Cheap shot or reinforcing a perception?

When I saw the link to this Youtube video being sent around, packaged as a Boris gaffe, I expected it to be one of the Have I Got News For You moments that Boris Johnson specialises in; and by that i do not mean moments from the programme but the times when he looks like he is being tripped up by a comedian of Paul Merton's quick wit even when he is not. But then I watched it (well listened).

It is a radio debate between Johnson and Liberal Democrat candidate Brian Paddick, Johnson suggests Paddick was soft on drugs, as opposed to having a softly softly approach, Johnson perhaps is caught out by the semantic difference here. Paddick did suggest not arresting and charging cannabis users, not decriminalising them, and so seems out of his depth. But the clip seems really to offer a negative perception of both participants. Paddick interrupts Johnson, Johnson garbles the answer, could this make an audience feel more sorry for Johnson? Moreover, while it highlights Boris's inefficiency in interviews, is this news and so could it be read as just a cheap shot? Or, alternatively, does it reinforce a public predisposition towards Boris? Furthermore who is the main benefactor, as Paddick seems unable to change his standing, so far anyway, do these attacks, and the negative tone, benefit Ken Livingstone. All questions of strategy: and the wonderful unpredictability of political communication

The first live, full vision interaction with a candidate

My thoughts or comments; a lot of negative remarks by Paddick, very wordy answers that limit the number of questions, a lot of ambitious plans that are hard to see costed perhaps (trams for example). The problem, where are those who asked the questions, did any Londoners watch. For all we know the audience could be mostly outside London or even the UK. But an interesting innovation that will remain a point of reference for anyone who wishes to elaborate on some of the proposals a candidate, in this case Paddick makes. Could this be the future of debates? Could it sideline Question Time? Does Paddick do a good job in answering questions? Does he do a good job in managing his image and public perceptions of him? What perceptions can you build from this?

Penn not working with Paddick

Despite PR Week reporting Mark Penn was to advise Brian Paddick, which I repeated, I am reliably informed this is inaccurate; actually American web strategist Jerome Armstrong of the WebStrong Group are his team. And they are innovating. Using Ustream.TV, the live video webcasting site, Paddick will tonight (7.30-8.30 pm) answer questions in a live hustings. Campaign Manager Andrew Reeves said: “The live webchat will allow Brian to hold a virtual hustings with Londoners from the comfort of their own home. Using the Internet as a new way of engaging with Londoners will help Brian reach out to larger audiences and have a one-to-one dialogue with voters who would not otherwise attend political events. “Our Ustream.TV video webchat is a pioneering first in British politics and the next step in our ambitious web campaigning programme to promote Brian’s message of change and serious solutions for London.” Used widely in America, and part of a trend that utilises web technology to allow citizens to interact directly with candidates, it seems this is becoming more common. Key questions for me are: how many people will participate; will access be unregulated and if so can opponents hijack the questioning; will different people participate and engage, not just the already engaged and active? Sadly I will be on a train and unable to watch but I await the postmortem with interest. I do think that the Mayoral election is a testing ground for the next UK General Election, which wil also draw on the lessons from the US this year, if it works Ustream may get busy!

Do scathing attacks make a difference?

Brian Paddick is languishing in a distant third place with 12% of predicted votes while Boris Johnson seems the clear leader with 45% placing him as first preference. Perhaps in an attempt to redress the imbalance in his favour he has launched a scathing attack on both his opponents, particularly Ken Livingstone. He calls Livingstone a "nasty little man", "very unpleasant" who treated all critics with "contempt" despite having an "appalling record of maladministration"; recalling the days of Red Ken and the GLC he accuses Livingstone of creating a "socialist republic" of cronies within city hall. Boris Johnson, in contrast he calls "somewhat eccentric" but "harmless", nevertheless stating "I wouldn't trust him to run anything for me?". His conclusion unsurprisingly is that he is the only "serious candidate". Referring to his handling of the 7/7 bombings he states "When London faced its most serious test since the Second World War after 7 July, I was the figurehead for the police and arguably, bearing in mind I got more airtime than he did, even more of a figurehead than Ken Livingstone was on that occasion".

Unsurprisingly the interview was with the Evening Standard, never a fan or Ken at the best of times, however if these are Paddick's words they represent a rather robust attack from a man who has been keen to present himself as statesmanlike. Is this the last act of a desperate man relying on the advice of Hillary Clinton's former communication aide: Mark Penn? Will it have an impact? If Londoners recognise both the accusations as being founded on some truth and the caricatures he paints as reflecting their opinion it may make them think twice; if not it may, as negativity often does, lose him even some second preferences.

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?".

A dangerous card to play

And that card is, the race card. Despite the notoriety earned for his insensitive comment that a Jewish journalist was acting like a concentration camp commandant, Ken Livingstone has pursued a One London approach to multiculturalism in London. In response to the 7/7 attacks this became symbolic of a fighting spirit that Livingstone wanted to inspire across all Londoners against 'the other' the terrorists who sought to undermine British society. Using that as a backdrop for his campaign is one thing, but branding his Conservative opponent as a person who undermines that notion is another. While he did not call Boris Johnson as racist, in launching his campaign Livingstone delivered a speech in which he also launched an attack on Johnson as a divisive figure. Juxtaposing his successes and the potential for Johnson to fail, Livingstone argued: "Racist attacks in London are down by over half, when elsewhere they are up. In contrast, Boris Johnson's campaign uses the right wing dog-whistle politics that attack political correctness."

In terms of styles there may be some accuracy to Livingstone's comments; it largely depends on where you stand on political correctness. However in terms of strategy it could be highly problematic. The problem for Livingstone is that familiarity seems to have bred contempt and after eight years he is as associated with the problems faced by Londoners as with his successes and his potential to be a good mayor for another term; thus he needs to stress his own positives. Secondly, Boris Johnson is well-liked and not seen as divisive, his comments may sometimes be ill-conceived but many may view him as acting without malice at the very least. Thirdly Livingstone talks of left and right, with Johnson being on the right; but do such things mean much to everyday Londoners? Finally, and perhaps most importantly, attacks may not be the right approach anyway. If the contest gets personal it could heavily reduce turnout and support in both the main candidates or if one goes all out for an attack their support could disappear.

Mirroring support for the parties nationally, a poll yesterday showed that Johnson had the lead with 49%, Livingstone trailing at 37% and Brian Paddick the Liberal Democrat candidate enjoying only 12% of support. Allegations surrounding the Livingstone team have done him a lot of damage thus it would seem to be a better approach to lead on the positives of his period of office, examine those things he has done that are popular and distance himself from anything unpopular (including Labour and Gordon Brown). Attacks may undermine him as much as Johnson, if not more so, especially when the audience do not see them as fair. There maybe a number of open goals on Boris's side of the pitch but Ken has not seemed to score in them yet.

Of course negativity is not solely the province of Ken Livingstone. There are a number of scathing attacks on Livingstone across Conservative sites, but Johnson's own comments have been surprisingly circumspect and more about policy (to an extent) than personality. He doesn't like 'bendy buses': "Ken Livingstone's odious, inhuman, socialistic 18-metre Frankfurter buses blindly pasting the cyclist against the kerb". But Boris may get away with that, especially if such comments resonate with Londoners.