Testing the water

After the debacle of those Labour advertisements that were widely criticised for being anti-Semitic - a wonderful way of stealing their thunder in my view - anyone thinking that publishing online an ad you may feel to be controversial is a strategy to be considered with care. Brian Paddick allows visitors to his site, and invites his Facebook fans, to vote on whether he should focus his negative online advertising on criticising Labour and the failure to make Crossrail work successfully, or alternatively highlighting the number of times Boris Johnson has been sacked for lying across his career as a journalist and Shadow Minister. Actually visitors are then asked to donate to pay for the advertisements to be placed so it is voting with the wallet, an interesting idea though. You can, as a candidate, assess which advertisement is most relevant to supporters, has most resonance, and get them to pay for placing it. If you see a lot of either of these it could just be the result of his supporters wanting you to see it; if you see neither then perhaps it could be read as an indication that negativity isn't the best strategy.

The turnout challenge

I will be interested to find out if turnout for the London Mayoral Election is higher than expected this year, and in particular if it is higher among the 18-25s. The reason for the latter is that a Facebook group has been created by London Elects, presumably, the body overseeing the running of the contest. It is very simple, it has a logo that reminds about the date, offers links on how to register and who the candidates are and has created an event which all members of the London network are invited to join: once joined they can be contacted about the event by London Elects and reminded the day before and on 1st May. The attempt is clearly designed to reach out to a voter group that have lesser likelihood of participating via a media they are expected to use and interact with; hits all the buttons but will it work? Will it be just the over 30s Facebook users and political anoraks (yes, that is me I refer to) that sign up and vote or will a few 18 yr old new voters be drawn out by this experiment?

London Elects is not alone in getting a seat on the Facebook bandwagon. The Power of Information Taskforce has been created, under the leadership of Tom Watson MP (right), which aims at helping government departments make better use of the Internet. Just focusing on one site Netmums a "unique local network for Mums (or Dads), offering a wealth of information on both a national and local level", Watson argues "Having 100,000 mums on a social network like NetMums sharing ideas about how you bring up kids or what it's like to give birth can be useful to government because they can talk about the services that they provide. Government can be useful to them to give them advice on what's good and what isn't good". So perhaps the notion of political marketing will incorporate data collection on the issues of concern via monitoring social networks which will then be reiterated back to the public via manifestos.

But Watson sees a far more benign purpose and one that mirrors the growing trend for politician's use of ICT, he argues: "We have got to go where our citizens are congregating". Therefore he is selling the idea of going online, reaching out to voters/citizens and I guess getting them to then visit bespoke government and party sites, ergo: "it is genuinely so easy to set up a Wiki or a chat room and that it's useful to help people do their job and share ideas". True but for what purpose and with what effect? Engagement is the bottom line it seems but, as with the bid to get more voters turning out on May 1st, will it work?

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.

Tracking the super-delegates

As we have heard, the outcome of the race to Democrat candidate in the US presidential election is down to the delegates who are sent from each of the states and then the superdelegates who can, when the contest is close, be swayed by the candidates and their campaigns, the voting across the states or other interests. Some have already declared, some are undecided but have voiced leanings but until the nothing is definite. The only hints are what the superdelegates say, privately or publicly directly or in the media. To aid understanding and observation of the process, an online wiki has been created to monitor these hints. The Superdelegate Transparency Project has created a wobble list, currently there is little 'wobbling' going on but if any citizen hears a hint that a declared or leaning candidate does hint a shift in their allegiance they can report it and, quite clearly, it would be difficult to shift for the wrong reasons as any hint of shift may have to be justified.

The important thing is the fact that it is the citizen that is asked to contribute to this wiki and report hints of shifts by the superdelegates. This empowers the electorate to scrutinise the superdelegates and go online to both monitor and report on their behaviour. Backroom deals are made more difficult and it is the citizens at whatever level that can monitor activity. The problem maybe that anyone could maliciously post and undermine a superdelegate or even a candidate; whether this will happen is an interesting one to watch particularly as the campaign heats up, pressure becomes more intense and thus superdelegates are called on to declare.

A war of rhetoric

"Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those steps and said, 'Well, I guess that's about far enough'. Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit."

A nice quote, a nice bit of rhetoric, and a nice link to popular culture and the notion of the all-American fighting spirit. But this line could backfire if the media also notes that in the 1976 film Balboa lost despite advise that he should give up. Hillary Clinton, the person who delivered this line as part of the last stages of the Democrat nomination race, is under pressure to concede and stop the division within the party in order to redouble efforts to undermine the McCain onslaught. Clinton seems under pressure to be twice the man of any other candidate, but is the rhetoric right and the messages resonating with those who will determine the outcome of the contest?

Is it not just a little childish?

It is a little surprising that when visiting her Peckham constituency, surrounded by police officers, Harriet Harman felt it necessary to wear a stab vest. In particular when in her defence she claimed she dressed in 'appropriate clothing'. William Hague did not exactly go for the jugular when making the jibe: "Presumably when you go to a cabinet meeting you dress as a clown." Neither did Harman talk about real issues in responding "If am looking for advice on what to wear or what not to wear, I think the very last person I would look to for advice is the man in a baseball cap," such it seems is the standard fare for PMQs even when it is the first time a woman has stood at the dispatch box since Thatcher. It seems that only John Humphreys on the BBC Today Programme felt willing to tackle her on the important issue that the everyday Londoner may consider: "You wear a hard hat on a building site because there are dangers there. There is the danger that something might drop on your head. You don't need to wear a bullet-proof vest on the streets of London, do you?" And that is the issue, one explored further more broadly in the media but not in parliament, it suggests the streets of Peckham are not safe to walk and this is not a good message for a cabinet member to send out when gun and knife crime are prominent in the media. What amazes me is that the professional image consultants and dressers seem unable to give good advice these days.

Pavement Politics and the postmodern campaign

While Brian Paddick is advertising the harnessing of Twitter, two of his opponents are talking about the importance of getting out on the streets. In Sunday's You magazine Boris Johnson talks about how recognition among the taxi drivers and ordinary people is important with the interviewer hinting that he is increasingly being taken seriously while retaining public good will. George Galloway, who wants to make the jump from independent MP to Independent Mayor is going back to his Big Red Bus (once collecting charity on the way to Baghdad) and encouraging supporters to join him. In a message to his Facebook fans he calls to his supporters: "We’ll be out from about 12pm every day til 7 in the evening. We’ll be stopping to give out leaflets and speak to people and really trying hard to build my vote and for the other London Assembly candidates. Come to Club Row, London E1 (near Liverpool Street and Bethnal Green tubes) every day for 12pm to join us on the bus". This is the practical evidence of the emergence of a postmodern campaign: going out to the people using multi channels as appropriate to ensure reaching the greatest number of the target electorate.

Welcoming the twittering citizen

After David Cameron's attempt at engaging, answering questions via a media blog, perhaps a more innovative and more serious attempt at getting a lot of questions answered is the idea of LibDem London Mayoral candidate Brian Paddick. He is using Twitter, a system that allows very simple statements to be sent, usually describing the 'twitterers' status (Darren Lilleker is at the PSA Conference for example - well actually I am not but you get the idea). These are sent on to followers and they can respond if they choose. In Paddick's case he would be receiving and responding.

The downside is that all questions and answers will be pretty brief, hence questions that require significant detail may be difficult to handle; also it could be hijacked by opponents. But on the upside this is not answering four or five questions but could allow a lot of answers depending on the time devoted (and there is a 5 day period). If handled well it will not only offer the perception of being responsive but show true responsiveness and interactivity and allow Paddick to get a real sense of the temperature and strength of opinion and where the public stand on the issues. But there may be one further problem with this idea, while it seems Paddick may be unlikely to win if we believe polls if a candidate did this and won it would place a heavy burden of expectation on their shoulders. Could you twitter from the Mayor's office or No 10, well yes you could, but would you want to or should you? It is an interesting question and worth thinking whether any citizen should have the right to ask the Mayor, PM or their MP "what are you doing for me right now?".

Getting young people engaged

Here is Liberal Democrat Steve Webb's take on why politicians should use social media. It epitomises the LibDem philosophy of going out to where the people are (pavement or social media) and engaging them on their terms about their issues.

Is he correct?

Deliberately Unspun or just unprofessional?

When Gordon Brown first became Prime Minister he said he would reject spin as a tactic, and some bits of his communication were questioned as to whether they gave the perception of someone to whom image does not matter. This tactic may well have worn thin now though, particularly when his own colleagues are describing his speaking style as 'flat'. With that as context consider the email sent out by Labour to start their campaign for the local elections; a campaign of which the "starting point is, and always will be, the struggles and the hopes and ambitions of hard-working families". It is accompanied by the photograph (right) of genial Gordon, or is it the Boston Strangler; chief Dawn of the Dead zombie, what does this picture say? To be fair it should be a film of him talking but if your email blocks the javascript you just get this still image; it seems no-one considered that eventuality. What does it say to you?