such tools will become as a barometer of opinion in the future, sidelining the media as a reflection of public opinion.

Seeking Trust

2009-04-21T15:54:00.003+01:00

Finally there is to be an overhaul of MP's funding, perhaps the move is too late, and some may say too little (either in stringency or generosity) but the allowances are going to be converted into a flat rate. The announcement was not to the press gallery, and was not leaked prior to announcement, but was released in video format to be embedded on news sites etc (it is below), so why this new way of releasing an announcement?

Well here is my take. The video can be embedded, as said, it is short and easy to watch or listen to (1.28 minutes) and so the message can be delivered directly to the news audience by Brown without commentary. Also the whole thing could be shown on news bulletins, though this is unlikely after the first release which was broadcast on BBC24 etc. But also it is about trust. In theory, and perhaps the credibility Brown has is the question that may mediate this, a direct announcement is trusted. A politician looking sincerely into the camera, saying the things that many wanted to hear after the succession of near-scandals, places the speaker as someone in touch and to be trusted. Perhaps it is also timely given Brown's slump in the polls and his loss of credibility in running the economy; though this perhaps assumes too much strategy and quick thinking. It could be the start of a series of broadcasts, from any or all parties, first released to the media and then posted to YouTube maybe. Basically it is the ongoing party political broadcast, though without the introduction suggesting it is time to put the kettle on. Will it work is the big question?