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.

The unprofessional professional?

Mark Penn (left) has been a trusted adviser and aide to the Clintons since the mid 1990s, it has been a sideline alongside to his proper job of running public relations company Burson-Marsteller, a global giant in the sector who has the mission statement of providing a 'gold standard' to clients. But will Penn's credibility be damaged by his performance serving Hillary Clinton? There are a number of areas of the campaign where the "Monday-morning quarterbackers" (media pundits that dissect campaigns) have found Penn at fault: his over confidence in her as the obvious winner, the reliance on the Clinton name and lack of understanding of the public mood and desire for change being the major areas. It was a conflict of interests that sealed his fate, he was negotiating a free trade agreement with Columbia that Bush is trying to drive through Congress that the Democrats and Clinton in particular oppose wholeheartedly; hence Bush's urgency. Its seems the PR man got it wrong on a number of counts; is this surprising.

Well maybe and maybe not. While Penn may have the experience of managing the communication and reputation of millions of household brands (be they consumer goods or nations) he may not fully understand public engagement with politics. We do not get bored of all brands in a product sector, maybe one brand, but not them all. We do not desire new brands to appear that offer something totally different. Importantly we also are likely to trust most high street brands. These things are different in politics and in the US in particular at the moment. The polls seem to show a boredom with the brands and what they represent, thus much is focused on the character and persona of the candidate for presidency. Second the reason for Obama's success is the desire for systemic change by a significant amount of voters; the only question they face is whether Obama is the right man to change the system. And trust, well who trusts politicians? PR does not normally face such a complex and hostile environment, also it does no normally overtly play with negative messages, and you can have as many clients at the same time as you can handle and there are rarely conflicts of interests, especially not on ideological grounds.

All this raises an interesting question are the communications, marketing and public relations professionals really equipped to work within modern political campaigning? Do they really have the skills and knowledge required and are they able to transfer and adapt their skills to suit the context of politics? A big question!

The next US presidential campaign - maybe

Hilary Clinton seems to remain the favourite to be the Democrat candidate despite all of the hype surrounding Barack Obama. One reason is her strategist Mark Penn who is seen as the ultimate professional campaign strategist. So why is that, these are the attributes that The Economist argues earmarks him for the top.

• He is a master of demographic trends and poll data;
• He thinks elections are won by wooing swing voters rather than revving up the base;
• He is happiest with the politics of “triangulation”, so going for the centre ground;
• He has vested, business interests behind him to drive him to victory;
• He hates populism.

This suggests greater segmentation and targeting, a further shrinking of the party difference and a new set of insider dealings and patronage to be ushered in. Is this really what the voters of America want?