Too many tweets... do not a news item make

Which is the brave move made by David Cameron. From stating that 'too many tweets make a twat', three years later Cameron has joined Twitter and been given quite the welcome. Of course it was unsolicited but it was a weekend, it was a fun story at the beginning of the Conservative Party Conference and it seemed someone thought it a good idea to submit question via Twitter. The #askdave went berserk, trending in hours. If anyone out there wants to find some witty critiques of Cameron, his cabinet, his government, his policies they are there. He made no attempt to crowdsource but the crowd appeared anyway. 

What is interesting is that there are no news items to be found in the mainstream UK media for #askdave, only the New York Times makes a wry comment. So despite the number of responses (though many are from John Prescott), the fact that it seems infamous in politico circles, it is simply a phenomenon within a bubble that encloses the politically-interested Twitter community. So, how democratizing is Twitter, does it shape the agenda; perhaps only when people say something that interests journalists, that shapes an existing story, but it is not a way to capture the attention of journalists with a story they do not want to report. A surprise in this case!

The fact that politicians chose to come back is an irrelevance

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.

Why I love UGC

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?

Election, what election

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.

Making David Cameron

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.

Is this a young David Cameron? Should we care?

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.

Playing in the snow with Carol Vorderman

I quite like this idea, I am sure this is a case of how can we rescue the launch of a policy initiative when snowed in but I still quite like it. In fact it probably works better than the original.

What we should have seen is David Cameron, Michael Gove and Carol Vorderman launching an initiative to inspire children to be better at mathematics. The venue would have been Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham College in Lewisham (a heavily over-subscribed academy with a strong reputation whose alumni include newsreader Fiona Bruce, musicians and lyricists Joe Strummer and Steve Harley and the Wright-Phillips - not exactly a school where the children are likely to fail at maths perhaps). But instead, due to snow the school was closed and so Cameron and Vorderman went to throw snowballs at one another while at the same time delivering the message that schools needed to do better. But, and for a party this is important, what is most interesting. The tour of the school, with celebrity in tow or not, or the more playful snowball fight that many may be interested in watching that culminates in a bit of party branding and a political message. In an age when people may be bored with party politics and fail to engage with messages of substance, this may have been a far better way to reach the widest audience. It has the branding, the celebrity endorsement and a pull factor; Hatchams College may have been a bit dry in comparison.

A bit strong, or striking the right chord?

Politicians are often quite measured in their language, particularly criticisms of opponents. However, the battle between Cameron and Brown is one that seems to be not simply political but also personal; or at least that seems to be the perception both leaders (Cameron in particular) want to offer. While it would appear that getting everyone, including single parents, back to work would work well with Conservative voters, it is Cameron that has emerged as the chief opponent to the plan. And interestingly he is defending the family in his attack on the 'macho... sick' Brown. Well that is the way much of the media report his quote, but in saying that "I think this is all some kind of macho positioning exercise, in which case I think it is pretty sick", in further questioning the thinking by saying "``I don't know whether James Purnell is just trying to be tough or if he genuinely thinks it is OK to force mothers of young children to go to work. Either way, I think this is a shameful proposal." and concluding his comments on the subject with a overall criticism that "These, I believe, are all signs of a Government that has been in power for too long", he is setting out his stall as against anything the government has to offer. This could be dangerous if they have to adopt government policy if they do win the next election, equally it could strike the wrong note among party loyalists; however the strategy is to be anything but Labour and make criticisms link with observations about being out of touch and 'in government for too long'. The time for a change (for the better) may well be the key message for the next election campaign, and Cameron is positioning himself as diametrically opposed to anything Brown's team can offer.

The image thing

Here is something interesting, left is the traditional image we see of David Cameron, the politician in suit and tie usually facing the camera directly. It offers the impression of being in business, working in the traditional dress of the politician. It can be a symbol of power and status; though of course not all those in positions of power or those with status wear a suit there is a certain symbolic quality in the suit as a mode of attire. But David Cameron seems to be shifting his image somewhat. Accompanying his statement on the economy is a less than traditional image (right). He is in casual dress, offering a side profile. To me it is the pose of a catalogue model and breaks a range of conventions. The look is perhaps thoughtful. He is clearly not wearing a shirt and tie, it looks more like a fleece. Equally there is the backdrop to the image. Tradition is the symbols of power, the Houses of Westminster for example. This backdrop is blurred and hard to interpret, it could be an industrial or city vista, it could be anything. Now this could be read as a huge mistake. That while this may be appropriate for a less formal message, it perhaps conveys the wrong connotations when accompanying a serious message on the economy. Alternatively it may be a subtle message that he does not have follow dress conventions to be seen as a politician, rather he can break those conventions and look like the modern man who does not have to conform but can dress smart/casual but still be taken seriously. As ever this can be decoded different depending on the reader, and may be largely ignored by many; however it it clearly a choice to offer this less formal and more casual image to visitors to the party website.

Has he changed his mind?

The news is out that Cameron is no longer going to support Labour spending plans and is offering an alternative in case an election is on the horizon. The story is available across the media but a link was also sent via an e-newsletter that has a link to the WebCameron Youtube site. But the interesting thing is that five minutes after receipt of the e-newsletter the video is no longer available. Was there a huge gaffe in the original, has he changed his mind, or is it a problem with the technology????

What's in a name

After some form of voting, the Conservative party have launched their blog: its name is THE BLUE BLOG - mmm. Content could be interesting: "The blog will start with a bang at this year's Conference, where we will be bringing you backstage news and views from David Cameron, the Shadow Cabinet, MPs, delegates and the occasional guest." Given the twittering of LibDems and the comparative silence from Labour, the Conservatives had to do something to maintain their status as the party most embracing technology (at the top level that is) and innovating. Not sure if this is simply a relaunch of WebCameron as that gets little media attention, an attempt to gain more interest in their e-communication, or something genuinely different. There is no link as yet, not even a holding page, their website does not advertise it but, as in the manner of modern politics, puts Brown and Darling centre-stage (right). Let's hope the Blue Blog will offer a more positive message about the party itself rather than attacks on opponents. The one problem, extrapolating from polls, Cameron has is that he is seen as better than Brown but there is little wide knowledge about his or the party's policies. A similar situation saw Neil Kinnock versus John Major, Major was then seen as the safer pair of hands. Perhaps the Blue Blog can get more policy out there as the media may not be doing Brown any favours at all but neither are they giving Cameron a platform.

Good advise for who?

It appears on face value to be rather odd for an opposition leader, or the leader of any political party really, to comment or advise on the problems being faced by one of their opponents. Today's article in the Sunday Telegraph by David Cameron seems to do just that: “If Labour do get rid of Gordon Brown they cannot possibly get away with not holding an election. It would be quite outrageous to have two unelected PMs foisted on us one after the other. In my party we are prepared for that eventuality. We’ve had meetings of our general election planning committee. So I say to the Labour Party, the Foreign Secretary and everyone included – make up your mind – back the guy or sack the guy. Behaving as you are for the moment is bad for the country.” None of this is in any way new, many commentators have stated that a general election must be held if Brown is replaced, equally the back or sack argument has been voiced by many. But Cameron's final argument could be suggested to defend Brown's position.

However, there is a lot of sense to this statement. Firstly it positions Cameron as statesmanlike looking at what is best for the country as opposed to the divided Labour Party who are inwardly focused and perhaps focused on personal and not national advancement. Secondly the last thing Cameron wants is a short run up to an election with a new leader who may, though it is far from guaranteed, gain a bounce or honeymoon period as Major did in 1991/2 and Brown all that time ago (it seems). Therefore it is reasonable to suggest Cameron wants the leadership battle to be over if it is going to happen at all and hope any new leader would try and hold out to 2010 when an election must be held. The final aspect to this, and perhaps is rather cynical, is that Brown is a far easier opponent given his current poor standing in the polls. He seems to be almost universally perceived as a weak performer and perhaps a poor leader. But will Cameron's advise be heeded? Well if Labour strategists and machinators read the article they may think the same way as me but also try to assess what the best option is, carry on with Brown and hope things get better, replace him and run the risk of losing all support due to not having an election while also finding the new leader cannot reverse fortunes, or simple resign themselves to defeat and hope Cameron will be a one-term wonder and they can get a new leader to replace him by 2015. Don't look at me for an answer, public opinion is far too fickle to predict and the media will play a huge role in determining the fortunes of any of the party leaders, there are lots of risks but currently it seems Cameron faces few prior to the next general election being called.

The power of the ism

Remember the old BT ad, Maureen Lippmann playing the grandmother congratulating her grandchild on her results "well you've got and ology, you must be a scientist", something along those lines anyway (now fitting for results day). The political equivalent of the ology seems to be the ism, we have had Communism, Thatcherism, you name there is an ism, it simply means a distinctive doctrine, a theoretical and ontological perspective from which all decisions flow. Director of the Institute for Public Policy Research, Richard Reeves, "Cameronism is certainly not an ideology, nor even - yet - a coherent political philosophy". The criticism Reeves offers, and the article for Politics.co.uk who quotes him, is that the lack of a philosophy leads to greater similarity between the parties and a focus on image management (or at least dodging bad publicity).

But perhaps there is a point that is missed by the critics. While it is probably true that there is no ideology shining like a beacon from the windows of Conservative HQ, there are a set of values that we associate with Conservatism, they may be blurred with those of Blairite Labourism, or Blairism, but this has been part of a long process, a drift away from big ideas. Ideological isms have been replaced, politics is now about pragmatism and managerialism. The big idea, according to Oliver Letwin, one claimed to be an intellectual conceptualisation of Project Cameron, is 'Rolling forward the frontiers of society' but is this a doctrine or a soundbite? If one looks at public policy over the last ten years it is difficult to see a coherent ideological thread running through them. Rather one sees specific responses to problems, or specific innovations, each of which fit to their context. Similarly the campaigning centres more on who is best to run the country, to take the tough decisions and make the right choices, who perhaps can fit best as representative of the majority, than who has the grand ideas. What happened to the grand ideas such as The Third Way, books have been written on it but few demonstrate clearly how it became a guide over policy. In fact most highlight the essential truth of Reeves' not particularly original statement, that the Third Way is a path in between the old doctrines of right and left: ergo we are all in the Third Way now.

So essentially Reeves and Politics.co.uk is right, but also both seem to miss the point. It is not the case that Cameron lacks an ism but that electoral politics lacks its isms. Is there an Obamaism, a Mccainism, as Sarkozyism, not really. Their campaigns may have slightly different values but the key question they ask is who is best to run the country, on that basis perhaps the one ism they all share is popularist managerialism - 'elect me, you will like the result' seems to be the modern slogan, just above 'elect me, I'm better than him' - some may think that isms should be central to politics but one wonders if the masses care that much.

Authenticity?

The story of Cameron having is bike stolen, or the exclusive video provided by the Mirror of his reaction, will do the Conservative leader no harm at all. What is demonstrates is his authenticity, he is suffering crime in the same way as any other Londoner or Briton, and that experience means he is more in tune and empathic to the broader electorate. It is something else that brings him closer to the people and so not associated with stereotypes of being out-of-touch, upper class and an old Etonian; all things that may be used against him in a General Election if the conduct in Nantwich & Crewe is anything to go by. But will the jokey line "I am thinking of introducing Sharia law for bike theft. I will consult the Mayor of London" haunt him. While many may agree that cutting the hands off of thieves would be a good deterrent, and maybe represents the view of any victim of crime, will any aspect of the media take that seriously? If it was a Labour MP they probably would have jumped on it by now, but as Cameron leads in the polls will he get away with it?

Scarred of the headlines

Responsible parenting has been the subject on ITV's This Morning and David Cameron weighed in to declare himself as a disciplinarian. Well almost,. He stressed the importance that "kids grow up knowing the difference between right and wrong" (blamed on "breakdown in society and the family unit"), he favours the naughty step and admitted "sometimes you have to grab them - and that happens quite a lot" but he was less than equivocal on whether he did smack his children more that he could see when it may be necessary. Tony Blair did admit to smacking all children apart from the youngest, is that because he had become PM, or Leo was a saint, too young or just that he didn't want to say anything about now in the same way as Cameron seemed uneasy. Perhaps the same thought entered both minds when considering their words, the headline 'Conservative leader beats his children' screaming out of the news stand. As Nick Clegg discovered an honest admission or guess-timate can be a dangerous thing if a journalist is looking for a hook on which to hang a story. Perhaps what every politician should do is fill out a questionnaire, prepared with public input, they would be forced to be totally honest, and the purpose would be 'How average are you'; that it seems is the point underlining many of the statements politicians make and if all answer truthfully it would take the wind out of the sails of the journalist looking for sleaze to hype up.

Winning the cyclist's vote?

It is always easy to find evidence of hypocrisy among politicians, the problem is we all aspire to great ideals but often find it hard to live up to them. David Cameron did hit an own goal when promoting cycling and having his car following him to carry his shoes, document boxes etc but is the weekend's gaffe as serious or actually a gaffe at all from the public perspective? Many of the weekend's newspapers carried the story of him being forced to apologise after breaking a number of road traffic laws while on his cycle being filmed by Daily Mirror journalists, these included: cycling the wrong way down a one-way street and going through a red light. The video posted on the website and shown on BBC News 24 is not exactly damning, especially given that there was a Mirror journalist following him through every misdemeanour. That said politicians it seems are judged by different standards to the rest of us and, perhaps, this is a little more embarrassing after Boris Johnson, fellow Conservative and London mayoral candidate, called for "zero tolerance... [as] we cyclists have got to obey the laws of the road" but how does it play out more widely?

Most cyclists break the rules of the road, it is almost the point of a bicycle; the real problem is often the danger posed to the cyclist but it is whether any infringements are seen as being serious enough to make voters question Cameron's abilities as party leader or prime minister. His actions, and response (akin to saying its a fair cop guv) perhaps suggests he is the same as Mr or Mrs Average on a bike: just getting from A to B as quickly as possible. While the party does stand for 'law and order', it may seem to be a good thing that there may well be a common sense aspect, it is only a problem when it appears to be one law for Mr Cameron and another for all other cyclists. The event will remain in the public consciousness so Cameron needs to be cautious if he is seen to initiate any future clampdown on cyclists, if he does not it may just add to his Dave the ordinary guy credentials.

Has the personal touch worked?

The Independent today asked whether Cameron will "regret placing tots in the frontline?". The exclusive insight into his family life was aired on ITV's News at ten on Friday and showed him as a dad comfortable with family life and preparing breakfast for his children, defending his decision to let the cameras in Cameron argues "People want to know who you are and what you are like and what makes you tick... That's modern politics. You just have to do what you feel comfortable with." And comfortable is perhaps the key here, his rival Gordon Brown is not comfortable with such intrusions into his life or the lives of his family. Cameron is happy to mix personality with politics and be a political celebrity, this involves letting the media in and embracing the attention earned.

The Independent asks if he will regret it long term, when his son might do a Euan Blair and be found drunk in public, but for Cameron his celebrity status seems to be earning him significant rewards at a time when Labour are struggling. The credibility of Brown and Darling has been seriously compromised by the loss of sensitive data, perceived indecision over Northern Rock and the questions surrounding economic stability and Darling and Brown's ability to meet the challenges. But unless they are seen to be responsible for an economic collapse such things may not lose them the election; experience can be chosen over an untried and untested team despite doubts.

But Cameron is running away with popularity and this could be due to him and his style as much as the weakness in support for Labour. The narrative of Dave the family man, who understands and cares about the ordinary man and woman in the street seems to have surpassed and dispelled any negative connotations that may have come with his privileged background. A poll today puts Cameron's Conservatives on 43% with Labour on 27% and the Liberal Democrats on 16% which could easily give Cameron a small majority if there was an election. Momentum is with him and is this poll reflects his media appearances as well as those of Brown and Darling he is on a roll.

Is this Inconsistent?

David Cameron, rightly I think, argued in a Guardian article on Monday that "The old answers - where politicians talked and people listened - will not work in a new age", suggesting that the Internet, globalisation of politics and political activism and social networking has revolutionised social interaction and that the Conservatives have adapted to this revolution. One bit of this adaptation is: "we launched our new ad campaign on Facebook. We also introduced a new "friends" programme, giving people the opportunity to support us with however small a donation they like. We understand that for many, the idea of signing up to a party as a full "member" doesn't fit with what they want", so adaptation is really asking for money via Facebook. This is not what Facebook is all about, supporting causes to some extent yes, but for an organisation to say 'be my friend, show me support and give me money' is not.

The second 'adaptation' is "answering your questions live on the Guardian website". This consisted of no more than 30 minutes, and is of dubious quality. We do not learn a lot ands he also wriggles out of tough questions referring, too often in my opinion, questioners to the Conservative website. The classic, tough question comes from 'Whyayeman' who talks of Cameron's speech on penal reform and asks "Were you aware of these inaccuracies? If not why not? If you knew the truth, then why did you lie"; this gets a short answer that argues that half the points Cameron made were accurate, ignores the other half and attacks the Labour government: "Labour failed to invest in the necessary prison capacity. But the real point about our policy document launched yesterday - see www.conservatives.com for details"

The challenge posed by new technology is how to interact with an increasingly online society. If you choose an interactive strategy then you must be wholehearted in your interaction. This seems to be more of a case of appearing interactive, accessible and down-to-earth (looking at some of the style of answering), but there is no conversation here or on Facebook; is this really adapting or wanting to be perceived to be adapting?

A new type of campaign

David Cameron has launched a new recruitment campaign, mainly using the online tools of Youtube and a Conservatives.tv video exclusely on Facebook. The campaign is about people getting involved in the Conservative party to ensure there is a change in politics: hence the title 'You can get it if your really want' which has a soundtrack of course provided by the late Jimmy Cliff.

The use of social media is an interesting one, Facebook seems to be the fashionable network at the moment, it was even mentioned in Gordon Brown's speech to Labour's Spring Conference. But it may also tie in with Cameron's ongoing theme of 'power to the people' that have seen Stand Up Speak Out have success. But there is a danger, could this offer very hihg expectations of the Conservatives offering a responsive, voter-led, style of government? Why is this dangerous, the question is whether it is possible? As with Blair in 1994-7 the language was about listening and being in-touch, but the pressures of office soon hindered that being put into practice (if there was ever a commitment to this) and so public disappointment; is Cameron following the same path?

Co-production: the positives and negatives!

Social networking sites such as Facebook are not promotional tools, attempts to use social networking to promote products, brands or individuals that can use other media and are not part of the community can mean network users can reject them. Brands advertise via social media but seldom intrude using profiles etc; politicians are different, as individuals they can be members of a community but must also follow the communities rules and allow co-production of site or profile content. Friends can post words, pictures etc on each other's wall, interact with one another and maintain relationships via the site.

Politicians like to use the Internet as a promotional tool, and particularly at the party level want to communicate to voters but are worried of the consequences of allowing the ordinary people (which also includes opponents) to contribute whatever whenever they like. David Cameron seems to be willing to take that risk. The Webcameron YouTube page allows comments, unlike Labour, and his Facebook profile is asking supporters to upload pictures of them meeting him. The former gives the appearance of being open, the latter builds on this by providing the impression of accessibility.

But is this going to pay dividends or be a highly risky enterprise. At worst it could allow opponents to say what they like and give negative images and opinions wider circulation. But this may not be the problem it would seem. If Cameron and his communications team engage with critics it can diffuse the situation and provided images that could be damaging are greeted with humour rather than fear and censure, it could enhance the Cameron brand, it cannot replace substance but it may build positive perceptions and impressions.