Experts get it wrong

Yes I would have probably agreed, and also been wrong, but it is good when you have company. The PRCA Leader's Panel declared Boris Johnson won the campaign but "more than 50 per cent" believed he would lose the election. It seems they felt that nothing could carry Boris over the finishing line due to his credibility gap and Ken's rebranding of himself as "cuddly".

Perhaps we all missed a very important point. Ken Livingstone could not rebrand himself, the London electorate had a set of attitudes towards him and his administration based on eight years of experience. Johnson had one advantage, he was not Ken and could offer something different. All he had to do was overcome the clown image, appear as the 'new' managerial, business-like Boris and sell that perception to the voters. Clearly he did that! Boris also was able to set the agenda with the support of the Evening Standard, had to be a bonus for him.

Boris Is Mayor - it seems!

If its in the Evening Standard it must be true (or if not the editor will look daft in the morning)and I have to say I am genuinely shocked. I did not believe Boris Johnson could convince London's electorate that he was a viable potential mayor. It seems he has done that, perhaps partly a result of the unpopularity of both Brown and Livingstone, but even so it is one hell of an achievement to transcend the image of the bumbling eccentric to even come close never mind win - as it seems that he has. I'm speechless, the question is not if he is intellectually capable but if he has all the other skills required for the job.

The Assembly by Saturday! Maybe?

Tony Travers' report Predicting Londons Elections is a great read, if he is right, and of course this data is extrapolated, the above will be the shape of the newly elected Assembly with one seat for the BNP. While the whole thing may be sound, its publication on the 6th April, and the resulting press coverage, could have numerous effects on actual voting behaviour. The prediction of a Labour win across the council elections could mobilise Conservatives or lead to vote switching, as could predictions of a win for the BNP, so while interesting I will re-read this and compare it with the results while also looking at the press coverage, particularly the articles in the Standard, if there are differences between predictions and the outcome, and if we take the predictions to be safe as of April 6th, then we may see a poll effect has taken place.

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.

Mud & Pledges

Boris Johnson has utilised the favourite the pledge card (above), standard fair: I promise to solve the issues Londoners say are most important - a typical marketing tool. However Labour must be worried as they, well Tessa Jowell is the name on the email, have countered each of his pledges thus: "Boris Johnson can make promises now but the reality is that he:

• voted against automatic five year sentences for people caught carrying illegal guns
• failed to support measures to take tough action on crime

• would deny young couples the opportunity of owning their own homes by scrapping affordable housing policies

• would make transport more expensive by pushing up bus and tube fares

• is making uncosted campaign promises that he would not be able to keep - a cynical move that will let down Londoners.

There is also the competence issues, something which both sides are asking voters to consider. Boris stresses the failures of the Livingstone administration (an example of this is left), Labour meanwhile seem to be playing on a belief that everyone already suspects Johnson's ability so we will repeat and remind phrases such as "incompetent Boris Johnson in City Hall taking risks with their cost of living.". So it seems this close contest may come down to a contest over credibility, who do Londoners believe will do the job best, secondary trends my be whether there a significant interest in change and how Londoners assess Livingstone's performance. It could be interesting to see whose mud sticks and whose pledges are believed.

Engagement via Youtube

Every election campaign now involves Youtube, it seems almost de rigeur and normal. There are not many questions uploaded yet and not much activity but as the contest moves towards a conclusion it could be interesting to see how many engage with the three main candidates and want to talk about issues. Currently it is just the 'wall' that is gaining attention, here we find issue based questions some of which border on the philosophical to some extent i.e.: "Is it right that an indigenous population should be allowed to become an ethnic minority in their own city without even being consulted?" but then we have social media graffiti a la: 'BORIS IS A CUNT' a weighty contribution from someone called Pete. But, that aside, is Youtube offering a real potential for a new level of engagement or is it just a passing fad that only a few will bother with - an interesting question!!

An aide to engagement or indecision

It claims to "help you to determine your preference for the London mayoral and Assembly elections", whether it does is more questionable. Vote Match London 2008 offers 25 statements which which you can agree, disagree or neither, you can then match yourself against the candidates on all the topics. While it aids you to see who is closest on the issues that are of most concern, so if you agree that "The 'stop and account' form that the police have to fill in when they use stop and search powers should be scrapped" you find both Boris Johnson and Brian Paddick agree while all the rest do not. If this was the single issue that concerned you then you could use the proximity theory of voting and assume that the candidates closest to you on that single issue should get you votes (1st and 2nd preference) with the order chosen by other cues perhaps.

But it is slightly more complicated over the whole 25 issues. Though not a Londoner, so ineligible to vote, I found that I was tied with three candidates, Paddick, Johnson and Damien Hockney the leader of One London who I confess to not having heard of; close runners up were the Green Party and Ken Livingstone. That either makes me seriously weird and having various incompatible views that cross party divisions or normal and actually the candidates themselves overlap considerably on many key issues. If the latter, and I like to think of myself as normal even if others do not, I could do one of two things: I could find out more about all three and narrow it down to two and place them in order; or I could think the whole thing is far too difficult and give up. Hopefully this idea will make more Londoners engage on the issues, and elaborate on these simple cues due to becoming interested in the campaign and the candidates (as some academics would predict could happen); but....

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.

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?".

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.

Credibility: the Boris challenge

Boris Johnson, magazine editor, Conservative MP and former member of the Shadow Cabinet, iterant television personality etc, is to be the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London. Not only that but the selection was unequivocal 15,661 votes out of 20,019 cast. He was the best known and offered a sense of his strategic direction (well scrapping bendy buses and not focusing on Zone 1 exclusively), but can he win the office?

The BBC quotes Tony McNulty, the Home Office minister, who said "for all his strengths as an individual, Boris is essentially a very clever man, but ultimately a clown, and he won't put up with the sort of scrutiny that mayoral candidates do". So credibility is clearly the issue here. Can he position himself as a person that could manage the infrastructure of one of the busiest cities in the world? Can he prove himself as an ambassador for the city? Has the ability to overcome the image of him as the bumbling part-time presenter of Have I Got New For You?

He talks a good talk on his website:

"The job of the Mayor is simple - to get people to work on time, to ensure people feel safe on the streets, to help people find a place to call home, to celebrate our diversity and to champion our success. My determination to lead this city is stronger than ever. After seeing both the good and bad that London has to offer, I am committed to making London greater and standing up for every Londoner that invests so heavily in our city. I want to be a Mayor for all Londoners, from Zone 6 to Zone 1. A Mayor that will listen, will learn and will lead."

But his videos are undeniably bumbling Boris and he has a history of making gaffes so, despite the affection for him, much of which is expressed in comments on Youtube. This history means there may be a long way to go to prove he is the man able to do the things he promises to do despite the anti-Ken (King Newt) sentiment that seems to exist. It will be the ultimate in challenges for his marketing and strategy team.

Ideas or Managerialism?

Ex BBC boss, ex Labour supporter (pre-Hutton of course), Greg Dyke announced last night he would not stand for Mayor of London. Not because of other commitments etc, but because both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats would not back him to be the independent (ish) anti-Labour, anti-Livingstone candidate. Seems a little like his real goal was the power, he said: the backing of both parties was the only way to secure a win.

While it is argued that party politics, as opposed to real ideas, are unattractive to many voters, surely any attempt to build coalitions prior to the election just reduces choice and means ideas and ideologies would be replaced by a purely managerialist style. Ok, maybe this would not differ much from the Livingstone approach; but the notion that power should be attained by abandoning all political differences seems inappropriate in times of normal politics. The Conservatives, it appears, went for the idea (were they too seduced by the idea of victory at all costs); the Liberal Democrat response that "The people of London should have a full democratic choice on next year's mayoral elections" is more in line with the principles of democracy than the Dyke suggestion. It raises many questions about what the people want from an electoral contest, representation yes, but in what form - symbolic, ideological - we never saw a Dyke manifesto but it would have been interesting to see how he crafted his product to attract the London electorate.