Is it good to be a little unprofessional?

Obama is really good at speeches, really good at set pieces and seems good with people face-to-face, but something he seems less good at is being 'off the cuff'. One imagines that advisers helped every television appearance prior to his victory, perhaps they need to now. On Jay Leno last night his first gaffe was to say that his bowling was: "It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something" - that got an instance response from the White House to reduce any damage. Then there was the dog question, on campaign he promised to buy his daughters a dog if he won, dog has not appeared yet. The joke: "Listen, this is Washington. That was a campaign promise," was ok, though perhaps not wise. But the vaguer "We're going to get a dog that is -- that I think the girls will have a great time -- I think I'm going to have a lot of fun with it. You know, they say if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog." does not inspire confidence. Now you can say it is normal to make a few gaffes and this just proves Obama is human; or you could worry that he makes similar (but more important) gaffes when doing is presidential diplomatic work. Whatever it could be a credibility issue and he may be encouraged to think about being more guarded and less unplanned if he wants to retain is good image.

Some people just don't learn

The last time Robert Kilroy Silk, former UKIP and Veritas candidate and now an independent MEP was in the limelight it was when he was on the receiving end of a bucket of err 'slurry'. This should prepare him nicely for a few weeks in ITV's jungle experience. Of course he is not a celebrity anymore, not since his racist comments forced the BBC to remove his daytime chat show; however he has seemed to desire celebrity, perhaps to compensate for the failure of his political career (he was a Labour MP 1974-1986 and a front bench spokesperson within Kinnock's first team). But he has come under fire for his decision to jump on the jungle fever bandwagon. Labour MEP Glenis Willmott described it as "a complete lack of respect for voters" according to the BBC. Now he may see this as unexpected, and may defend himself by talking about engaging with a public disinterested in politics. But this was a tactic that has failed once before. George Galloway was criticised by Minister for London Jim Fitzpatrick who argued "while he has chosen to lock himself away in this celebrity graveyard, his constituents have yet again been left without help for their problems and without a voice in their Parliament" and in a 'Have Your Say' column the verdict was overwhelmingly that MPs should not go on reality TV shows. It can be argued that MPs, MEPs, Assembly members etc need to be a little more human and not just politicians in the eyes of the public, but surely Kilroy-Silk must have know this would not go down well and would play against his ambitions in the long term as well, more than likely, in the short term.

A new American hero

It seems everyone has now heard of a plumber from Toledo, Ohio by the name of Joe Wurzelbacher. He has been cast as a hero of American politics just because he became the ordinary guy after debating economics with Barack Obama when meeting him on the campaign trail. His name was first invoked by John McCain, and from then on he was drawn into last nights' debate continually despite not being present and in the end both McCain and Obama seemed to be fighting to appeal directly to him for his vote often talking directly to Joe via the camera. Politicos strung together the mentions and it is staggering just how many times his name was invoked.

According to a Ragan article, Joe the Plumber has become a feature of over 1,000 Google news items and tweets from both the floor of the debate and from PRs and journalists across the US, some suggesting he was to be offered a seat in the next President's cabinet. Of course these things are fairly facetious but there is a symbolic role that Joe the Plumber is playing that is not lost on commentators.

While Joe will not be in government he is being used as a representative of the floating voter in the swing state. He is worried about the economy and is unsure which candidate will work hardest and do the best job in protecting Joe's business, his home, his family during the recession. Obama telling Joe that small businesses like his would be exempt from paying Health Insurance for employees may be attractive, it certainly seemed to catch McCain off guard, but now Joe is, as the New York Times suggests, a "proxy for all of the country's working people", what is his verdict.

The new star of American politics was instantly interviewed and his words posted to YouTube. For him it was McCain that won the debate and his vote, Obama was a bit too socialist and perhaps parochial with "everything starting at home". But will this be important? If Joe continues to be used as a cipher there is the chance that this unscripted yet articulate small businessman could be perceived as the authentic voice of middle America and so Obama needs to consider how he can win him over between now and Nov 4th.

Wink Wink

It is hard to tell whether Sarah Palin is popular or not, some sections of the media castigate her, others talk of her as the saviour of the Republican campaign: the authentic hockey mom. But what is interesting is the fuss being made of her winking. There are a few clips on YouTube, such as the below to illustrate this:

The media seem to suggest that what she is suggesting is an understanding of her audience. That by winking it is an unspoken gesture of empathy and being at one with the people. Hence while many papers quote strategist Axelrod saying she would perform well but that you can not get away with just a nod a wink or a smile. However her great quality is her ordinariness and perhaps the nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more tactic will work for her.

Authentic Endorsements

A while ago the Obama campaign ran a competition among donators to win backstage passes to the Democratic Convention. There are 10 winners and they are now being used as endorsers of his campaign to a wider audience. to get a sense of the tactic here are some snippets from the vignettes about "the people who make up our movement... of all different ages, races, and backgrounds":

Barb is a teacher living... on her family's wheat and cattle farm, and rising fuel prices are making it hard to get by. She hopes Barack's plan for alternative bio-fuels will help the struggling economy in rural Montana. Barb volunteers for her church, sits on a hospital board, and organizes community events.

Anne is a retired budget analyst for the federal government. She says the first time she saw Barack at the 2004 convention, she thought, "This is Everyman. He is Kansan and he is Kenyan; he is African and he is Anglo-American; he is common sense and he is eloquence; he is dynamic and he is down to earth."

Trinace is a single mother and disabled veteran who served overseas for the Iraq War. She currently works for the U.S. Army as a public affairs specialist. Trinace is inspired by Senator Obama's message of change and his plans to address all of the issues that she cares deeply about...

John served in the U.S. Army for 10 years. He says his two tours in Iraq with the 10th Special Forces Group opened his eyes to "the link between our country's lack of an effective energy policy and our flawed foreign policy."

In effect these are representatives of the wide spectrum that is America, yet also representative in many ways of people who may be floating voters. Rather than persuading these people himself, Barack Obama's campaign uses them to promote his presidency to those similar to these backstage pass holders: dissatisfied patriots who want change on the issues they care about. Neatly he also approaches issues that McCain has attacked him on such as the Iraq War, energy policy, bio-fuels and of course his nationality. it is argued to be a powerful tool, people listen to people who are like them, if these messages and similar tactics become widely disseminated it may win over some of those unsure of Obama.

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?

Vote for me, I joined Facebook

Incredible to know but, what do Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf, Myanmar's Aung San Suu Kyi, Taiwan's Ma Ying-jeou, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, George W. Bush and every major US presidential hopeful all have in common? Well like Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao they have a Facebook profile. Wen has 13,000 supporters, small considerign the size of the Chinese populace but significant when Internet penetration is considered. OK it is impossible to say how many have to be his friend, given the Communist Party's style of government, but there may well be a love for the 66 year old who earlier this week reportedly called by bullhorn to one child trapped in the aftermath of the earthquake 'This is Grandpa Wen Jiabao, hang on child, we will rescue you!'. Whatever the case, it seems that even in China being on Facebook is a must have political accessory and must be seen as a way of enhancing ones reputation for being real, authentic, in touch etc etc; all those things that are supposed to engender trust. Will it have the desired effect one wonders or will it become another tool that effectively cancels itself out but will be seen as necessary as to not have one would be too great a risk?

Hope, Change and Electioneering

Paraguay is a very young democracy, since 1992 in fact. As many young democracies, politics has been fairly unstable with coalitions forming and collapsing bringing governments down with them. While dominated by a political elites, and effectively one party for much of the last 16 years, it has been commented that personal power were far more important for those standing for office than serving the nation in any way.

That may have all changed though. A total outsider and former Roman Catholic bishop Fernando Lugo, the man who campaigned as "bishop of the poor" won 41% of the vote in an election that witnessed the highest ever turnout (66%) to become president. Maintaining a tradition of giving out free food when 'on the stump' he offered hope and, according to the LA Times correspondent, "Lugo is like a charismatic comet on a collision course with the lumbering planet that is Paraguay's political status quo". His campaigning was very much street level, but the rhetoric is the language of change used the world over.

In commenting on Paraguayan democracy and the political elite Lugo stated: “in Paraguay there are only thieves and the victims of thieves”. His intention was to break the status quo on the back of "“an inclusive political movement because it is solely by coming together within diversity, with everyone respecting our natural differences that we can build a new Paraguay”. Sound familiar?

Lugo's is probably a great victory, if nothing else it shows that there is more than one party politics and that the electorate does have the power to change the system. The reasons he won seem so familiar and widespread though, even if the actual context may be less serious. Dissatisfaction with the system; the desire for a charismatic outsider, someone closer to the people; the desire for change; and perhaps also the desire for values beyond neo-liberal free market capitalism. In the US they have Obama, there are many examples of figures appearing across Europe, it seems voters across the world have similar desires. In accepting victory Lugo told reporters "Today we can dream of a different country... Paraguay will simply not be remembered for its corruption and poverty, but for its honesty." Can he deliver?

Ken borrows from Barack

Blue State Digital will run Ken Livingstone's Internet campaign, the Internet firm behind Barack Obama, for the mayoral election and last night launched the first campaign video on YouTube. The video (below) is very simple in design, featuring still shots of Livingstone with ordinary Londoners accompanied by voice overs offering endorsements from those same ordinary people. The idea, according to Thomas Gensemer, the US firm's managing director, is to position Ken in the same way as Obama as an ordinary person; differentiating him from Boris Johnson the old Etonian (perhaps linking into the Labour strategy of referring to him as Mr Johnson and not Boris).



This video complements a series of vox pops with Londoners saying how great London is to live and work in, all of which appear on Ken's Youtube site (an example of which is below), he has also used the site to attack Boris Johnson's negativity and highlighting his own positivity.



The key message is to reinforce Ken's authenticity as a Londoner, something that won him power against the odds in 2000; but the important bit is not him saying that but real Londoners endorsing him as the candidate. It is working for Obama as he can claim an outsider status to some extent; can it work for the incumbent?

Mr Johnson, who's that?

If you call someone by their first name it shows liking, or at least familiarity, and so perhaps that is why most of those with an ounce of political knowledge feel comfortable referring to Boris Johnson as simply Boris. He is unique in many way, perhaps the only famous person since Mr Yeltsin to be called Boris, and so he has a particular standing and recognition is part of that. I remain surprised that the recognition seems to be making him a viable candidate for London mayor after his history of gaffes and the bumbling image he presents on television, but he is now positioning himself as a serious candidate. Hence it is surprising that Labour Minister Tessa Jowell, after ordering Labour MPs to refer to him as the formal Mr Johnson, rather than Boris, has defended this move by saying she wanted to avoid the election being seen as a joke. Surely Mr Johnson offers gravitas, whereas Boris with the epithets of 'bumbling' etc he has had is less serious. But perhaps it is actually not about the seriousness of the election but the credibility and familiarity Boris enjoys as 'Boris' that Mrs Jowell is most concerned about as his lead is extended.

Damned when you do

My local paper recently did a day in the life feature on Dorset South Labour MP Jim Knight, Minister in the Department for Children, Schools and Families. Yes, it is pure PR. It tells the story of a busy MP whose time is divided between the ministry, his constituency and his family. There are some lovely vignettes such as: on his desk "He has school design books, pictures from children, photos of his family and a large bowl of fruit"... "My legs are a blur as Jim and I race to the Houses of Parliament. He's carrying a sheaf of papers. "In case I can flick through during the Budget." he is reported to have said!"... "Jim returns from a press interview to be told he's supposed to be on front bench duty. What's that? "Sitting on the front bench to support whoever's speaking." He decides to do proper work instead." Why are such things important? Well for a Minister concentrating on the constituency can be trickier than as a backbencher, a problem perhaps as he sits on a very narrow margin and campaigned in 2005 as a strong local advocate and representative: his monicker of 'Just Jim' holding a lot of credence among the voters. Therefore this sort of PR allows him to maintain a profile across the area as opposed to just those who contact the MP; also it is a way of appearing authentic while hardworking in an era where MPs are seen as untrustworthy and remote. Does it work, well it depends who reads it and how they decode it.

No-one is ever sure who reads letters pages, but the one bit of feedback is highly negative. Mike Fry of Upton in Poole writes that the article underestimates "the true feelings of many of your [The Echo's] readers. She [Faith Eckersall] "avoided championing the things that matter, like how much do we pay this MP to represent us from 8am to 5pm" (though the article did state it was Faith and not Jim that stopped work at 5pm). While Faith was 'impressed', Mike was not, and may lead others to also question the article hence leading some to build a negative image as opposed to the positive tone of the article. Hence sometimes you an be damned for not getting in the news with a bit of PR or damned when you do and it is decoded in a negative way.

Inappropriate - or just normal?

The only exciting event of the 2001 UK General Election was the Prescott Punch, a member of a crowd attacked him, he punched him and they ended up rolling around in a heap. Not the best sight in the world but it did Prescott no real harm as many said it is the normal reaction. French president Nicolas Sarkozy faces a similar dilemma, on Saturday he visited a farming centre (Politique agricole commune) was doing the usual meeting and greeting, shaking hands, waving and saying 'Merci' when one man whose hand he was going to shake withdrew his hand and told the french president not to touch him as it would make him 'dirty' "Touche moi pas, tu me salis"; Sarkozy responded with "Casse-toi alors, pauvre con" which translates as 'then get out of here you jerk', though there are various translations offered on the web (funnily enough 'pauvre' wasn't taught at O'Level).

The french newspaper Le Parisien has made it a big story, and because it was on video they have posted it on their website, there are pages of comments. It is also very popular on YouTube, particularly among french users, 555 thousand views and 1,534 comments and counting. So the world has now seen him calling a left-wing opponent a 'jerk', will this damage his reputation or enhance it. Opinion on YouTube is mixed but there is a lot of 'go for it' style remarks as well as hostility to Sarkozy himself (not necessarily about what he said). Is this him showing he is an authentic, normal guy or did he make a fool of himself and demean the office of the president - what perception to we take of him following this incident?

The President with a heart on his sleeve

There is a debate within the study of political communication, branding and the importance of personality to voters when considering who to elect and to continue to support throughout the electoral cycle. The debate is manifesting itself in media discussions over the popularity of Barack Obama in the recent caucuses and generally in public opinion. Equally sometimes the lack of personality is argued to be an obstacle for UK PM Gordon Brown, of course he has a personality but his inability to project attractive characteristics could be problematic when an election is called. For some leaders, being open about their emotions, private lives or feelings is difficult and often seen as unprofessional, to others it is central to their public and political persona and there is little separation between private lives and political careers.

One such politician is French President Nicolas Sarkozy. His private life is dubbed in the media as The Sarko Show, particularly his quickie divorce and subsequent courtship of model Carla Bruni which has seen him embark on celebrity-style jaunts in aviator shades around the Pyramids and watching the Mickey Mouse parade at Disneyland Paris hand in hand. But this has now been taken one step further, at a press conference that included economic policy announcements Sarkozy proclaimed he was in love and planning on marriage. Using the word love (amour) several times he argued "You know the president of the republic doesn't have any more right to happiness than the average person, but no less right either." Furthermore, he is not shy about telling the media and public about both the highs and lows of his private life.

Do such things have an impact? Well Sarkozy has a celebrity-esque following and is more than simply a politician in both the eyes of journalists and, it seems, the French public. He is also using it to demonstrate he is cleaner than his predecessors who were married but had semi-secret mistresses on the go, but does this matter? Perhaps there is a sense of his authenticity through expressing feelings, perhaps it is an indicator of his humanity and, just perhaps, this means voters look at the politician who expresses his feelings and believes they are a little more real and so will make the right decisions for the normal French person. Lots of perhaps there, lots of questions all round, but perhaps when we look at politicians that are successful, then look at public perceptions of them, there may be some correlation between perceived authenticity (being real) and trust; again perhaps!!

Celebrity Politics - or will Lord Forsythe please not say 'nice to see you' to the North Koreans

It is perhaps true that politicians need to be able to translate complex ideas and policies to allow them to be understood by the masses. Currently this role is largely fulfilled by journalists who mediate ideas in a way that appeals to their audiences; despite the range if communication experts who colonise politics and the number of MPs with public relations backgrounds there still seems to be a communication gap. Gordon Brown had an alternative way of getting the public to engage with politics, give a high profile role to someone they already liked and listened to; not a great expert but GMTV host and long-time foil for Eamon Hughes jokes Fiona Phillips.

It is claimed by the News of the World that a Downing Street aide argued that "People say she is just a ditzy blonde, but Fiona Phillips manages to communicate complex issues which are of massive public importance to millions of people every morning." This was the justification for offering her a Baronetcy and the public health brief currently head by Dawn Primarolo within Brown's 'government of all talents'. Phillips is a long-standing supporter of Labour, conducted some highly cringe-worthy interviews with the Blairs and has an interest in politics and is quoted as saying "I'd like to change people's perception of politics... I'd love to do a big PR bit for the Government" but did not want to take the £400,000 per annum pay cut. Hence we are to be spared Baroness Phillips of obesity, binge drinking and safe sex.

But is Gordon out of line with the idea? Politicians are the least trusted profession while it is true that Fiona Phillips has a clear connection with her audience. While her expertise can be questioned, so can that of many cabinet ministers, and her ditzy persona may be her public face as opposed to her real personality. There is the perception of credibility issue, but is it the case that her role as a journalist and her perceived authenticity may well make her seem as on the side of the public as opposed to the negative perception of the politician out for themselves? Gordon Brown has hit on an important truism, that politicians fail to get the public engaged in their ideas; celebrities have that ability, but should they play an active role in politics is a big question. Could Fiona Phillips be Britain's Arnie? Do we need one?

Following the public mood

Political marketing seems largely, in practice, to being simply projecting an image of being authentic, a real person, in touch with the mood of the nation. Perhaps Gordon Brown attempted to capture this when his official spokesperson declared yesterday that: "The Prime Minister is a football fan and somebody who enjoys watching Premier League games, so he knows Mourinho has a fantastic record of success... He's made a significant contribution to British football in a short period of time and he's also one of the great characters of the game." Well it may win over the Chelsea fans who were holding a vigil of mourning outside Stamford Bridge last night;

I would doubt it will strike a chord with Raith Rovers fans however (Gordon's team). His spokesperson was quoted as saying in 2005 that Brown is "a lifelong supporter of Raith Rovers " and he is claimed to have spearheaded the management buy-out of the team after its relegation.

All part of his image as a regular guy, or just Gordon being Gordon; perhaps if there was not so much use of marketing and PR in politics we would not ask the question. It reminds me of a conversation I had with a long retired Labour MP for one of the Coventry constituencies. He was a fervent supporter of Coventry City, and regularly attended matches, but he also wanted to market himself as a part of the community by being visible. His trick was to get his agent to ring the ground during half time, in the run-up to an election, and get a call put out on the tannoy to ask William Wilson MP to contact his agent; see nothing is really new!

The dubious importance of TV debates

The British media are once again talking of live television debates following Conservative leader David Cameron writing to Gordon Brown asking for one. Little is said of his reasoning, though I will indicate why I think Cameron wants one, but once again it seems the incumbent prime minister, the man with most to lose, is opposed to the idea.

The idea of the big public debate is to provide a level platform for all candidates, and so allow the viewer to compare them on a range of policy initiatives. US Presidential candidates always have one, and arguably they have decided contests, particularly the youthful John F. Kennedy's defeat of Richard Nixon in 1960 (right); the Democrat candidates have already held a Youtube debate, and French Presidential candidates Royal and Sarkozy both debated live on television.

But research in the US indicates that these debates do not encourage voters to compare potential presidents on policy, it is image. Cameron is only the clear favourite among voters when asked about likeability, so clearly a debate could benefit him. But should voters decide on who sweats the most, who looks better on camera, all the peripheral cues that give impressons of a person but say little substantive about how they would manage government. While it is impossible to exclude perceptions and impressions of candidates for leadership from an election it would be intrestign to see what woud happen if we had an election where image played no part.

If voters were simply given a list of policies on election day, each party providing a list of the key iniatives as a package, and voters were given time to read it and then voted for the package they thought would be best for the country at that time, what would happen? Could voters be deceived as easily as when they select the 'nicest guy' who appears most 'authentic'? Would it make voters see a clearer link between promises and delivery? There are a lot of questions, but it seems that the promotion of image erodes both the ability to gather information on candidates and make choices too simlistic to be meaningful.

Yes I inhaled, that's the point

The clip from US TV is fascinating comparatively. While British politicians have been almost hounded from office for hints that they may have tried illegal substances, US Democrats are more than willing to admit trying drugs, Barack Obama in particularly. The piece argues two pints, one that it gives the impression of authenticity, being normal and real. This is argued to be a dog-whistle suggestion, heard only by the young that expect a normal person to fit into certain characteristics. Secondly it closes down debate and speculation, though perhaps David Cameron wanted to keep the mystique going for some reason. What will be admitted come the next election, or the one after, or will anyone need to speculate about anyone's behaviour when they were younger when most of it will be listed within the profile history on Facebook?

Social Network for sale, £1000 each

There are six MySpace pages claiming to be Tony Blair's, see this one for example. They are all fakes, but Peter Hain's in genuine, well one out of the three is, as are those of a number of politicians here, on Facebook, Bebo etc. But are they really the politician?

The purpose of setting up a social networking site is to offer an insight into the real person behind the political persona; to be something other than the woman or man who is fielding Paxman's questions or delivering the party line on the News, Question Time or whatever. The idea is that the person becomes authentic in the eyes of those who interact with their pages.

Rory Cellan-Jones, BBC Technology Correspondent, uncovers an interesting insight into the use of social networking, quoting a friend he writes: "I met somebody the other day who told me that online networking was so important, and he didn't have the time, he was paying somebody to be him online. To blog, network, post etc . £1,000 a month too... Apparently it's a new occupation which he reckons already numbers hundreds of people, paid to be other people!"

This is no major surprise, after all we can imagine that the more high profile the public figure the less time they have, ergo the more likely they are to have staff to update their blogs, write on people's walls and update their profiles. The problem is that you expect that there would be some instruction on what to write, that it would not be situation where the supposed individual was totally detached from their network.

One can imagine that PR and Advertising agencies will begin to add this as a service, next we know there will be virtually identical profiles appearing where every politician has a pet, is family oriented, cares about the constituency, has the Arctic Monkeys on their Ipod, watches Lost while having a vision of a better society; or has this already happened

Boris Yeltsin RIP

Boris Yeltsin was the man who thought what was, in Russia of 1991, the unthinkable; he believed Russia could be a democracy and for a short time he was right. He also introduced a very different quality to Russian politics, an authenticity and emotionalism that had only briefly been seen during the Khrushchev years. There were, in my opinion, two pivotal moments in his career. The first and most momentous was his decision to threaten the hardliners with the force that they may well have been tempted to use against the Russian people but no longer had the power to give the orders. However he also contained the situation, positioning himself as the man with the power in the new Russian democracy.
His second moment was the softer side of a man who liked a good time. Playing the spoons and dancing on stage. This is often documented alongside Clinton's saxophone playing and the many other attempts by politicians to seek attachments to celebrities and popular culture. However it can also be read as trying to make a connection, showing the more human side of the politician. It did him no harm, that's for sure. Whatever his legacy will be, and Russia remains in flux, he is partially the architect of the nation's future and the fact that freedom now is greater, despite the inequalities and hints of totalitarianism, he should be applauded.

Virgin on the Ridiculous

Sarah Jane Newbury, Independent candidate in West Wiltshire, has perhaps a unique selling point; she claims to be the UK's most famous virgin and an 'International Celebrity' and model (pictured though possibly not recently) - not heard of her, where have you been?. Funny enough I believed the first nomenclature was owned by Anne Widdecombe, though Anne at least does not advertise the fact so graphically, Newbury includes Dr's certificates on her website. Also bizarrely on Newbury's website, though perhaps this pales into insignificance alongside the descriptions of her ex-boyfriends and how far they did not get physically, Newbury states she would prefer not to win as she is non-political.

However she has many links with current candidates and the Council generally; indeed "Sarah Jane is very impressed with the collection of frogs owned by a former Chairman of the District Council which was displayed in his office" (a little vignette from her website). Will she win, who knows; it does make one wonder though about who she would represent and how in touch she would be to modern life; though the question I'm really pondering is were the frogs real? What an insight into local politics we are offered by this!