Tools of the State(s)?

It seemed a neat little feat. The Iranians appear to have used the captured sailors as a tool of state PR, the British MoD went one further and allowed the media to produce an independent rebuttal and pay the former captives for the pleasure. While now it seems they have pulled the plug on the venture, as two have already been paid the stories are out. So perhaps it is a neat little feat after all. Faye Turney's fee of £100,000 for appearing on Tonight with Trevor McDonald and giving an exclusive to The Sun (and why not), secures the story in the limelight and that 'the truth' will be broadcast. Given the media training offered but the MoD this may well be the spin-processed version and will paint the picture HMG wants; this makes the role of services personnel as a 'weapon of the war' as quite different.

If the Tories win, will the Guardian change tack?

In a worrying little piece in The Independent media section on Monday, Stephen Glover notes that the Guardian maybe in trouble should the Tories come to power. A veleid threat by George Osborne suggested the government may shift some of its media planning towards an online strategy. If the Guardian lost public sector job adverts, Glover predicts "it would be near catastrophe"; a handy way of silencing a paper that will probably be no friend of Cameron and Osborne. Whoever claims governmental control of the press is impossible seems quite misguided!

A new sort of Councillor?

It was reported this week that, prior to a few major amendments "An election pack issued by Bournemouth Borough Council stated that "lunatics and idiots" and "deaf and dumb persons" were disqualified from standing". Clearly discriminatory but this amused me. Some sitting politicians could well be described as lunatics, there are definitely a few idiots around (if only those who make controversial and insulting statements about various cities without thinking of the fall out). While I'm sure many voters may well think their elected representatives are deaf to constituent's concerns and dumb (in a broad sense) when discussing the issues that matter.

The Election Laws gaffe came from using an outdated set of regulations (no surprise there then). But a few redefinitions could actually benefit the voter. Maybe here in sunny Bournemouth we might get a better calibre of councillor? Then again maybe not.

Blair on Youtube

Dizzy notes today that Labour's foray onto Youtube is less than a good idea as it shows how few hits each video gets. He uses Hazel Blears' posting as evidence. I had a look, intrepidly increasing their hit rate. Yet I found that Blair's welcome had no views, up to this point I was the only viewer; Ah the power of the pull technology, no pull no power!!

No wonder he looks a little downcast as he says this is a way of getting an unmediated message out to the voter, please, no, don't laugh, its not nice to mock! However he does get a few hits, 11,7001 for mind you not sure this is the message he wants to communicate.

Hostages to rhetoric

The sailors by the captured Iranians were hostages, its official. Not only do the media use the term but a senior chief of staff on BBC lunchtime news. The definition of hostage however is a prisoner who is held by one party to insure that another party will meet specified terms. But there was no deal! Ergo, they were not hostages! Or is there something we are not being told? It may suit the anti-Iran themes to describe them in this way but it obscures the issues completely. Maybe there was a deal, maybe their release was a PR stunt that will be used as a lever later, or maybe the terminology is just media driven hype. What are the facts here?

Shrink (C)Rap

As a sad political junkie I tuned in to the first ten minutes of 'Shrink Rap' on More4 where Dr Pamela Connolly (yes that is the comedienne formerly known as Pamela Stephenson) was to probe the psyche of former Home Secretary etc David Blunkett.

I tries really hard to ignore the fact that she appeared to be acting out the parody of a psychologist that she was good at when on Not the None O'clock News until she asked the 'killer' question. Blunkett spent most of his life in boarding school, as we know a difficult time for a growing lad with changing hormones. "Did you compare your physique to the other boys in the showers" Connolly asked. Now Blunkett has been blind from birth, what do you think his answer was. My only image was of Pamela's husband Billy shouting at the TV, "of course he didn't, he's f**king blind". Such is the nature of televisual psychology - I switched off!

Why post on this??? It is interesting to see politicians talking about their thinking, we see inside their heads. Clearly Blunkett did this for a purpose, to shape public perceptions of him probably. But when politics becomes relocated within other genres it does little to enhance the reputation of the politician or the media. Maybe the programme improved, maybe not, I gave up!

Ahmadinejad and State PR

The somewhat bizarre way that the British sailors were released by Iran yesterday demonstrates that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the real political power that lies behind the public face of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, knows a thing or two about perception management. As my friend Roman comments, not a bad 10 days work.

Iranians made several points yesterday; Ahmadinejad's speech was a largely an anti-western polemic, within that he neatly tied together hostility to the Iraq war, their position on nuclear weapons and the British sailor's alleged incursion into Iraqi waters. But then, in the spirit of the religious festivals Ahmadinejad gave the grand, generous gesture.

Then the stage managed greeting of the captives reinforced the perception of the nation as forgiving, in the right in some way, while also providing a possible bargaining tool for later negotiations. It brings to mind an apocryphal story that may well be true. George W. and Carl Rove were discussing the President's image. Rove tells Bush that many of the people in Europe think he is an idiot; Bush's response "so what, they don't vote for me". Rove then carefully explained the importance of having international support. Iraq may not have won too much public support yesterday but the intention was there; and perhaps Ahmadinejad prove he does PR better than George W.

Political Exchange - The price of a vote

Many academics have struggled with the notion of exchange in political marketing. What is it voters give in exchange for good governance. It could be the vote itself, or taxation and costs of living. But what if we delve deeper.

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau developed the idea of a social contract. We the people give up the right to self-representation to allow another to represent us, we can then get on with our daily lives and leave the politics to those better equipped (sound familiar, maybe not but... bear with me.)

John Lilburne, leading Leveller, argued for votes for all on the premise that to demand that the citizenry obey a law any 'person' must have a say in its creation. The vote is symbolic of the contract between voter and representative and so each MP should be the voice of those they represent with the Prime Minister being perceived as the voice for the nation. This contract seems to have broken down, few recognise the symbolic value of the vote and marketing has reduced the value to almost nothing (especially to the circa 40% who do not vote).

Can marketing restore the link by using the representative capacity of market-led governance, is that realistic? Big questions, yet at the heart of democratic theory is a perspective consistent with a marketing orientation!

Political Marketing - a failed idea?

Political Marketing was heralded by at least one authority as a potential solution to disengagement, instead it seems that it is a source of deepening disengagement and dissatisfaction. This, I contend, is not because the idea is flawed; but that the way marketing is used by political parties is actually not marketing but a form of marketised communication strategy.

A study of the UK parties use of marketing at the 2005 General Election noted that rhetorically Labour was most market-oriented but that on the whole the focus when creating policies was internal, it was the process of communication design that was external. This misreads marketing.

If the parties were interested in reconnecting they would not be limiting choice to the electorate, nor would voters be seeking the least worst option or looking more to the quality of local candidate than who should be Prime Minister. Parties approach corporate strategy and communication like magpies; if it looks shiny they will steal it, but anything too complex is left to the high street brands. Hence consumers have relationships with their favourite stores, yet the parties' loyal voters are becoming a feature of history.

Contest, what contest?

The debate in the media rattles on: should Blair hand over power or should there be a contest? The left have candidates with little chance of even securing the required number of signatories, but serious challengers seem more worried about their future job prospects when they have lost than offer the party choice. Members of the public offering their comments to the BBC News online 'Who Should Lead Labour' page offer a range of views, some centring interestingly on democracy.

But the people will not get their say whatever, unless an election is held and this will not happen. I think that someone should adapt the comments of Stephen Coleman and allow the public to decide. Lets have a phone-in contest that is worthwhile, let us see the heavyweights convince us they are real people, worthy of leading the nation, let every person have a chance to vote once, let us all for a change say who should be prime minister instead of choosing the least wost of the leaders.