Good or Bad? Funny or Cringeworthy?

In a departure from politics; AOL have produced a promo video that seems to be intended as a rival (funny) video that will be circulated by us bloggers and web-users. I was sent a link from the Ragan website where feelings are mixed, well more like 90% against - so what is the verdict? Will this go viral as a great 'The Office' style comedy moment, will it go viral because it is just BAAAAD, or is it a dead duck?

Stealing Obama's USP?

There is a rival to Obama's title as the outsider in the presidential race, the independent Ron Paul. While his campaign is fairly lacklustre there is a guy by the name of Patrick Saint James that is producing videos in support of his campaign. The comments reflect firstly a sense of disillusionment with the American political system (for example '2 parties = no choice' seems a commonly voiced sentiment) or that in fact these videos are the best of the campaign so far. So here is one, what do you think? And more importantly, is this predominantly a negative ad, is it mainly comparative or is the main function to just promote Ron Paul?

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.

It's all about credibility

The Northern Rock crisis has haunted Alastair Darling and Gordon Brown despite it being a problem that is not of their making. The current problem is though that the prime minister and his Chancellor have failed to be seen to act in a determined and proactive way. I do not suggest that their actions are not the result of careful weighing up of the options and thinking through the possible strategies and their outcomes, the problem is that the communication seems to be failing to make them appear credible. Thus, while Darling et al may (or may not) be in control, Osborne's comments that he has "no credibility" as chancellor and is now "politically a dead man walking" may well have more resonance than Darling's response that it was "cynical opportunism with a pretty thin veneer of abuse". The Sunday Times interpreted poll results to create the headline 'Alistair Darling must go, say voters'. The Yougov poll shows that 57% of respondents think Brown is doing a bad job; 31% said that Cameron and Brown could be most trusted to raise their standard of living (only 25% said the same of Brown & Darling), and 44% think Darling should be replaced. Regardless of the caveats related to opinion polls, it seems Brown and darling have lost the one unique selling point Labour had, the credibility that comes with managerial competence: is there a way back?

Conservatives plan to eradicate Jeremy Kyle

Chris Grayling yesterday called for more positive male role models to combat the "Jeremy Kyle generation" of young men ill-equipped for adult life. The Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary stressed, "As a society, we're leaving a lot of men behind. We have a growing generation of young men, alienated and drifting, without a purpose in life." His plan to combat the situation is to create a climate for social entrepreneurs to re-engage young men and to promote positive male role models, including more male primary school teachers. The question for me is where did the idea of calling them the Jeremy Kyle generation come from?

ITV1's Jeremy Kyle Show describes itself as one of Britain's most-loved, watched and talked-about shows that deals with family and relationship issues and also takes a look at the everyday conflicts that affect our lives. I confess to not watching it, guess I can't be one of the JK generation, but it doesn't seem to be solely for young men. Maybe Grayling is describing Kyle as a young man ill-equipped for adult life, while Kyle has been described as someone making a living by exploiting those with troubled lives or "the human bear bater", not sure his show is anything more than symptomatic of a desire for fame than representative of the collapse of society. While it may well be true that there is a growing group of disaffected and aimless males in society, is coming up with a celebritised name for them an cheap attempt at grabbing a headline or is there a profound reason for linking this phenomena to Jeremy Kyle.

Grassroot Power: Labour's campaign from below

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

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

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

what more can a campaign ask for?

Down, Down - down the dustpipe

This video by Harry Hammersmith and the Flyovers is produced by Hammersmith and Fulham council to "engage residents on its budget". But check out the 'engagement' they have gained on the Youtube page. In only ten days it seems to have become an open forum for disgruntled council employees, residents and anybody who wishes to slag them off basically. A great example of the dangers outweighing the potential of the online environment perhaps and an indication of why electoral political organisations seem nervous of allowing feedback and co-production.

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.

Sex and Politics

For decades in the US, organisations like Young America's Foundation, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and the Leadership Institute have worked to organize, train and support conservative students on campus. Conservatives in Britain, however, have lacked a similar organisation until the establishment in 2003 of the Young Britons Foundation, whose executive director, Shane Greer, writes about "winning on campus":

One of the biggest battlegrounds for conservatives in Britain is on university
campuses. They've always been breeding grounds for the Left, but winning the
minds of the next generation is crucial if the Party is to shift the centre
ground to the right. The Left have for years been streets ahead of conservatives
when it came to campus activism and winning the visual battle - when it came to
presentation the Left reigned supreme.

By its nature campus activism has to be fun, edgy, and of course exciting; the sexual health awareness group promotes itself during 'SHAG Week' naturally. But will students warm equally to provocative advertisements that promote politics? The below posters were launched in October 2007 but I have not seen any around Bournemouth (a shame perhaps), can these be another strand to gaining the Conservatives a foothold into youth politics?

A breed apart

Has it been a week, this is what happens when a marking deadline nears; I was tempted to blog some of the silly, odd etc, etc, quotes from assignments asking if politicians and the media propagandise. Decided against it! For now!!

The theme of many stories over the last seven days has been whether MPs should abide by the same rules as the rest of us. That may not be the question asked all the time but it underlines many of the cases emerging in the media. It makes you think, or it did me: if any of us embezzled money (and I will use that phrase) we would be sacked; also we would be investigated and prosecuted; also our expenses are heavily scrutinised; and we have no right to argue if we have telephone calls or private conversations bugged and perhaps would never know. So why are MPs different?

I think it was Mr Khan, speaking over the weekend, who said something along the lines that MPs should be above suspicion, if you cannot trust them then democracy is in trouble; not exactly but that was the jist. Now who trusts politicians, sometimes their own if they have met them, but politicians are the least trusted profession in Britain. So whether bugging etc should be allowed is a question that should work for all people and the decision should be defensible under the rule of law; MPs should abide by the rule of law as much or more so than the rest of us (as they contribute to making law) and they should under every circumstance be treated as every other public employee. If this happened more people may see them as representatives as opposed to untrustworthy individuals out for themselves. If perception is everything, just making the argument that they should be above trust is counter-productive as well as being counter-intuitive.