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 Conference season is over: but who cares about Conferences?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Twitter really fundamental to democracy?

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

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

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

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

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.

Will Brown go?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The weight of expectation

It is hard to imagine the pressure Gordon Brown must be feeling as he prepares for his speech. The media today have ramped this up. The Sun states: “This must be a landmark address. It must stamp his authority as leader of this nation and reassure terrified voters they are in safe hands.” The Times dub it: “the speech of his life”. There is already a link to the speech on the website, but currently it is circular taking the visitor back to the Conference home page, but the hint is in the title 'Fair Chance and Fair Rules'. This suggests it will be aimed at the core Labour members, supporters and voters. But it will not be judged by the objectives set by Brown or his strategists but by expectations of journalists, the audience members they choose to fit their narrative and by the audience themselves whose expectations will be influenced by the media. Would anyone else really want to be PM?

colourful language

There has been a lot of colourful language around this week, and I don't mean swearing but alliteration, hyperbole, embellishment, the sort of techniques that make the difference between interesting and dull. I did like the Cameron insult of Brown 'spineless as a jellyfish'; Tom Harris is defending himself for calling the British 'bloody miserable' on his blog; but the biscuit goes to Andy Burnham. He could have said that David Davis had been having private conversations with civil liberties campaigners persuading them of his sincerity to gain their support. Instead, in an article in Progress, he said Shami Chakrabarti had been "seduced by Tory talk of how liberal they are" during "late-night, hand-wringing, heart-melting phone calls" with "the man who was, and still is I believe, an exponent of capital punishment". Chakrabarti took this as a personal slur and suggestion of something more than an attack on her politics or those of David Davis; a shrewd move as it undermines Burnham completely.

But Burnham did the damage himself. It is a smart phrase, it conjures up a range of images, for me not sexual, more of Davis as a Machiavellian persuader whispering in ears privately to get people on side. But it perhaps was not run past the communications team in his department or in No. 10 - then again maybe it was, but if it was they missed the fact that it could get coverage for being perceived as a personal attack on Chakrabarti rather than an attack on the politics of Davis. So, the language used achieved the aim, it was repeated and publicised across the media. But the language elicited the wrong reaction and so gained negative coverage. Perhaps it is symbolic of a government that seems to just get everything wrong and gets punished for everything, certainly it gives the impression of desperation in their attacks the way the media has treated the story.

Engaging, evidence of Dumbing Down or just Dumb

I only just found this wonderful trailer to advertise Super Tuesday's television coverage. This is the way to advertise an election contest, forget swing-o-meters, gimmicky sets, on the spot interviews, lets superimpose the candidate's heads on wrestlers and pretend its WWF. The soundtrack is Down with the Sickness by Disturbed, why does that seem just so appropriate. But then is this actually the way to capture a television audience, get them excited in the contest? Alternatively does it encourage a non-participatory audience, similar to WWF enjoying the game of candidates biting chunks out of each other and pretending to be wounded?

Boring and predictable scuffles

The war goes on between our journalists and our party leaders, they hunt in packs and their target at the moment is Gordon Brown. So every journalist, Boulton, Marr et al, all want Brown to admit it is a disaster and he is failing, he knows that is true but plays up the positives and talks about communicating better. I just wish that these journalists would watch each other's programmes and not just replicate the same worn script. Yes it is a disaster for Labour, Brown will never admit it, live with it, move on and if that is all you want to say just don't bother. Is it any wonder that television audiences are less interested in political magazine programmes when they do not add anything to what most viewers already know. I am sure opponents do enjoy watching the leader they dislike squirm but there are limits surely.

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.

All politics is (not) local

Apart, perhaps, for the London Mayoral Election contest, most of the other 150+ council elections seem to be driven by the popularity of the national parties and their leaders than the desire for a assemblies or councils to be run by specific individuals or parties. The media are focusing on the 'kicking' Gordon Brown will receive with the Express reporting that "Labour insiders expect the party could lose more than 200 councillors in a punishing response from voters to Mr Brown’s blunder-hit first 10 months in his job". The Conservatives are also promoting the notion of sending Brown a message, in a campaigning email and video 'David Cameron' tells subscribers that "Every Conservative vote today will help send Gordon Brown a message".

It strikes me as a bit of a shame for the many Councillors and AMs who have done an excellent job but whose careers hang in the balance due to the performance of a party leader whom they have little influence over. But is it their fault, should the campaign be more intense and personalised, or is there nothing that can be done to ensure Council elections are about election a strong local team not sending messages to the top. Perhaps not. Perhaps it is the problem with representative democracy that we have so few ways to participate, or give voice to our feelings, outside of an election, that most people take the only chance they have to message the prime minister.

But it could also be due to the demise of ideology. As the parties increasingly bunch around the centre, offering almost identical solutions, the only differentiating factor is trust in the competence of that party to deliver. If there are no local personalities, with a recognised track record, or who promise something different, then many who wish to vote may only be able to judge the party as an entity and use the leader as a reference point to assess competence.

Politics, Music and Movement

In concluding a fascinating article in The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Street, Hague & Savigny state that music is central to political and social movements as it, and its producers, have the ability to provide a platform from which public action emerges. Basically music has an inspirational quality that draws its audiences together and can create a movement. Reading that I heard on Radio 2 that Peter Garrett was now Minister for Environment, Heritage and Arts in Kevin Rudd's new government in Australia, who, so what?

Peter Garrett was singer with Australian band Midnight Oil, perhaps famous only for the track Beds are Burning outside of Australia, and a political campaigner. The song Beds are Burning talks of the clearances where a scorched earth approach removed Aborigines from large swathes of Australia: the songs message about that land "it belongs to them, lets give it back". He stood for parliament in the 1980s for the Nuclear Disarmament Party and encouraged public demonstrations against the introduction of ID cards, a successful campaign. He has also campaigned on environmental issues and is to be found on Youtube more often for 'green tips' than music videos.

Perhaps him being parachuted into the safe Labor seat of Kingsford Smith was a smart move by the party, perhaps they wanted the credibility that comes with a campaigner such as Garrett. His music is still around and, if the campaigns he promotes on his website is anything to go by, he retains interests in social equality, the rights of indigenous peoples and the environment. However some journalists have attacked him for being a turncoat as he declared he had to be a 'team player' in accepting decisions of the Australian Labour Party caucus; equally he came under fire for telling voters not to vote Green despite his environmental credentials. There was also a hint he had great expectations of Rudd as, when he was criticised for using political marketing and playing on the popular issues (referred to in this case as 'me too' politics as whenever Howard made a promise Rudd said 'me too'), journalist Steve Price quoted Garrett as saying "once we get in we'll just change it all".

And so what you may ask? This case made me think that while celebrities are indeed important in mobilising the public on political issues, just think Geldof, and music may capture a crowd's attention, they may not be right for politics itself. The reason is that they are better campaigners than law-makers and their credibility is always questioned when they cross the divide. Secondly they often seem to be idealistic and passionate about causes, this may make them popular but they raise expectations that cannot be met when constrained by collective decision making. Thirdly they court attention and, not being professional politicians, make remarks that are treated differently if said by a politician than if said by a musician: musicians don't need to be on message or true to anyone but themselves. So while as outsiders they have a potentially powerful role in politics, when inside politics they may become shadows of their former selves mocked for selling out. In Garrett's words from one of my favourites by Midnight Oil: Back on the Borderline:

And sometimes when a thousand voices
Tell you that you're wrong
A saint in any form
Becomes a sinner all along

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.

Sex, Leaks and Media Hype

Does it matter that Ken Livingstone has five children by three different women, is the issue one of his honesty and integrity or is it true that, as he claims, the public have no interest in his private life. Should we read anything at all into the fact that Nick Clegg 'may have' slept with 'no more than 30 women' in his life? Should we agree with the suggested title for a blog post on the Independent of "Why Political Pundits are Gossip Obsessed Twats". Of course being in the public eye invites scrutiny, and deservedly so; and if like Clegg you allow Piers Morgan to interview you for GQ you get what you deserve, but the obsession with gossip and the sex lives of politicians can detract from the real issues. In terms of media management, while Livingstone is under fire for criticising a Yougov poll that shows Boris Johnson with a 12% lead and the focus is on the marginality of the race, maybe a more personal story is of use to Livingstone. Thus stories such as this may well be liked by journalists but can also be leaked to cover up worse stories that really do have political impact.

Robinson, Kilfoyle and an EDM

BBC Political editor has started a bit of a stir on his Newslog. When he provided a list of reasons why most of Westminster were backing speaker Michael Martin despite the funding allegations that have caused him to have problems he could not predict that it would provoke Peter Kilfoyle MP to post criticising Robinson's comments. Nick Reynolds remarks, it could be the start of MPs joining the conversation on the blogosphere. But then Kilfoyle went a step further and, with 52 colleagues, tabled an Early Day Motion calling:

That this House deplores the innuendo of the blog of Nick Robinson, the BBC's lobby correspondent; calls upon him to substantiate the imputations he makes in his blog concerning the Speaker and hon. Members; and also calls upon the BBC to publish a full, itemised account of the expenses of Mr Robinson, in the name of transparency and accountability of public funds.

Not sure why his expenses are brought up, though I suppose there is an interesting parallel between MPs and BBC journalists [both seek to represent the public and are funded by the public], but to name a journalist as opposed to the BBC or media more generally seems to make a serious issue into a personal battle between Robinson and Kilfoyle.

It is a fact that both politicians and journalists need to ensure that they deliver factual information to the public, and ensure they do not spin and rumour monger. Perhaps parliament needs to introduce legislation to ensure there is honesty and transparency at every level, that laws apply to MPs as members of our society, and that there are penalties imposed on those to transgress. Trust in politicians is about as low as is possible; trust in journalists is not much better, according to an IpsosMORI poll for the BBC 46% say the government is the least trust institution, 55% think MPs put their own interests first only 10% feel they represent constituents or the country, only 25% trust the media generally. But this can only become further entrenched by a public contest between politicians and the most trusted media outlet's political editor.

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?

Send on the clones

The image of politics as a game for middle aged men should have changed given the predominance of 40 year olds in the Cabinet and the increased number of women also. There is a new class of politician; the professional MP, someone with a career path and keen to stay in office with the same security as any other job. But there is a problem with these MPs, they are wheeled out by the government and say absolutely nothing.

I had the misfortune of watching James Purnell's first interview after replacing Peter Hain, he was asked a lot of questions about Brown's dithering and repeated the same lines as Brown himself would. Its the long term, here are a few facts and figures to show we're doing well and oh did I mention we are just getting on with the job. One MP told me he hated being asked to act like a speak your weight machine; these guys seem to relish it. They appear to have no opinions, no independent thought and no ability to invent their own soundbites. The are the political equivalent of the Pavlov's dog - ah the interviewer mentioned that election that never was, brrr whizz, compute..... [cue robotic voice] we are just getting on with the job.

The problem is that it is simply annoying. There is a logic that if everyone says exactly the same thing when asked a question then interviewers may stop asking it and the issue will go away; also journalists seize on any contradiction as a sign of dissent and division, so uniformity is encouraged. But it is such an unedifying sight, it weakens trust and interest in politics and often these 'Dictaphones' just look like they have something to hide. MPs are meant to be representing the people and working for the general good of our society (very broadly), if they do not appear to have an independent thought why would anyone trust them as a representative. If perception is everything the speak your weight machine may just be giving out the wrong messages.