A map of party support in the French blogosphere

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.

Will online campaigning make a difference?

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.

You need cheerleaders

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.

Are bloggers hindering democracy?

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!

Smeargate - the last word on it from me!

The consensus on the ongoing Smeargate debacle is that politics has lost out, its reputation further tarnished by this fresh evidence that politics is a dirty game. One voice that stands against this is Conservative MP Douglas Carswell who writes on his blog quite rightly that "Politics in Britain is fundamentally broken. The Internet is merely helping to expose the bogusness of what we currently have to put up with" - in other words this is really little that is new. However he makes the further assertion that: "The web will break the predominance of corporate party machines, the corporate media and corporatism - each of which helps currently sustain the SW1 class. Politics will have to become "open source" and more democratic"

I found this a really interesting argument, and one that would be a very positive development, but I worry if this really will be the case. My problem is that I doubt that currently the right people are influential in the blogosphere to hold SW1 to account. My take, disagree if you like and I am sure some will, is that Smeargate is a symptom of something that is endemic in modern politics, that campaigns are as likely to be fought on negative grounds and what often predominates is the personal attack. And perhaps Smeargate provides evidence that rather than being a feature of party machines it is actually spilling over into the blogosphere. Smeargate is the latest instalment of a battle between two egos. This was not a revelation exposed by a blogger wishing to scrutinise the actions of those in politics. It appears to be more the case that the underlying desire was that of Paul Staines to did dirt about Derek Draper, to undermine Labour's rather brash and artificial attempt to have a grassroots online presence and to score party political points.

The blogosphere seems to currently reflect the pattern of the mainstream media. What predominates is bias, with even the BBC being accused of favouring parties and ideologies (usually those in government). Bloggers have no regulation and so, rightly, we can say what we like, that is the idea after all. But if it is biased opinion following party political lines, whether this can encourage democracy in anyway is a very big question. What seems very rare is good, objective political blogging that is not out to score points or cheerlead for one party or another (not a call to read my blog by the way but an observation of what is available). The problem is that much also purports to be independent, both from parties and politically. Thus I share the despondency and am much more pessimistic than Douglas Carswell I'm afraid. Evidence suggests that petty squabbling and point scoring does not encourage engagement in politics, if this is to spill over into the blogosphere then it will keep it as a forum for the few and not the many. Just my humble opinion!

Are we expecting too much?

There has been a lot of negative comments about the beta version of Labourlist, particularly from among the Conservative bloggers. Less has been said about their Blue Blog, but essentially both have the same raison d'etre. The aim of both is to promote the respective parties and their policies. Derek Draper, the strategist behind Labourlist told the media: "I am building a site for 60 million people, not 60 bloggers" which is perhaps an odd claim. Why odd, well it is doubtful that there are 60 million people who are interested enough in politics to read the words of elected representatives or party members? The Blue Blog gains very little in the way of comments; Labourlist is doing better in that respect, 18 comments on a post that tells members not to be disheartened by the polls (including one essay). The webmasters also seems to be allowing all comments, or at least it is not a place to find purely positive messages. What is wrong with Blue Blog? It seems to be dominated by very serious statements from senior Conservatives, that may not be a bad thing but will only attract a certain type of visitor. Labourlist is more random in terms of content, so perhaps some grab greater attention than others appearing more like Labourhome and Libdem Voice. Also it is new and was hyped by the media, so perhaps there will be more interest. But is there a long term pull factor with either site and can either engage anymore than the normal website is a big question. Chances are Labourlist could well be successful as a portal for members, some of whom may be mobilised to a greater extent due to the site when they are required to come out and canvas for the party at the next election; the problem is though that it can be attacked by flamers and trollers and so used to undermine the brand. The Blue Blog seems to be more of an information portal, it offers the same opportunities for opponents, but seems of more use to journalists and those keenly involved in the party and its political platform than a wider audience. With the former, if it is a supporters network why make it public; with the latter why make policy announcements in blog format? Both are interesting despite the attacks, but neither currently seem to be attracting the interactivity the creators seem to desire - as for recreating the Obama phenomenon that is a real pipe dream!

Countering negative flak from the blogosphere

This is a flow chart devised by the US Air Force, not the most immediate target for negativity but nopw somethign of a priority for them. The flow chart is one that could be lifted and embedded into communication strategy by any organisation.

The strategy, as introduced to me, is this: It's all part of an Air Force push to "counter the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinions about the U.S. government and the Air Force," Captain David Faggard says. Over the last couple of years, the armed forces have tried, in fits and starts, to connect more with bloggers. The Army and the Office of the Secretary of Defense now hold regular "bloggers' roundtables" with generals, colonels, and key civilian leaders. The Navy invited a group of bloggers to embed with them on a humanitarian mission to Central and South America, last summer. Military blogger Michael Yon recently traveled to Afghanistan with Defense Secretary Robert Gates. In contrast, the Air Force has largely kept the blogosphere at arms' length. Most of the sites are banned from Air Force networks. And the service has mostly stayed away from the Pentagon's blog outreach efforts. Captain Faggard, who's become the Air Force Public Affairs Agency's designated social media guru, has made strides in shifting that attitude. The air service now has a Twitter feed, a blog of its own -- and marching orders, for how to comment on other sites. "We're trying to get people to understand that they can do this," he says. I'm guessign he is also getting people to understand its importance also! The obvious problem is that you end up doing nothing more than reacting, but perhaps every organisation, and especially every party during the general election, will have to decide how to deal with attacks on blogs, which ones to respond to and which to ignore and how to cope with what is likely to become a co-produced campaign experience where everyone contributes something somewhere that has an impact on someone elses' political choice making.

the great thing about blogging

For an MP there are many arguments why they should blog - they show their more personal side, they can talk about topics of interest and engage with like-minded people, they can talk about matters that effect their constituents and engage with those who will elect them, and all this is not filtered by national or local media.

Paul Flynn also finds that he can respond to the media. There was some minor furore yesterday when the media exposed the story that he had has his communication allowance cut because he had used his blog to insult other 'right honourable members'. He offered his side that here was a journalist looking for a story and making one up. But the most important point Flynn makes is regarding how MPs must think about communication, and why he argues his blog is an excellent communicative tool. His is, in his words "Independent. Liberated. Opinionated. Un-censored. Fun" while "Many of the early MPs’ blogs simply regurgitated party propaganda and were unread"; and of course being controversial earns you the attention of journalists and this post gained far more visitors than usual

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.

What's in a name

The Conservatives invite votes on the name for their new blog, the choices are pared down from thousands of suggestions to:
The Blue Room
Conflab
The Blue Blog
Speakers' Corner
Out of the Blue

Voting ends Wednesday at midday. Why go to this trouble, if nothing else it gives a sense of co-ownership and offers the perception that the party does not have the objective of controlling the blog. It has been argued that parties return to a default position of control when designing online content, this gives an impression they will not. However that will be proven by the content itself, however at this stage it gets people involved and that is something every party needs.

A blog worth following

Crewe TV, a lively "photo diary of life in Crewe, the people, places and its politics, including the railway, town centre redevelopment, Crewe Alexandra Football Club, local events and more" is the place for the insider perception of the by-election and particularly what the candidates are up to. One often asked question by commenters is "Where's Gordon", with a lot of negative comments about him having 'given up' knowing 'the clock is ticking'. Not sure who visits the site but there is a poll there, and currently Labour are in third place, the 703 contributors see Timpson ahead for the Conservatives with Liberal Democrat Liz Shenton a very close second (full poll scores are to the right); with reference to the last post, is this an indication of a climate change in British politics? I suspect that it may not be that representative (looking at the percentage voting for Monster Raving Loony candidate: Flying Brick) but it enforces the idea of a close race with Labour doing badly which may not be too far away from the final truth.

A new way of covering elections?

I was privately quite excited by the notion of letting bloggers lose on election coverage, sadly though, despite Luke Akehurst promising: "I'll colour your bland bits, alright" he didn't really seem to be given the chance. And they didn't break any stories and the BBCs 'Emily's Election' blog is more like a report from a celebrity shindig than an innovative way to talk about an election, and it is dashed hard to find.

Most interesting for me is what Iain Dale is up to, I loved the twitters last night; where else could you find the comments "Emily Maitlis is a very funny (and rather beautiful) lady. I am very lucky to be spending the night with her" and "Michael Portillo is sitting on a sofa reading a book, not deigning to talk to anyone". Perhaps that was the real value of it all, the perspective from behind the scenes.

More seriously is Iain's updates all day from the Mayoral count: unsurprisingly he tips Boris to win, but evidence suggests he may be right (if so how is that for a turn around in image and he failure of negativity). His updates are on his blog here. It should get more interesting as the day goes on.

The serious point, the updates are perhaps the best thing. While election coverage is very formulaic and attempts to be entertaining and dramatic (though Jeremy Vine's antics last night were cringeworthy only); those who do watch til the last result crawls in really want results as they happen. Perhaps the twittering of elections is the future and we can all get the results on our laptops, palmtops and PDAs and make our own assessments. Perhaps also it gives more chance for those who want to, to comment themselves via their own blogs, other's blogs or news pages: could it just get a few more people watching elections.

BBC to employ 'online opinion formers' to tell all

The BBC's election coverage is to harness the blogosphere: "An elaborate network of opinion formers, activists and analysts collide online producing fact, rumour, and mood not found anywhere else". The web, they claim: "provides the unvarnished truth about what the parties are really thinking". Hence Iain Dale, Luke Akehurst and Alix Mortimer, bloggers representing respectively Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat, will be imparting snippets of information that provide colour to the often bland statements made by leaders playing up or down the results.

Of course there could be a downside and false rumours are offered up that manage to seize media and public attention, but it is interesting that the BBC feel bloggers are opinion formers both within the party, perhaps, or among their readers and the blogosphere more generally. To harness the collective intelligence, as Luke writes, they all want:

• results as soon as they seem clear, predictions perhaps
• information on what's going on a round the country- atmosphere at counts, rumours, gossip, colour
• reaction to blog posts
• information about other eye catching posts on political blogs

They will be creating a four-way blog with the BBC's Emily Maitlis (link here), all of which makes for an interesting development. My question for this, is this the rise of the citizen journalist to true credibility; or a reinforcement of the traditional political who may appear free from the party line constraints but also with clear bias to one side?

Blog Your Way to Election Success?

According to 'Davick Services' "No matter what kind of campaign you’re running, a Blog allows you to quickly and easily create a place on the web where voters can find you, learn about you, interact with you and contribute to your success". Their reasoning is that:

• Huge impact for very little money
• Creates a dialog between you and the voters
• Blogs collect valuable feedback from voters
• Blogs build trust with voters
• Blogs are a conduit for online campaign contributions that multiply over time

All absolutely true but, and of course there is a but, can blogging really guarantee you electoral success? Here are some reasons I would offer to suggest why this also might not be the case:

• Blogs require a pull factor, their existence does not guarantee traffic
• Blogs can allow opponents to post negative comments
• There is no guarantee that visitors or comment posters are your voters
• Blogs need to find a balance between personal and campaign communication, just campaigning is a turn-off, all personal lacks focus
• Conversations on blogs can lead bloggers down blind alleys (issues important to one poster only), or to talk on issues they prefer to keep quiet on
• Trust must come before asking for money

Online campaigning does work, it has been a key part of Barack Obama's successes to date; but he created himself a pull factor. But it needs to be used wisely and strategically. If someone asked me if they should use a blog as a campaign tool I would ask them what for specifically - if they could not answer then I would say no. The problem is that the answer for many to the thorny question of how to reach most people for the least money is go online. Yes that is true, but... and to ignore that but could be a as serious a mistake as an own goal in the World Cup Final, with the score at 1-1, in the last seconds of injury time!

How to target the online influencers

Given the CPS report on the importance of bloggers who have a significant share of the online readership and so assumed influence, and the fact that many PR agencies are seriously considering how to harness the power of the blogosphere, or sometimes counter and neutralise online criticism, Mark Hanson's article in PR Week is highly prescient. As media officer for LabourHome as well as a partner in Staniforth, Hanson is perfectly placed to consider these questions from a political perspective and offers the following advise on how to reach the bloggers who are influential.

Firstly parties need to trawl for hits of key phrases to check where the issues are being discussed; second assess the importance of each site in terms of the quality and relevance of the content and the amount of readers in order to discover where the potential audience is; this will represent a network in which there are the influentials and the long tail of readers who may contribute comments or simply lurk on the edge of the network [the theory is that 1 issue will picked up by 9 bloggers which will then influence a further 90 individuals as pictured below by Chris Anderson]; once identified the network is assessed to see how the party/candidate can use it; finally getting the network onside.

Advocacy and word-of-mouth promotion is a powerful tool of PR. If certain bloggers are influential and can promote a party, its leader, policies and initiate viral campaigns such as the one for Mark McDonald to be party treasurer, then it could be a kind of endorsement that could have an effect. Key for Hanson is that parties and candidates recognise that there are new ways to interact with the public/electorate (speak and listen to in his words), PR agencies have picked up on this Hanson suggests parties need to do likewise.

P.S. on a completely different not, is anyone else puzzled that blog, blogger and associated phrases are not in the 'blogger' dictionary?

Grassroot Power: Labour's campaign from below

Labour's grassroots are fairly silent, in fact dissatisfaction is largely only visible by the decline in members; one rarely hears discontent from the members. However LabourHome provides a forum for criticism, and is often used as such; but now it is also providing voice for a campaign to take back control over party finances and ensure members [especially Union members] fees are not wasted. According to PR Week, the "plotters" have learned their lessons from US political communication, particularly the Hillary Clinton campaign, that a key way to gain momentum is to target key groups via web-based fora. Though reading the site I am not sure if the language used by PR Week of 'plotters' or 'overthrow' is appropriate, but it is a concerted effort to get Dromey removed in light of questions surrounding party funding and those of his wife's campaign and install Mark McDonald described as "one of our own".

What it does indicate though is that such sites must be now reaching a critical mass and have become effective ways of reaching and mobilising groups such as party and union members. As the PR Week article notes political communication lags behind the US in web use; however the exchange of personell [such as Jag Singh who PR Week says helped in Hillary Clinton's super Tuesday success - did I miss that on the news] means the web will probably become a key tool and political communication via the blogosphere that attempts to have influence through the viral nature of the internet will become far more widespread.

Guess it is working, free publicity from PR Week and from me,

what more can a campaign ask for?

If we keep quiet it will go away - fat chance!

Glancing around the Labour blogging community such as Bloggers4Labour, or the sites of various luminaries, a lot are fairly dead. In fact the 'B4L' site was last updated during the Labour Conference (23rd Sept), Harriet Harman's blog was last used in October, but even the keenest of bloggers, such as Tom Watson, is saying very little about the problems Labour are facing or the potential solutions.

You would kind of think that some would make some form of comment. Perhaps in support of the idea of reforming party funding, making a statement on what could or should be done; perhaps even making comments in support of those implicated and attesting to their honesty. At the very least they could be talking about what is, fundamentally, a flaw at the heart of the democratic process: that parties need cash to fund an election campaign but they cannot always be principled in accepting or rejecting cash and maybe there are unavoidable strings.

But the silence is deathly. Is it too hot a potato? Are they waiting to see which side up the toast falls? Is there an edict 'blog thee not on matters of donations'? Or, perhaps more importantly, should there be more said from within the parties all of whom face a very real problem? It wont go away I feel, so is commenting more damaging than saying nothing, and instead blogging on the 'professional pilot's rumour network', just a thought: some things are better met head on! If you dont talk about it everyone else will and then they have control of the agenda.

Dirty Politics - the covert way

I have no idea if these blogs are sponsored by Clegg himself, his team, are by outsiders, activists or just members of the public: this is the joy of the blogosphere! However there are two blogs that have been created to simply attack Chris Huhne. The Anti-Chris! reports on the fact that Huhne was instrumental in the break up of his current wife's previous marriage, dubbing him the home wrecker! There is even a section that implicates Huhne in leading one of his step-daughters into a depression expressed through poetry, the blog states this was due to the fact that "at the most vulnerable age when she lost her father because of Huhne’s “charm” offensive".

There is then Chris Almighty, a rebuttal of Sunday's attack by Huhne by undermining him and his argument. It is interesting, but the bottom line that the poster wishes to publicise is that "He really is a horrible man who covers his unpleasant character with a thin veneer".

None of this perhaps should be a surprise. The blogosphere is the perfect place to spread rumour anonymously in order to undermine the campaign of an opponent. Such things can work, I imagine some of this will reach the mainstream media and may enter the public consciousness. It will not convert Huhne supporters,, equally it may not win Clegg friends if he sponsored it or not. The problem here is that overt negativity, such as the 'Calamity Clegg' dossier and the 'Anti Chris' style rumour-mongering simply gives a negative impression of both the attacker (actual or perceived) and the victim. If Clegg can distance himself from such activities while Huhne is unlikely to shrug off that dossier (despite it being normal fare for a campaign), maybe Clegg will emerge the nicer guy. What if he cannot???

a 'NET' loss

I found Labourhome this afternoon, Labour's answer to Conservative Home a forum "for blogs, discussion and debate in which supporters can meet and consider issues of common concern and interest outside the party", set up early June I think. Now here is a good example of a why David Phillips is absolutely right when he argues that anything posted anywhere on the web can later be potentially embarrasing (all Facebook users particualrly beware!). Browsing the archives I found a beauty!

Commenting on Harriet Harman's Newsnight performance, JR makes a statement that could easily be used by Labour's or Harman's opponents to undermine the party's next election campaign. Perhaps said at a time when her victory seemed slim and of course it could be seen as fair comment; but the implications... The full text is below:

by far the biggest shambles of the night was Harriet Harman. After desperately clinging on to her Cabinet position for all these years, now Blair is going, she decided to stab him in the back and reject all the principles which she herself had backed for a decade. Amnesty for illegal immigrants? Taxing the David Beckhams of the world until their hair stands on end? Going on about people buying £10,000 handbags? She's lost the plot. So Harriet, tell me, by denying somebody the right to spend their hard-earned money as they choose, why does that make the poor better off? Hitting the rich will not improve the lives of the poor - it simply gets peoples backs up that deluded government ministers are attacking them for wanting to earn a good wage and wanting the freedom to spend it how they see fit. She seems to be on a one-woman mission to kill Blairism and everything that New Labour has built up in it's decade of success. It's not an unfair comment to say that she even outflanked Cruddas on leftieness, so much so that even Cruddas himself couldn't help but lavish praise on her. And of course, then we had the charade where she quickly tried to change her second-preference to Cruddas in order to scoop up more leftie votes, but she couldn't quite manage it because she still wants to make out she can win us votes in the middle-class South. Sorry Harriet, but you've failed there spectacularly. No self-respecting middle-class family would give their votes to a party that espoused your views.

At the start of this campaign, I originally considered giving my vote to Harman as she seemed pleasant, was generally loyal to Blair and was moderate enough to win us the middle England votes. She's destroyed all that and now she's going second-bottom after Cruddas. Congratulations Harriet Harman, you've managed to scare stiff about half the British population into thinking Labour is going back to the Michael Foot era - I'm sure that's really going to help come election time against Cameron's 'heirs to Blair'.

Blogs that make you go MMMMM!

Franscud at Caught in the Stream bestowed upon me the honour of naming me as a blogger that makes him think, but within it was also the request to pass this award on to five and challenge them to also pass the award on. I suppose the danger is that every blogger could end up with one in the end but then again why not. So here are my five:

Dizzy's Opinionated Arrogance: media monitor par excellence

Norfolk Blogger: always fascinating

Iain Dale: political journalism with a slight bias, great insider stories

Recess Monkey: another insider, always provocative

Leverwealth: Not called David (Web 2.0) Phillips for nothing

Now I feel guilty for those I omitted!! But these are ones that have made me think in the last few days, and who often inform my thinking and writing so there we go. And now the rules for how to proceed:

Should you choose to participate, please make sure you pass this list of rules to the blogs you are tagging. I thought it would be appropriate to include them with the meme.




The participation rules are simple:

1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think,

2. Link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme,

3. Optional: Proudly display the 'Thinking Blogger Award' with a link to the post that you wrote (here is an alternative silver version if gold doesn't fit your blog).