An aide to engagement or indecision

It claims to "help you to determine your preference for the London mayoral and Assembly elections", whether it does is more questionable. Vote Match London 2008 offers 25 statements which which you can agree, disagree or neither, you can then match yourself against the candidates on all the topics. While it aids you to see who is closest on the issues that are of most concern, so if you agree that "The 'stop and account' form that the police have to fill in when they use stop and search powers should be scrapped" you find both Boris Johnson and Brian Paddick agree while all the rest do not. If this was the single issue that concerned you then you could use the proximity theory of voting and assume that the candidates closest to you on that single issue should get you votes (1st and 2nd preference) with the order chosen by other cues perhaps.

But it is slightly more complicated over the whole 25 issues. Though not a Londoner, so ineligible to vote, I found that I was tied with three candidates, Paddick, Johnson and Damien Hockney the leader of One London who I confess to not having heard of; close runners up were the Green Party and Ken Livingstone. That either makes me seriously weird and having various incompatible views that cross party divisions or normal and actually the candidates themselves overlap considerably on many key issues. If the latter, and I like to think of myself as normal even if others do not, I could do one of two things: I could find out more about all three and narrow it down to two and place them in order; or I could think the whole thing is far too difficult and give up. Hopefully this idea will make more Londoners engage on the issues, and elaborate on these simple cues due to becoming interested in the campaign and the candidates (as some academics would predict could happen); but....

Speaking their language

A delightful little irony emerges from the US nomination race. Rosanna Fiske notes that "Whatever the political inclination, Republicans and Democrats realize that speaking to the heart and the minds of Hispanics/Latinos across the U.S., developing nuanced, sensitive messages and addressing culturally relevant issues have never been more important".

Hence, according to Maria Teresa Petersen, executive director of Voto Latino, a nonpartisan voter registration organization, in an interview with New America Media "Candidates are spending tens of millions of dollars trying to capture the attention of Latino voters, mostly in the Spanish-language media" but here is the irony "what the campaigns haven't figured out is that 79 percent of the 18 million eligible Latino voters consume media in English"

Campaigning is all about targeting key groups, talking about the issues important to them and making it understandable, but when we say talking the same language as your voters we may not mean that literally. Perhaps this is laziness in believing that Latinos do not speak English or not sufficiently to want to process political arguments, perhaps it is a genuine attempt to reach out and embrace the community, but is it a good strategy or does this highlight that a much deeper understanding of your public is needed and gimmicks go unrewarded?

Making audiences think

I say part one of The Last Enemy, the most powerful way of gaining support for a political message is to plant it within a 'science fiction thriller'. As producer Gub Neal says: "The Last Enemy is... a cautionary tale about technology, with identity cards, biometric tests and armed police becoming an everyday presence in our lives". While many may not wish to listen to the complex arguments for and against identity cards etc, and do not consider how much data already exists on us via loyalty, credit and bank cards and through data collected by internet service providers, this gets the message home in a powerful but subtle way. If anyone was to call a referendum on ID cards while this drama is fresh in the memory I predict it would fail, such is the power of the dramatic narrative - they can make the audiences think far more than highbrow political debate and reach far more people.

Obama is getting serious

Obama tends to avoid substance, in fact his whole selling point seems to be more about image [him as the outsider] and his rhetoric of change than specific policies he intends to introduce. This is a sharp contrast to his main rival, last night Hillary Clinton made very specific promises to withdraw troops from Iraq and a range of social reform schemes. Obama was less specific in Virginia as he celebrated his primary victories. Interestingly though both attempted to cement Democrats behind them and against John McCain, perhaps all candidates now are advised it is time to appear like a president.

But there is still a question for Democrats, and for anyone interested in US politics. Obama seems to be attracting those not known for high involvement in politics; hence rhetoric and image is the most appropriate way of reaching and mobilising them. Clinton uses the symbolism associated with her husband but also challenges voters to think about their choice carefully and to think about the big issues. If Obama wins he may capture the support of all those voters who do not want to think too hard and for whom colour is not an issue; Clinton may have broader appeal based on the fact she can offer authenticity [if not the charisma of Obama], symbolic appeal and also hard policy. McCain, well will he be seen as Bush Mk II or III or can he emerge as the consensus candidate that appeals to centrists and right wingers. He also has a raft of issues to draw on, therefore the polls may indicate a lot about US voters and how they process campaign information as well as how the candidates are doing.

The happiness of the pedant

I enjoy being pedantic now and again. Not necessarily with student assignments, they are learning, but when professional communicators produce communication that is vague, can be misinterpreted or makes no sense it is a pleasure to pick the holes or read a pedantic stripping away of the sense of an official document. John Redwood provided just that in his comments on Ed Ball's 'Children's Plan'.

I was emailed by 'Ed', well it was a Labour circular asking me to comment on the document, I clicked on the link provided, it was wrong. After scouring the web for the Department of Children, Schools and Families I located a copy, I was now wondering if they really wanted to consult me on this, or anybody for that matter. I think the normal rule is make it easy if you really want feedback, if you don't make it look like you do but make it hard: now what do you think was the case?

One of Redwood's points in particular interested me however, a reference to co-location: "that new primary schools should be co-located with the “police, social care, advice and welfare services…”. When I asked him if he really thought a police station on the same site as a primary school would make the school more attractive to parents he looked puzzled as he did not seem to realise co-locating police with children at school could mean siting the police station at the school". I thought surely this was not being suggested!

There are only three references to co-location in the full report: the one closest to a definition is "staff in co-located services are more likely to talk to each other and provide joined-up support. For example, co-location of health visitors and midwives helps smooth transition between antenatal and postnatal periods"; so we are talking a one-stop shop idea where several things can be provided in a 'joined-up' way under a single roof (so lots of management speak). Chapter 7 of the report sets out Labour's ambition in more detail (ahah!!)

Well err maybe. There is the phrase "locating services under one roof in the places people visit frequently"; so schools in supermarkets perhaps? The opening part suggests joining up health care and education, so this is teaching that the wrong food, alcohol, cigarettes are bad? That's new! There is box 7.2 which is a list of vague aims and managerial buzz-words (see below) if it makes any sense or informs of the practical detail please let me know, maybe it is me being slow. The chapter then tails off talking about so many different issues that it is hard to tell what is happening and where. Now to be fair to Mr Balls it does not suggest housing schools in police stations or vice versa, but then again it is so vague it could mean just that. Once again government provides a document that is virtually meaningless in the specifics that anything could be seen as meeting the appropriate target, offers consultation but makes it difficult, and sets aspirations few can disagree with. But what does it mean?

The first law of producing communication that stimulates intelligent thought and debate is to make it comprehensible and encourage the audience to actually read/listen etc. This is none of that, given the prevalence of professional communicators in government is this the design I wonder. Is the detail wrung out of it to ensure that it offers an appearance of activity? Whatever it reads to me as meeting standards of bad communication only: any views?

The new television

Hidden away on Family Security Matters [The National Security Resource for American Families] is a fascinating article by Walter Anderson on the role of the Internet for the 2008 US Presidential Election. It starts with the premise that "The Internet IS the new television as far as 21st century campaigning is concerned". The statement is underpinned by the fact that, while television is still a core toll of nomination hopeful's campaigns, the Internet is being used to a far greater extent and introducing a range of novel communication devices that would be impossible via other media.

Raising funds seems to be the key role of Internet communication. One example sited is from John Edwards' campaign, one that has exploited perhaps every device the Internet can offer. "His campaign sent out a request purporting to be from his Mother Bobbie asking for a $6.10 donation before his birthday (his birthday was June 10th) to raise $610,000.00 for the campaign. In turn, Bobbie would send her recipe for pecan pie as a reward to each donor."

The reason for the shift towards e-political communication is the fact that the Internet offers a low-cost communication solution. Using free outlets campaign communication can be posted, communities can be formed around a candidate and a momentum can be created around a campaign.

For Anderson, email is the killer application that can "get information and ideas passed to thousands and potentially millions of voters", though he accepts that it may be social networking tools that might have a more significant long-term impact, but he accepts them as a requiring email to pull voters towards other aspects of the campaign. If we accept that a momentum is forming around the contest generally, and that the Internet is acting as a tool of mobilising potential voters to engage cognitively with the campaign then he is perhaps right in his concluding claim that "we [voters] can look to the Internet for additional assistance with understanding campaign issues and deciding upon candidates between now and November 2008.

There is a slight query here, yes voters can look to the Internet to help with the voter choices, but will they? The elaboration likelihood model (above) talks of two routes for information processing, peripheral and central. Does an email act as a reminder that an individual is standing, or does receipt make the receiver want to go and find out more about that candidate? If the latter, and this equates to real engagement, will those who follow links to websites, or friend a candidate on Facebook, find that positive attitudes become stronger and negative associations weaken so achieving some form of behavioural change. Perhaps currently we can measure that in donations, but these will be existing supporters simply mobilised by e-political communication. Can these tools reach floating voters, weak supporters or supporters of opponents? That will be the test and, if it can be measured and quantitatively proven that the Internet has some impact on voter engagement and voter choice making, we will see political communication increasingly moving online. This could solve the current conundrum for political campaigners, now to communicate directly to voters without the noise of mediation. But will it? Is this a bandwagon that is creating its own momentum or is it the start of a revolution in political communication?