The Conference season is over: but who cares about Conferences?

I have been advertising my blog to my new students as a 'learning resource', yet nothing has appeared here for a while. Ooops, books, journal articles and life got in the way, so has Twitter! Too easy to share a link. However, given that we now start a new period of politics in the UK, parliament reconvenes, a spending review is imminent, and a coalition government now has to show substance as well as unity, I thought I would add a few thoughts on what to expect based on the events of the conferences.

Party Conferences are strange events. They were once spaces for deliberation. Where the party met and set a direction. Well sort of anyway. Perhaps that is more the ideal than the reality, but the often bitter arguments that took place in history show them to be more about the party meeting than presenting itself to the nation. As James Stanyer records in his book covering the evolution of conferences, they are now far more a media event than a place for policy making. And the media play a key role in translating events to the wider public, but they also need to make a story about each conference.

The Liberal Democrats perhaps had the toughest job. Conference is supposed to be a place for policy debate, easy when you are the third party but not so when you are junior partners in a coalition; and they are junior albeit punching above their weight. Leader Nick Clegg had to sell the coalition, the tough decisions, and also position these within Liberal Democratic values. Tough tasks which in the end the media suggested he did well but the talk of splits was constant and all those questions about whether Vince Cable was on message or really a socialist did not help the cause. Their problem was the multiple audiences, not only the party but the media, their Conservative partners and the voters they hope will stay loyal and those they need to persuade to support them in the future. Tougher given that most of these audiences will be served more by the media than by live coverage of events.

Labour in a way stole the show. The dramatic finish to the leadership contest saw brother beat brother and the media handed a fantastic soap opera story line. The Milibands became a modern day Cain and Abel, a real life Grant and Phil Mitchell. Ed, the victor, became 'Red Ed', and Neil Kinnock got 'his' party back. For an opposition party the first conference after an election is less important. It is more about rallying the troops and showing an element of acceptance, humility and setting out a course for reform. But the story was one of factionalism and David Miliband's exit was interpreted a number of ways: petulance, disappointment, disillusion, rejection of the result. Ed Miliband has a long journey but perhaps as a new leader his start was unhelpful and could be compared to the treatment of William Hague as incoming Conservative leader in 1997. Rejection of the party by the voters allows for negative coverage, criticisms of the choice of leader override positives, their history is more important than their future. The continuing story will be whether Ed buries Blairism (whatever that was) and New Labour, and how he can unite the party as a positive opposition monitoring government.

The Conservatives was, in contrast, the damp squib that never really lit up coverage. When the big story is that Conservatives are split over reforms to a universal benefit you know that there is little to say. Cameron's performance equally was seen as solid but unexciting. Abandoning his script-free style, this was a careful speech that seemed to spend equal time attacking his predecessors and thanking his supporters: not much policy really just a little more flesh on the 'we are in it together', 'Britain needs you', Big Society narrative of society he has been developing. The interesting aspect was his expressed commitment to the coalition and partnership with Clegg.

So they return to parliament, for Labour it is rebuilding a brand around Ed Miliband to engage those who are dissatisfied with the coalition. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats need to retain their own identities and present an unified image as a coalition, simultaneously. The media will be looking for disunity in the coalition and the partner parties, as well as signs of socialism from Red Ed. Should be an interesting time to study political communication!

Forging a Progressive Alliance

One the day of the start of the Liberal Democrat Conference the Conservatives have launched a rather interesting tactical video. The video depicts a meeting between David Cameron, Eric Pickles and eight Liberal Democrats who have defected to the Conservatives. The message seems to be that if you are serious about politics, and about wanting a more progressive government then you should join the Conservatives. Indeed, in the email to publicise this, Eric Pickles is explicit in stating "I'm asking them to help form a progressive alliance to get rid of this failed Labour Government. An alliance built on our shared aims of personal freedom, a commitment to the environment, and a desire to protect the most vulnerable at home and in the rest of our world".

The featured defectors include Chamilo Fernando the youngest person to have been short-listed by a mainstream political party to be a mayoral candidate for London; Tarik Mahmood, former candidate for Rossendale Council and the seat of Uxbridge in 2005; Norsheen Bhatti, PPC for Chelsea and Fulham who recently courted some media attention for outspoken comments about Clegg's leadership; and Jeff Clarke who stood for Wirral West in 2005. They are an interesting group that, due to their backgrounds and ethnic origins, demonstrate diversity and openness. They are very much the embodiment of the concept of a progressive alliance, as are the reasons they give for their switch.

On a more critical note, beyond questions of the extent to which the video is scripted and more of an advertisement than a record of an event which are expected of such a promotional tool, this raises many questions about the state of British politics. It demonstrates the weakness of ideology, the fluidity of party loyalty and, perhaps, the hunger for having proximity to power as opposed to a party coalescing around an idea. It is leadership that matters to some, to others it is broad policy priorities; though this perhaps reflects broader society than just those within politics. It also perhaps indicates a further key theme for the Conservatives at the forthcoming General Election. While questioning the record of Labour they also seek to undermine the Liberal Democrats' support and attempt to reclaim the supporters they lost to the party in the South while also winning over previous Labour supporters who now lean towards the Liberal Democrat. This could actually be quite successful, particularly as the arguments are presented not by recognisable Conservative figures but by Liberal Democrat activists. Is it appropriate to ask for switching, well it has been done by all parties in marginal seats using derivatives of 'XXXX can't win here, so vote for... US'; this is a slightly More advanced version that may have resonance with those not fully sold on Clegg as Liberal Democrat leader, who recognise a sense of futility in the fact that the Liberal Democrats will not (or may never) form a government, and who buy into the compassionate, progressive Conservative project!

Reasons to Vote - by the parties

The recent election broadcasts give an interesting insight into the party campaign strategies. Aside from its rather stark, arty style in places, Labour's is strictly comparative and trying to encourage fears that the Conservatives would cut funding to areas that most benefit the least privileged. Interestingly it focuses on real people or actors and not the leader, perhaps reflecting a recognition that he is not attractive to voters. But the killer sales tool is celebrity endorsement, it is Eddie Izzard that stands at the end to ask for a vote for Labour as opposed to the leader as is traditional.

The Conservatives focus on the leader and repeat the shots from Cameron Direct, so showing him touring the country engaging with voters. Clearly the strategy is to highlight David Cameron as in touch, willing to engage as well as emphasising his good performance skills while also having a dig at Brown's unelected status.

Interesting Liberal Democrat leader leads on the one issue the others ignore, the expenses fiasco. Positioning the party as willing to revolutionise the system Nick Clegg talks directly to voters, on the level so encouraging the perception of him as honest and open. There is no other content; clearly the strategy is to appear the most honest and also talk directly on the issues people 'on the street' and the media are also giving greatest priority.

While the smaller parties focus mainly on the core issues it is interesting to take snapshots of the election broadcasts to gain an insight into the party's thinking. Of course all of these may be of academic interest only as they may have little impact given the negative image elected politicians have earned but interesting all the same.

Whose being googled the most?

Interestingly, while news references are about equal, it seems Labour are googled more in the UK than the Conservatives.

However, David Cameron seems to win between the party leaders with a spike, expectedly, around the sad death of his son Ivan. News seems to focus on Brown most, perhaps in his role as PM, but not sure if the old adage about any news being good is applicable as there seems little favourable news around for Gordon at present. Nick Clegg gets little coverage, as do the Liberal Demcorats generally, though perhaps he managed to punch above his usual rating after that GQ article

What surprises me is how close it is across them all. Equally, though is traffic is fairly low in reality; will it increase on the run up to the local and European Parliament elections? You would think hope so I guess! Not very scientific or indicative of much, but thought it was interestign all the same. More of the same, to an extent, but perhaps the really important statistic is unique daily visitors to party websites, traffic is miniscule it seems but the Conservatives get most, read into it what you like.

Twitter - Influence

Here is an interesting little tool, it is called twInfluence, and it measures the influence of any individual Twitter user. It works on number of followers and their followers and so the basically the degrees of separation between you and a larger network. Obama has a huge network, and it is argued an even larger 'horizon of communication' because his followers can re-tweet his messages. In the words of twInfluence, this is how it works: "Imagine Twitterer1, who has 10,000 followers - most of which are bots and inactives with no followers of their own. Now imagine Twitterer2, who only has 10 followers - but each of them has 5,000 followers. Who has the most real "influence?" Twitterer2, of course". So, based on the site's calculations, who is influential in British politics?

Well Downing Street have too many followers for a simple calculation to be made so hard to say with that one but we assume it is up there but not in the top 50 globally. Labour fare worse on the whole, Labourlist for example is 25,919th with only 317 followers; Labour Party have slightly more followers with 562 but are only 24,091st. The Conservative Party fare much better with 5,840 followers and so are 4,008th, Cameron though has only 551 followers but they are better networked than Labour as he ranks 15,486th. Party wise the Liberal Democrats come out in the middle, 10,624th with 1,078 followers. Interestingly the strategists and commentators do well, LibDem Mark Pack is 9,387th; Conservatives Craig Elder is 6,832nd and Iain Dale is 8,942nd. But here is the surprising one given interest in politics, Labour's Derek Draper has 50,431 followers and is 477th globally. Why, well it is suggested he has ruthlessly built a network, befriending (following) those with a large network and so gaining reciprocal relationships. And that is the way to make Twitter work, if you want to influence then you need people to get your Tweets, if no-one is listening then you are simply not influential. Derek has advantages of being more than just the Labour online guru, so potentially multiple audiences to draw to his tweets, also he had received a lot of media coverage, but so has David Cameron. Does this mean anything? Who knows, but it is interesting and lets face it everyone wants to know if there is any indication of their influence even if it means little. If you are interested, I have no idea why you would be, I am 11,177th, so I beat David Cameron. Labourlist, and Labour itself but who is counting?

The online race to be (LibDem) President

From a very slow start, Lembit Opik seems to have launched a campaign for his bid to be LibDem leader. Interestingly the BBC picked up on the bit of the contest taking place on Facebook, both he and Ros Scott have '4 President' groups and in terms of membership Opik is winning 694 to 416. So does this indicate anything, no and numbers alone rarely do. Those supporting Opik are mostly UK based, but include people from the Caribbean, across Europe and one Alex Hilton the creator of LabourHome. Scott, on the other hand, has all the MPs showing their support and hers seems to be the site for the party elite and some of the activists.

In terms of content however, Opik's Discussion Board contains the question 'will he help or hinder the party' and there are 5 posts. Yes they all say he will help, but it does focus on some of the questions about whether he can be taken seriously as a politician. A clever persuasive tool is for the admin to put up the question and get the ordinary visitor to give an endorsement. Scott's page is a little drab in that respect, pictures of her touring the constituencies but nothing that shouts out at the visitor.

Ros Scott's website however is the focus of her campaign. Here visitors are asked to input a postcode or select a region and then you get endorsements from local party activists from the local MEP to councillors to an ordinary, new member of Poole Liberal Democrats. A very attractive site and perhaps pitched right for the target audience of card carrying members. Lembit Opik's is nicely branded, it is yellow, but far more haphazard and unprofessional. There are a range of endorsements from MPs, PPCs etc but it does not have the attractive presentation; but does this matter really?

Perhaps the telling difference is the statements. Scott talks in manifestos and there is a lot of words to get through, but this is ideal for those who have high involvement in the contest and its outcome. Opik offers 12 lines that are about his personal values as opposed to the nitty gritty of politics and the role of the President. It is a contrast between Opik's "President with vim and verve, who everyone knows" and "someone who represents that membership not just to the outside world, but internally, to the Leader". But it depends on the audience which will have the greatest persuasive impact. Is it a case of style versus substance, celebrity versus grassroots campaigner and if so which would you put money on to win?

The Grassroots Activist or the High Profile Celeb?

It is interesting to find out which is better. Whether a high profile in the mass media or a simple grassroots campaign to activists backed by an online campaign will get someone elected. Well there is an experiment going on it seems. The campaign to be Liberal Democrat president. The most high profile contender is Lembit Opik, famous for his predictions that Asteroids will destroy the earth, for his relationships with a Weather Girl and a Cheeky Girl and most recently for being the advocate of the Segway. I cannot find a personal website for him across four pages of Google results but there are loads for News of the World stories, Hello Magazine etc etc. So he is well known and one could suggest he would have some support.

His opponent is Ros Scott, member of the House of Lords and a grassroots campaigner. She has a great website 'I'm 4 Ros', has a regularly updated blog 'Because Baronesses are people too' and has spent a lot of time courting activists in the local party associations. She has no significant public profile, but she may be considered the more serious politician.

But here is the question. The majority of electors are ordinary members, not the activists that Scott would have been meeting, they will be aware of Opik from numerous media appearances. So who will win and why?

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?

Congratulations Nick Clegg

Closer than polls suggested but 511 is sufficient majority for Nick Clegg to win over Chris Huhne despite the 'calamity' episode from which neither emerged unscathed but only one with a nickname. It has been a busy 24 hours, becoming leader and organising a cabinet; also he has gained very little bad coverage. The BBC News Have Your Say section demonstrates two general points: Clegg seems a popular winner, but due to the electoral system it doesn't really matter. In the words of one contributor, Clegg is "as relevant as a soldier in a battle using a toy pop-gun!" Of course electoral reform is high on the LibDem agenda, but sadly it is true that there is a huge disadvantage in first past the post winner takes all systems for all but the top contenders which forces other parties to be pressure groups with the occasional chance of being power brokers if there is a hung parliament.

Ready, Steady..... Cook?

Camden Liberal Democrats' have produced a cookbook, Serve a Liberal Helping, has been available since September but made headlines (well Have I Got New For You). Their website describes it as a "best-selling collection of recipes by Lib Dem luminaries and members" which "captures the essence of the party's energy and joie-de-vivre". It is claimed that it is "the ideal cookbook for those who love to share great food in the midst of busy lives". Well I guess MPs should be best placed to judge on both counts. Highlights are:

• Learn from assorted members of parliament and councillors how to cook great food in a hurry
• Enjoy Charles Kennedy's recipe for a breakfast smoothie
• Discover the festive secret Lord Navnit Dholakia has not told his friends to this day
• Read an old family recipe contributed by Lord Bill Rodgers, never before written down
• Find out what Lembit Opik MP likes to nibble while watching Question Time

Err interesting, not sure how widely this is beng publicised but it is something that seems to have gone by the wayside in British politics - a party doing more than simply being obsessed with happenings in Westminster. Though I have to admit being a little nervous about what Lembit nibbles on during Question Time

New indicators of support?

It seems that there is little substantive data to indicate who is the favourite to win the Liberal Democrat leadership contest as voting begins. Here is an indication, on Facebook Chris Huhne has 613 friends while his rival Nick Clegg has 774. It is hard to see any peak or trough in membership following the recent problems surrounding the campaign and members range from parliamentary colleagues to the normal, young members that are the average Facebook user. Some friends are shared also, such as myself to see how they are using their profile pages.

Clegg's profile has more of a campaigning feel to it. He has videos, a long 'about me' section, causes and poppies. Huhne's is quite basic, has causes and a US politics box, but offers less campaigning. The key feature of both is the amount of messages of support posted to their walls. Clegg is more responsive, perhaps his team are involved or perhaps he personally uses it as a campaigning tool; Huhne took a week to reply but perhaps that indicates a more personal usage. We should not assume!

Does it mean anything? Who knows! It is impossible (well it is very time consuming and less than simple) to tell how many of the 'friends' can vote. But it may well be a general indication of support within a certain voter segment. It is a small amount compared to the 163,882 friends Barack Obama has gathered but it is a different context, but given that Hilary Clinton does not have a profile an d the most popular groups are opposing her, does this give Obama the edge. The bottom line is, does Facebook have any political impact or can it even be used as an indicator of anything?

Dirty Politics - the covert way

I have no idea if these blogs are sponsored by Clegg himself, his team, are by outsiders, activists or just members of the public: this is the joy of the blogosphere! However there are two blogs that have been created to simply attack Chris Huhne. The Anti-Chris! reports on the fact that Huhne was instrumental in the break up of his current wife's previous marriage, dubbing him the home wrecker! There is even a section that implicates Huhne in leading one of his step-daughters into a depression expressed through poetry, the blog states this was due to the fact that "at the most vulnerable age when she lost her father because of Huhne’s “charm” offensive".

There is then Chris Almighty, a rebuttal of Sunday's attack by Huhne by undermining him and his argument. It is interesting, but the bottom line that the poster wishes to publicise is that "He really is a horrible man who covers his unpleasant character with a thin veneer".

None of this perhaps should be a surprise. The blogosphere is the perfect place to spread rumour anonymously in order to undermine the campaign of an opponent. Such things can work, I imagine some of this will reach the mainstream media and may enter the public consciousness. It will not convert Huhne supporters,, equally it may not win Clegg friends if he sponsored it or not. The problem here is that overt negativity, such as the 'Calamity Clegg' dossier and the 'Anti Chris' style rumour-mongering simply gives a negative impression of both the attacker (actual or perceived) and the victim. If Clegg can distance himself from such activities while Huhne is unlikely to shrug off that dossier (despite it being normal fare for a campaign), maybe Clegg will emerge the nicer guy. What if he cannot???

Sorry is the hardest word

There is nothing better than a carefully worded apology, one that does not accept any respnsibility but never the less magnanimously takes a share of the blame, says sorry for the minor crime but in doing so allows it to be repeated. This is my analysis of Chris Huhne's apology to Nick Clegg via his website.

"On behalf of Chris Huhne's campaign, I sincerely apologise that a background briefing document of quotations from Nick Clegg on public services reform and proportional representation was sent out with a wholly inappropriate title. There is no excuse for this. The document title had not been approved before the document was sent out and neither Chris nor I were aware of it. In no way does the title of the document as sent to the Politics Show represent Chris Huhne's opinion and he completely dissociates himself from it."

Firstly it is on behalf of a campaign not the individual. Secondly it is the title of 'Calamnity Clegg' that is the wrong doing not the attacks on his opponents ability; almost good content but bad title. Combined it does bring the sincerity of the apology into question, or am I just too cynical? Does it read as sincere? It suggests that the negative campaigning will continue and divisions could entrench further.

Pyrrhic Victories

The candidates for leading the Liberal Democrats seem to have emerged from a phase of being too friendly to one another and started hostilities in earnest. It was revealed today on BBC's Politics Show that Huhne's team had produced a catalogue of Clegg's weaknesses entitled Calamity Clegg. No surprise there, if the candidates did not have some SWOT analysis data it would be more surprising. They are equally trying to brand the other as uncertain, a flip-flop in modern political parlance, and it seems after today's performance it would be difficult for them to work closely together in the near future.

It is here where the problem lies! The party has 62 elected members, while talent is not restricted to a few within that number the party cannot withstand factionalism. If the contest stays nasty, the supporters behind each candidate will observe strict battle lines and these could remain long after the leadership is decided. Divisions, splits and public attacks are damaging to the image of a party and public perceptions can be driven by media emphasis on such issues. Equally attack on the character and ability of a candidate make it very hard for rehabilitation. If Huhne wins and the image of flip-flop, or calamnity stick to Clegg, how can Huhne, if he should wish, then give him a front bench role? A problem!

For a third party, who are often seen as being unable to win, it can be difficult to gain credibility at the best of times. The challenge for the leadership candidates is that they win the contest without losing the bigger war; the war for political influence.

Do we want a leader prepared to be banged up?

John Pienaar reports that: "Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne both promise to lead a campaign of civil disobedience against ID cards, and refuse to register when and if the cards become compulsory... So whoever wins, the Lib Dems will end up with a leader who is quite prepared to get banged-up." He thus asks "Is that a sensible way for a law-maker, and a party leader, to behave?"

Is there not a problem that we have too few politicians who appear to have any defining principles that steer their actions, and that they will do and say anything that may win them votes (or prevent them from not losing power)? Could the Liberal Democrats earn votes by being the anti-marketing party, the ones who do not chase after the safe, moderate, and largely acquiescent, middle ground.

There is though a danger! If either Clegg or Huhne get the opportunity to stand by their principles, and fail to do so because it is inexpedient because of their role as party leader, they will be viewed as just another politician that breaks their promises. So principles fine, provided feel you can stand by them.

The Killer App?

The Liberal Democrats are definitely cornering the market on Facebook, nearly all of their MPs are members, they are the most active posters and now they have their own application allowing the party to place their most recent campaign slogans and videos within the profiles of supporters. Sadly the app still has a video of Leader Ming Campbell (ahem) visiting the flooded towns during the summer (whoops); but could this be a new way to build relationships with Facebook's young, politically disengaged users?

The criticism of much political communication using Web 2.0 tools is that largely they use these interactive media to post static communication, so the kind of brochure-like material we associate with Web 1.0 websites. This adaptation to the Facebook environment is certainly gimmicky but allows a greater degree of connection between the party and its supporters and may encourage more interest in politics and the party. it is not inevitable, but there is potential.

Choice, or lack of choice?

Defining core values can be a difficult task for a party, often recently the values are attached to the leader as opposed to the broad mass but not so perhaps for Liberal Democrats. Nick Clegg, in declaring himself to be in the contest to be leader set out what the party stands for:

I want the Liberal Democrats to become the gathering point for everyone who wants a different type of politics in Britain. A politics that begins by giving power to people, their families and their communities... We are a nation with a strong sense of fair play and social justice. An instinct to protect the environment for future generations. We are suspicious of arbitrary power, impatient with bureaucracy and wary of government interference. We have always put our faith in the power of ordinary men and women to change our world.

The problem for Nick is that this maps pretty closely to statements by Conservative leader David Cameron, for example:

That's the political programme I will follow, based on my values of family, responsibility and opportunity, and driving forward our political agenda of giving people more freedom and control over their lives

An agenda that also includes the environment, reducing bureaucracy and giving power back does not offer a 'different type of politics', rather it is the same politics managed by a different party and leader. Whether there is space within the marketplace of ideas is questionable currently but it is clear that there is a lack of differentiation and this could be the greatest problem to face the Liberal Democrats. They will have a leader that is largely unknown and offer little that is fundamentally different, while not offering the opportunity for an anti-war protest vote, so on what basis can they steal votes from their opponents?