Alpha Dogs: How Political Spin became a Global Business – BOOK REVIEW

In Alpha Dogs James Harding, Times Editor and former Washington correspondent for the Financial Times, charts the birth and evolution of the political consultant business in the US. Focusing on the partnership between cinema verite film-maker David Sawyer and Ad man Scott Miller, the brains behind the ‘Have a Coke and a smile’ campaign, Harding explains how these two idealists moved into becoming political consultants, started their own agency SMG and exported their model across emergent democracies. The model at the heart of their consultancy was very simple, and one that any modern day consultant would recognise, get inside the heads of the consumer, craft the message, go negative, pre-empt events, tell your story and sell it out. It was this toolkit that was tried and tested getting Kevin White re-elected as mayor of Boston in 1979 and then adapted through numerous unsuccessful (yet very lucrative) forays into South America to be refined in order that they could stage manage the overthrow of the Marcos regime in the Philippines supporting the 1986 campaign of Cory Aquino and two years later unseating General Pinochet in Chile. While the SMG team of consultants could at this stage be arguably on the side of God (or Good) and not Mammon, this was to change over the next decade. Their public failures in Peru and the increasing profit that could be earned from Junk bond sellers, tobacco companies saw SMG shift to a more corporate client portfolio. Miller left, Sawyer was ousted and the consultants spread far and wide across the political spectrum of America and beyond. SMG evolved to become Weber Shandwick, a major force in the public relations industry with a solely corporate focus.

While Harding appears sympathetic to the main characters of Sawyer and Miller, as well as many of the other characters that emerge as key or bit-part players in the SMG story this contrasts to his evaluation of the SMG legacy. While they may have talked of ‘electronic democracy’ of television making key players of the people and putting politics into peoples’ front rooms and not hidden in smoke filled board rooms, Harding contrasts this with the techniques used in order to oil this new democracy. Quoting the words of many consultants a story is built of the evolution in political communication ushered in by SMG. Joe McGinnis is quoted talking of ‘style becoming substance’ and that “The medium is the massage and the masseur gets the votes” (p. 80); for SMG selling a candidate was really about manufacturing an illusion and voters bought these illusions. Overall Harding’s assessment is “a decline in the national conversation, a less meaningful politics, a politics of soundbites and slurs, personalities not policies, image and a lack of imagination” (p. 224). Perhaps this assessment is one that Harding would extend to much of the public relations industry, given the critical tone taken when charting the shift to caring for Mammon and extending the SMG model into the corporate world.

As with many accounts of journalists, this is highly readable and accessible while also being extensively researched combining data from 200 interviews with many of the participants with academic works, SMG strategy documents and contemporary media accounts. It is therefore very important for understanding how the evolution of the political communication industry, how it became professionalised and what consultants would define as being professional. Ultimately, tools aside, winning appears to be everything. Whether it is regimes with dubious records for human rights or not, the well-meaning but inexperienced leader or the politico, the consultant can create the compelling narrative of either the self-less moral candidate or the hard-working professional politician and sell them as a brand. The belief is that the consumer democracy is sovereign, so the tools do not matter, consumers can make up their own minds. Yet when one considers the use of data in order to shape campaigns, the cognitive psychology which underpins message creation and the use of negative attacks one does wonder the extent to which consumers really are sovereign or are just manipulated and confused. Harding brings this contrast out well and hence this represents an important account of the industry and its impact upon the conduct of electioneering and political campaigning globally. He questions this impact, hope is hinted at residing in digital democracy but it is also noted that this is now the terrain of the consultant. The masseurs are now found building territory in social spaces online, Harding perhaps will find that the modern day SMGs will adapt that original toolkit and continue to find ways of manipulating electorates while still covering their techniques with a democratic veneer. They have created a political marketplace, for both personalities and their skills, but is this actually a democratic marketplace? Harding suggests it is not and it is hard to disagree.

No spin, no rhetoric, no bull, no idea

Have you ever wondered what politicians would be like if they had no special advisors, no spin doctors, they just appeared on camera and spoke like the ordinary guy in the street. This is the late Australian Labour Party senator Bob Collins, he had a rather chequered career but his has to be a high point. I would love to see Paxman's reaction to someone like this.

Packaging Cuts?

No I'm not talking about the stuff that our beg comes in, but how politicians talk of a cut in spending when they are unable to say they are cutting spending. Labour have put themselves into a rather difficult position it seems: they have to reduce the amount the government spends but cannot announce public spending reductions. So there is a lot of talk about 'cuts' from the Conservatives and various journalists, while Labour politicians talk of maximising finite resources. I actually thought Ed Balls did rather well, though Andrew Marr did not exactly savage him, but he used language very carefully. He talked of demanding savings and 'smarter' and 'defter' spending, so targeted where need is most, though of course if previously spending has not been smart and targeted it does beg a few questions. This of course will be the key wedge issue between the parties, Conservatives accusing Labour of over-spending and reckless economics, while also obfuscating and concealing the true extent of the problems and their cuts. Meanwhile, as Balls frequently stated, Labour's position is the Conservatives will reduce public spending in favour of 'the rich' so appealing to those reliant on public services and fearing a heavy tax burden. If this remains the key issue through to May next year who the public trust most could determine the outcome of the election and there may be many hovering pencils when voters try to work out who is the most believable or least untrustworthy.

What ever you do don't panic

When there are any public crises the public look to their leaders for advice and to have their fears allayed. Hence the PR team backing Joe Biden, US Vice President, who have their work cut out at the best of times, have been trying to back track from a comment that basically says he would recommend people go no where near enclosed spaces. After a television appearance yesterday his spokesperson, Elizabeth Alexander, sent an e-mail to journalists trying to clarify the vice president’s remarks. According to USA Today, Alexander suggested that the specific question dealt with what Biden would tell a family member making an air trip to Mexico: “The advice he is giving family members is the same advice the administration is giving to all Americans: that they should avoid unnecessary air travel to and from Mexico,” she said. “If they are sick, they should avoid airplanes and other confined public spaces, such as subways.” But this is not actually the way the conversation went.

Biden was indeed asked: "if a member of your family came to you and said, ‘Look, I want to go on a commercial airliner to Mexico and back within the next week,’ would you think it’s a good idea?" But he went a little beyond his brief when answering "I would tell members of my family, and I have, I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now. It’s not that it’s going to Mexico; it’s that you’re in a confined aircraft. When one person sneezes it goes all the way through the aircraft. That’s me. I would not be at this point—if they had another way of transportation—suggesting they ride the subway. So, from my perspective, what it relates to is mitigation. If you’re out in the middle of a field and someone sneezes that’s one thing; if you’re in a closed aircraft, a closed container, a closed car, a closed classroom, it’s a different thing" So basically he is saying don't leave your home unless to spend your time in open spaces, fields whatever but no closed, err, containers! Now to be honest it probably is the sort of advice any man or woman would like to give to their family and for them to be able to take; but the economic and social implications of doing so are huge. Basically if those who can afford to avoid human contact do so, little is bought and sold, more bankruptcies and so on. Hence the backtracking by Ms Alexander. But here is another problem, backtracking suggests deception and reinforces the notion that he made a mistake and so dents Biden's credibility. Whoops!

No Surprises there then

It seems that the latest bout in the fight between Derek Draper and Paul Staines is not just a spat about whether sites were or were not offline but is a little deeper. Surprise, surprise Labour are doing badly in the polls so their tactic is to smear the opposition. This is always done, The Conservative Demon Eyes Poster, Michael Howard as Fagin, the Obama bin Laden stuff. But it has been turned into a big story on the BBC, today's Telegraph, various blogs with various comments about desperation, being appalled, it being ludicrous the shock and amazement goes on. The problem is though there is no surprises here. It would be obvious it was happening, it is a pretty obvious tactic and consistent with the tone of Labour's campaigns recently. It is also consistent with a rather ham-fisted attempt to create a Labour supporting journalistic blog in the same vein as Iain Dale's Diary and Order Order, mistakenly they think that they can use this not just to spread the Labour message but also scurrilous gossip about opponents. The bit that is surprising is that once again Labour got caught in this way and made to appear so underhand and devious to the man in the street, and this can only be due to the lack of an effective or stable communications team. Brown hailed himself as the non-spun PM after Blair stepped down, this is of course rubbish but, as this great piece by Fraser Nelson suggests, what he has is a largely reactive communications operation which has little long term strategy and (it seems) little job satisfaction or loyalty. While the next election will not be won by communication strategy alone, as the polls wax and wane you can't help wondering if Brown had a more efficient team and strategy would he be losing out as badly in the court of public opinion?

Is the facade crumbling?

While no single event or mistake heralds a shift in emphasis or indicates decline but something is astray with Obama's communication after taking office. He makes gaffes, jokes about special Olympics, seems at times at sea during press conferences (see his response to the BBC's Nick Robinson yesterday) - it was not what he said it was the way he looked and spoke, maybe it was jetlag or maybe he is better at the scripted event. And then there is the presidential twitter feed, what do these mean. Are there links that are supposed to be there but have been forgotten? 'The Cost of Inaction' well we can guess but not too sure, 'Another Leg in the Stool', I think the only response to that is WTF unless i missed something. Now either it has been hacked into, and if so why has no-one noticed? Or someone is operating it that has no idea what they are doing. What ever the case it strikes me, as an objective observer, that Obama is not quite as good as a President as he was as a candidate and perhaps it is the fact that he doesn't have the same quality communication advisors and strategists around him. It was one thing to propel a candidate to the White House but, it seems, it is different to adapt that style to one of a president.

The dangers of inconsistency

There is an opportunity, but also a danger, with the Internet; unlike printed matter you can update it and revise it. So policy, theoretically, can quickly be changed. But printed matter can also disappear, it is much harder to broadcast a leaflet around the world to show an inconsistency. Websites leave impressions and so if you want to and have the right software you can very simply go back to a previous incarnation of a web page and compare it with the new version. John McCain has done just that. In an argument over Obama's fitness to rule there was some contestation about whether Obama claimed the surge strategy in Iraq was working or not. On July 11th he did say just that, by the 14th there was a slightly more complex argument on offer. McCain has posted the two sites side by side (view here, snapshot is below).

This shows the dangers of saying something publicly, and especially on a website, then reversing that decision and trying to undo it. It is these moments when it is far easier to say actually I was wrong, but I suppose the risk is working out which will play worst in the perception of the voters: is it worse to (as McCain claims of Obama) he lied to make a political point; or is it worse to be wrong?

Election Spin

The result in Henley last night was fairly predictable in terms of who was going to win, however it seems that Howell's doorstepping coupled with the Conservatives' popularity not only managed to increase their share of what was quite a respectable 50% turnout, but also depress the votes of the opposition and lead to switching away from Labour. But the most fascinating part of something like this is the spin that the candidates and their respective parties put on the result.

Predictably Howell, after of course highlighting the result also was based on local issues, commented "The British public has sent a message to Gordon Brown to 'get off our backs, stop the endless tax rises and help us cope with the rising cost of living'," albeit a small public this is the Conservative agenda and so any indication of support is useful. Really Howell's spin was fairly simple though, on the back of polling results and Crewe & Nantwich the Conservatives have control of the agenda and it is hard to argue that the collapse in the Labour vote is a local phenomena and not part of a wider picture.

Martin Salter seems to be the only Labour MP to have commented so far, while deflecting criticism on to the Liberal Democrat style of campaigning he remarked "It is very difficult to divine a clear message for Gordon Brown in a seat in which we had no chance at all. It is one of the worst seats for Labour in the country." This is the 'we had no chance, guv', play down the defeat, approach.

Nick Clegg, however, despite not making any impact on the Conservative majority, seemed the most positive: "Labour's days are well and truly over and it is the Liberal Democrats who are challenging the Conservatives in the south and Labour in the north," challenging yes, so far winning no.

The problem is that the media will decide how to play it and they are very much focusing on the disaster for Brown, coinciding as it does with being in Number 10 for a year; however the parties feel compelled to compete and position the contest in relation to their own goals, play down failure and play up victory.

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.

How to destroy your credibility the easy way

You can imagine the conversation within the communication team, Hilary Clinton as a woman cannot claim battle as her Republican rival so they needed to invent a little action. So they thought they would exaggerate a little, rather than gunshots in the hills nearby she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire and so the story escalates. If it were a celebrity no-one would care, a business leader enhancing his or her CV well who would check, but a presidential candidate; whoever thought up that idea must have been out of their tiny mind. If the voters do not believe she "misspoke" and that she lied then it will undermine all credibility in her at a time when she has to out-honest Obama. Whoops!!

Professional = Centralised

I commented on my annoyance about the 'clones', the Labour ministers who repeat the official lines with the appearance of being unable to think independently. But this is the professional communication model it seems. Former Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell argued today that he had tried to "professionalise" the party to make it "more up-to-date" and "more fit for 24-hour-a-day news". The ongoing problem for the party, Campbell claims, is that the party has "too many alternative power sources".

Basically Campbell argues that the media has become a news machine that needs feeding and that will throw out stories based on any "vocal public expression" that seems to offer a contrary perspective or, in the case of the LibDems, comments about the age of Campbell as leader. Parties, it appears, must control all expression in order that the media can only report on information from other sources and the party has the opportunity to close down debate.

Where Campbell seems to be wrong is that it just doesn't work. Dissent can always be found and, one would imagine, that the larger the party the more alternative voices could be found. But even when power over official communication is centralised and controlled, the speak your weight machine style of communication does not close down a story. The election that never was is a large nail in the coffin of Brown's premiership despite the 'getting on the with job' response being issued by just about everyone who has been asked. Perhaps there is a journalistic rebellion against the centralisation and they are determined to pick away at the party machine until the story unravels. Whatever the case, while it may be professional to have a party line but one wonders if it is tenable under the 24 news cycle's microscope that the tactic is designed to counter.

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.

Brown doesn't spin enough

Peter Hain has finally done the decent thing, but only when it is unavoidable and the case is handed to the police; for me a tougher leader would have sacked him much earlier on to save his own reputation. Interestingly when asked by the news anchor why Gordon Brown was having such a tough time, Sky News Political Editor Adam Boulton reported that Brown was not spinning things enough or in the right way. That while Blair would have shrugged off such problems with his charismatic charm, Brown is not able to do that. Because of this while Tony maintained a teflon (non-stick) persona form many years in the job, Brown is immediately like velcro (sticky) though I do like one analogy offered by one of my students: "Brown is like a bear's arse; shit sticks to him". But the solution Boulton suggests is interesting coming from a media commentator; they attack spin and spin doctors yet recognise that spin is a necessity of modern governance. So is Brown the non-spin PM he promised to be and is suffering as a result or is he just bad at spin and anyway lacks the charisma to carry it off?

Gordon Brown: As I remembered it

No Gordon has not written an autobiography just yet, well not really, but if he had it may be titled something like this, or maybe 'As I saw it'; well he does like authoring his own history. For the past six months he has been writing himself out of Labour's history, separating himself from Blair's mistakes or the government's misdeeds or anything really he doesn't like about the last thirteen years. His review of the year on the Downing Street website is priceless, it is the good news only a spun version that is designed to communicate a sense of well-being among the UK public, and visitors to the website, and promote the government as good managers, achievers, even progressives.

But what is the point? It is a little the same as denying a problem exists - I do sadly remember the Conservative 'Crisis? What Crisis?' campaign. Brown seems to be completely in denial! But does his lack of reference to any problems present the image he wants, perhaps not. Most visitors are likely to be students and/or politically savvy, so aware of all the negative news attached to the government, and so are unlikely not to wonder about this airbrushed version of Brown's year. At least the Queen admitted she had an annus horribilis, but of course politicians are afraid to admit to mistakes as this strikes of failure. But should anyone trust anyone who does not admit to having made a mistake when it is patently obvious to all around them?

Impossible to sell

Whether you call it a presentation obsession, spin, political marketing or just old fashioned propaganda; the idea that anything that cannot be effectively sold is suppressed is rife within politics. It is not just an issue that faces a government but in an atmosphere where image, perception and impression are deemed to be more important than effective management, real politics and substance, all parties have to think of the effect of any announcement on the profit and loss account of public perception.

It is this issue that lies at the heart of the problem that arises today for Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. Illegal immigrants, those demons that present a clear and present danger to our society, according to section of both society and the media, have been employed in security roles as a matter of expediency it would appear. But it had to be done quietly, covertly and without the media and political opponents finding out.

When the decision was made no to announce this, memos reveal the thinking within government. Smith's private secretary reveals that Smith "did not think that the lines to take that we currently have are good enough for press office or ministers to use to explain the situation" and that the information "would not be presented by the media as a positive story". Well no it wouldn't, one can only imagine the headline the Daily Mail would have produced.

But is this a purely political party problem? Yes, they are the ones who focus on presentation and the treatment and thus effect of announcements. But the media must also claim culpability for the problem also. The media, as Blair famously said, want stories that have a dramatic impact. They are populist. Large sections like to scare their readers about dangers within society. Immigrants are an easy target, and despite the media showing a profound dislike for the actions and pronouncements of far-right groups like the British National Party they often appear to agree with aspects of their stance.

The bottom line is that it is impossible to have parties that do not spin when we have a media who do spin as it produces a 'circle of spin' or vicious circle as pictured above, each trying to out do and reverse the effects of the other's spin. The danger is the effect on public trust and engagement. I predict little change if the government were to change. A Conservative or Liberal Democrat led government would have to consider how the media may treat a story and find that they are unable to directly inform the public of the reasons for pursuing any particular political response. Hence they will spin. But the public will just continue to be cynical of politics, sceptical of the representativeness of this system, and view politics as a spectator sport of cat and mouse (possibly with the media as the dog that chases both), but they will not participate within a relationship that is about obfuscation and not illumination.

Is Honesty best, or unwise?

This mash-up, or at least the last 20 seconds, is from an interview during the 2005 Election Campaign where Paxman repeatedly asked Tony Blair, then Prime Minister, the question "So, you have no idea how many illegal immigrants there are in the country". Blair repeatedly dodged giving the simple and obvious answer that he didn't know. While fun to watch any politician squirm, in a sense it is obvious he would not know, if they are illegally entering the country there is no-one in a position to count them in. But admitting he did not know would give the wrong impression; hence he fudged and squirmed!

This is the old way, we have a new Prime Minister advocating an open style of cabinet and parliamentary government. On the subject of revising the time limit for detaining a terror subject, and whether a specific period was decided on, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she did not know and it was not yet decided, when speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme. This led to a very damaging set of points to be raised on BBC News 24 of why she may avoid this question when the extension from 28 to 56 days had been mentioned already. The cabinet had not decided what to put before parliament is one interpretation, but the fact that a Minister said they did not know became big news.

So what kind of politicians do we want. Ones who are honest and admit not knowing everything, or ones that fudge and obfuscate? Should the media decide that there must always be an answer and then interpret the answer to suit an anti-politician agenda. Is the media spin? Or is it political spin to give the impression of openness? The public are left to wonder, but also encouraged to trust 'I don't know' as much as the less informative squirming around the issue.

Thoughts on Propaganda

Humayun and PragueTory have inspired me (is this thus a meme now?). The big question with propaganda is whether it is propaganda in itself. We can call something a good argument, if we agree and support the communicator and believe their motives are honourable; or say 'pah, that's just propaganda' if we disagree and dislike communicator and their motives; what does that tell us? Nothing?

The problem is that we live in a society of spin. If I am late I blame traffic, buses etc; seldom would I say I couldn't be bothered to get my sorry XXXX into gear and get somewhere on time when that is really the truth. This means that 'spin' tends to be a universal code of language which we all accept and choose to ignore or highlight. We decide what is acceptable 'SMART' spin, a white lie maybe, in what context, maybe to make someone feel better about themselves; and what is bad, unacceptable and misleading.

The problem for politics is that it doesn't matter if the motives are really honourable, or that a political actor/activist, is trying to present a persuasive case; often it is simply consigned to the dustbin as propaganda - 'Well they would say that wouldn't they' or 'They just want our money / votes'. Looking outside of the UK to the US, Obama is building a populist campaign around big tent politics. His purpose maybe to reunite America, the bottom line is he wants to raise money to support his campaign for he Democratic nomination. So do we shout propaganda, is it misleading and manipulative, or do we shout 'good campaigning' as it is persuasive and appealing. It is probably a question of perspectives!

Old News & Non-News

While the big story of the last two days has been the sentencing of the 21/7 failed bombers, Blair's former spin doctor Alastair Campbell has certainly stolen the limelight. Despite most media outlets agreeing that the most revealing bits are those that are glaringly absent, the bones of each entry are being picked over for tit-bits that inform us of the machinations between Brown and Blair.

What do we learn? Well given Campbell's colourful references to journalists and politicians he is a lot closer in character to The Thick Of It's Malcolm Tucker that most perhaps hoped. That the Blair machine was often running a seat of the pants, pragmatic and ready at panic stations media operation; obsessed with getting the right coverage and the image thing. But perhaps relations within the government were no different to disagreements within the cabinets of Wilson or Thatcher, all of which gained media attention and have subsequently emerged in various, perhaps more revealing, insider accounts.

The great irony about the story is that many newspaper columnists and broadcasters are happy to accept there is little that is new or revealing, but they then give it huge amounts of airtime and column inches. The only winner from this is Campbell himself. While it may not be damaging to the government specifically, it is more fuel to the mistrust and cynicism that abounds when the masses thinking of politicians and political communication.

The Conservatives, according to the Independent, have "issued a statement including 15 extracts they said showed Mr Brown in an unfavourable light", I tried to find it and failed! Will it have any impact, no more than the Panorama show that detailed Brown's use of spin I imagine.

Wanted: Pristine Politics

Jamaican politics, and election in particular, have witnessed a significant amount of problems. Corruption is said to be rife and the democratic process questionable. The Jamaica Gleaner, reflecting on the history, has put a call out to the parties and candidates to follow certain standards for the 2007 election, expected to be called on Sunday; those standards include:

• We are, of course, reasonably assured that the outcome of the voting will, by and large, reflect the people's choice. We have a democracy that functions relatively decently. But a process that is relatively decent is not good enough for us. We want it to be pristine. After all, elections are not blood sport. Rather, they are processes by which people exercise their franchise to choose a group of people in whom they can repose their trust to manage the affairs of the country for a particular period.
• Political leaders have a responsibility not only to make statements but to act in accord with these declared values. Put another way, we expect any candidate from any party who breaches the codes presumed by democratic competitiveness to be exposed, severely censured and even ditched by their leaders.
• Second, we expect the remainder of the campaign to be substantially about ideas and specific programmes, rather than vapid and trite declarations or feel-good fun sessions.
• That those who offer themselves as candidates begin to speak with clarity and outline specifics, rather than offering platitudes and promises that are undeliverable. In other words, we hope for a process that is honest and truthful, with declarations of specific goals, with timetables for achievements and actions to be taken in the event of failure.

Reading these ideals makes me wonder why such standards are not demanded more broadly, can we say that, in the UK, the USA or across the EU, Australasia, or any democracy for that matter, such standards are met? It is hard to say yes isn't it? Is the fact that we cannot say yes, these are central to our understanding of an election campaign, the reason that many disengage from campaigns, show a disinterest in electoral politics, or mistrust those who claim to represent us. There's a thought for the weekend!

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