Politics, Music and Movement

In concluding a fascinating article in The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Street, Hague & Savigny state that music is central to political and social movements as it, and its producers, have the ability to provide a platform from which public action emerges. Basically music has an inspirational quality that draws its audiences together and can create a movement. Reading that I heard on Radio 2 that Peter Garrett was now Minister for Environment, Heritage and Arts in Kevin Rudd's new government in Australia, who, so what?

Peter Garrett was singer with Australian band Midnight Oil, perhaps famous only for the track Beds are Burning outside of Australia, and a political campaigner. The song Beds are Burning talks of the clearances where a scorched earth approach removed Aborigines from large swathes of Australia: the songs message about that land "it belongs to them, lets give it back". He stood for parliament in the 1980s for the Nuclear Disarmament Party and encouraged public demonstrations against the introduction of ID cards, a successful campaign. He has also campaigned on environmental issues and is to be found on Youtube more often for 'green tips' than music videos.

Perhaps him being parachuted into the safe Labor seat of Kingsford Smith was a smart move by the party, perhaps they wanted the credibility that comes with a campaigner such as Garrett. His music is still around and, if the campaigns he promotes on his website is anything to go by, he retains interests in social equality, the rights of indigenous peoples and the environment. However some journalists have attacked him for being a turncoat as he declared he had to be a 'team player' in accepting decisions of the Australian Labour Party caucus; equally he came under fire for telling voters not to vote Green despite his environmental credentials. There was also a hint he had great expectations of Rudd as, when he was criticised for using political marketing and playing on the popular issues (referred to in this case as 'me too' politics as whenever Howard made a promise Rudd said 'me too'), journalist Steve Price quoted Garrett as saying "once we get in we'll just change it all".

And so what you may ask? This case made me think that while celebrities are indeed important in mobilising the public on political issues, just think Geldof, and music may capture a crowd's attention, they may not be right for politics itself. The reason is that they are better campaigners than law-makers and their credibility is always questioned when they cross the divide. Secondly they often seem to be idealistic and passionate about causes, this may make them popular but they raise expectations that cannot be met when constrained by collective decision making. Thirdly they court attention and, not being professional politicians, make remarks that are treated differently if said by a politician than if said by a musician: musicians don't need to be on message or true to anyone but themselves. So while as outsiders they have a potentially powerful role in politics, when inside politics they may become shadows of their former selves mocked for selling out. In Garrett's words from one of my favourites by Midnight Oil: Back on the Borderline:

And sometimes when a thousand voices
Tell you that you're wrong
A saint in any form
Becomes a sinner all along

Has the personal touch worked?

The Independent today asked whether Cameron will "regret placing tots in the frontline?". The exclusive insight into his family life was aired on ITV's News at ten on Friday and showed him as a dad comfortable with family life and preparing breakfast for his children, defending his decision to let the cameras in Cameron argues "People want to know who you are and what you are like and what makes you tick... That's modern politics. You just have to do what you feel comfortable with." And comfortable is perhaps the key here, his rival Gordon Brown is not comfortable with such intrusions into his life or the lives of his family. Cameron is happy to mix personality with politics and be a political celebrity, this involves letting the media in and embracing the attention earned.

The Independent asks if he will regret it long term, when his son might do a Euan Blair and be found drunk in public, but for Cameron his celebrity status seems to be earning him significant rewards at a time when Labour are struggling. The credibility of Brown and Darling has been seriously compromised by the loss of sensitive data, perceived indecision over Northern Rock and the questions surrounding economic stability and Darling and Brown's ability to meet the challenges. But unless they are seen to be responsible for an economic collapse such things may not lose them the election; experience can be chosen over an untried and untested team despite doubts.

But Cameron is running away with popularity and this could be due to him and his style as much as the weakness in support for Labour. The narrative of Dave the family man, who understands and cares about the ordinary man and woman in the street seems to have surpassed and dispelled any negative connotations that may have come with his privileged background. A poll today puts Cameron's Conservatives on 43% with Labour on 27% and the Liberal Democrats on 16% which could easily give Cameron a small majority if there was an election. Momentum is with him and is this poll reflects his media appearances as well as those of Brown and Darling he is on a roll.

Enter the Messiah?

In contrast to the AOL celebrity endorsement that some see as 'publicity' but most argue is a dead duck; is this by Barack Obama. Not only does he carry the endorsement of Oprah Winfrey someone who, in terms of setting the agenda, has been argued to be the most influential woman in America, he now has the music business on side:



Not only is it celebrity endorsement but is a campaign in itself, even offering its own website. It appears as to be mroe than a contrived camapign video though, the narrative explains it was a spontaneous action independent of Obama, thus he is placed as a Martin Luther King style character, an agent of change, messianic but also very now - he is a pop star preacher. A gimmick or one of the most powerful peace of political communication?

Conservatives plan to eradicate Jeremy Kyle

Chris Grayling yesterday called for more positive male role models to combat the "Jeremy Kyle generation" of young men ill-equipped for adult life. The Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary stressed, "As a society, we're leaving a lot of men behind. We have a growing generation of young men, alienated and drifting, without a purpose in life." His plan to combat the situation is to create a climate for social entrepreneurs to re-engage young men and to promote positive male role models, including more male primary school teachers. The question for me is where did the idea of calling them the Jeremy Kyle generation come from?

ITV1's Jeremy Kyle Show describes itself as one of Britain's most-loved, watched and talked-about shows that deals with family and relationship issues and also takes a look at the everyday conflicts that affect our lives. I confess to not watching it, guess I can't be one of the JK generation, but it doesn't seem to be solely for young men. Maybe Grayling is describing Kyle as a young man ill-equipped for adult life, while Kyle has been described as someone making a living by exploiting those with troubled lives or "the human bear bater", not sure his show is anything more than symptomatic of a desire for fame than representative of the collapse of society. While it may well be true that there is a growing group of disaffected and aimless males in society, is coming up with a celebritised name for them an cheap attempt at grabbing a headline or is there a profound reason for linking this phenomena to Jeremy Kyle.

The President with a heart on his sleeve

There is a debate within the study of political communication, branding and the importance of personality to voters when considering who to elect and to continue to support throughout the electoral cycle. The debate is manifesting itself in media discussions over the popularity of Barack Obama in the recent caucuses and generally in public opinion. Equally sometimes the lack of personality is argued to be an obstacle for UK PM Gordon Brown, of course he has a personality but his inability to project attractive characteristics could be problematic when an election is called. For some leaders, being open about their emotions, private lives or feelings is difficult and often seen as unprofessional, to others it is central to their public and political persona and there is little separation between private lives and political careers.

One such politician is French President Nicolas Sarkozy. His private life is dubbed in the media as The Sarko Show, particularly his quickie divorce and subsequent courtship of model Carla Bruni which has seen him embark on celebrity-style jaunts in aviator shades around the Pyramids and watching the Mickey Mouse parade at Disneyland Paris hand in hand. But this has now been taken one step further, at a press conference that included economic policy announcements Sarkozy proclaimed he was in love and planning on marriage. Using the word love (amour) several times he argued "You know the president of the republic doesn't have any more right to happiness than the average person, but no less right either." Furthermore, he is not shy about telling the media and public about both the highs and lows of his private life.

Do such things have an impact? Well Sarkozy has a celebrity-esque following and is more than simply a politician in both the eyes of journalists and, it seems, the French public. He is also using it to demonstrate he is cleaner than his predecessors who were married but had semi-secret mistresses on the go, but does this matter? Perhaps there is a sense of his authenticity through expressing feelings, perhaps it is an indicator of his humanity and, just perhaps, this means voters look at the politician who expresses his feelings and believes they are a little more real and so will make the right decisions for the normal French person. Lots of perhaps there, lots of questions all round, but perhaps when we look at politicians that are successful, then look at public perceptions of them, there may be some correlation between perceived authenticity (being real) and trust; again perhaps!!

Celebrities and Politics: a dilemma of image

BBC political reporter Justin Parkinson asks an interesting question: "Is taking advice from celebrities a cynical voter-pleasing ploy, with politicians merely pretending to listen? Or is it a genuine attempt to engage with the world outside politics?" Parkinson lists a variety of examples: Feargal Sharkey heading a government taskforce on promoting live music; Kirstie Allsopp advising the Conservatives making buying and selling houses less stressful; Sir Alan Sugar advising Gordon Brown on business; I can see a logic so far! Then there are some other examples: avant garde musician Brian Eno briefing Nick Clegg on "youth" issues (Eno is 60 and lives abroad, huh?); Gordon Brown discussing global education with Angelina Jolie (obviously she's an expert); and there was that Fiona Phillips offer!; logical, not really. Surely these politicians are, at some points, trying to appear cool and basking in the limelight of the rich, famous and popular.

Parkinson poses the question in light of Italian prime minister Romano Prodi's refusal to speak to the aforementioned Jolie on the basis that: "I've never heard of a politician getting in trouble by not meeting an actress"; and why should they? If a celebrity offers something of value, such as Jamie Oliver, fine; but it suggests more attempts to be part of Cool Britannia than actually learning anything useful. The real problem is when politicians try to suggest that celebrities are a bridge between them and the public. While people may view some celebrities as being representative in some symbolic way (Geldof on poverty perhaps), they are not really as authentic as is suggested. How can they be, they are even more remote from ordinary life than politicians. The value of the celebrity, they are popular and newsworthy so, except when they do offer expertise (on live music for example), there seems only one reason to get them involved: to look cool surely? Celebrities like Jolie, Bono et al are enormously valuable for getting political issues onto the news agenda and getting messages across to hard to reach audiences (the young and gossip hungry politically apathetics for example) but whether they are good at, or should be used for, getting attention for politicians is more questionable!

It's official, our government are annoying!

For bizarre reasons i watched (endured) BBC3's countdown of the top 5o most annoying people of 2007. For those who avoid such programmes, this is an opportunity for annoying journalists and comedians to slag off the equally annoying celebrities on whose career said journalists depend; yes high-brow entertainment. But it was interesting to see politicians appearing in the list, and the reasons for their entry.

I am not sure if any Conservatives were in the list, if they were they were 49 or 50 as I missed the start, only government front benchers made it above that. The first was Gordon Brown at No 39. To the tune of The Stranglers' golden brown the voice over talked of the events of the summer that were beyond his control but then the bit that really annoys us: his attempt to write himself out of Labour's history for the last 12 years. So no disagreement there then?

Next we find at No 25 Patricia Hewitt for the smoking ban, and at No 14 Alan Johnson for equating obesity to global warming. The message here is clearly that politicians should not try to interfere with personal freedom.

But the most annoying politician, who would have guessed it, well probably all of us, it was of course Tony Blair in the top ten at No 8. Why, for his long looonnnngggg goodbye. Sandwiched between Britney Spears and Paris Hilton (which is no place for a good catholic boy to be [sorry couldn't resist]) he was roundly mocked for attempting to build himself a 'legacy'.

The programme perfectly showed how politicians are, or at least seem to be treated by the media and public as, essentially just celebrities that talk about politics. There are boundaries of behaviour set for them and as long as they confine themselves beyond those boundaries they are safe from too much approbation. Perhaps these four have all been too high profile for annoying the public, Brown and Blair I expected to be there, Hewitt and Johnson I didn't; but there is perhaps something of a logic about it in terms of the opinions of those who would construct and those who watch these programmes.

The great moment for me, a sour faced Gordon Brown coinciding with the lyric 'never a frown with golden brown'; perhaps someone should do some new lyrics and put it out as Brown's campaign song!!!

Celebrity Politics - or will Lord Forsythe please not say 'nice to see you' to the North Koreans

It is perhaps true that politicians need to be able to translate complex ideas and policies to allow them to be understood by the masses. Currently this role is largely fulfilled by journalists who mediate ideas in a way that appeals to their audiences; despite the range if communication experts who colonise politics and the number of MPs with public relations backgrounds there still seems to be a communication gap. Gordon Brown had an alternative way of getting the public to engage with politics, give a high profile role to someone they already liked and listened to; not a great expert but GMTV host and long-time foil for Eamon Hughes jokes Fiona Phillips.

It is claimed by the News of the World that a Downing Street aide argued that "People say she is just a ditzy blonde, but Fiona Phillips manages to communicate complex issues which are of massive public importance to millions of people every morning." This was the justification for offering her a Baronetcy and the public health brief currently head by Dawn Primarolo within Brown's 'government of all talents'. Phillips is a long-standing supporter of Labour, conducted some highly cringe-worthy interviews with the Blairs and has an interest in politics and is quoted as saying "I'd like to change people's perception of politics... I'd love to do a big PR bit for the Government" but did not want to take the £400,000 per annum pay cut. Hence we are to be spared Baroness Phillips of obesity, binge drinking and safe sex.

But is Gordon out of line with the idea? Politicians are the least trusted profession while it is true that Fiona Phillips has a clear connection with her audience. While her expertise can be questioned, so can that of many cabinet ministers, and her ditzy persona may be her public face as opposed to her real personality. There is the perception of credibility issue, but is it the case that her role as a journalist and her perceived authenticity may well make her seem as on the side of the public as opposed to the negative perception of the politician out for themselves? Gordon Brown has hit on an important truism, that politicians fail to get the public engaged in their ideas; celebrities have that ability, but should they play an active role in politics is a big question. Could Fiona Phillips be Britain's Arnie? Do we need one?

You sound like a really useful guy.... any good with leaks?

Parkinson is the chat show for political party leaders, I think Harold Wilson was the first to guest but I may be wrong. The latest was David Cameron though. He told the story of being introduced to Kate Moss at a charity dinner and being unsure what to say. He recounted the conversation going thus:

"I remembered she actually has a house in my constituency and we'd had these terrible floods in West Oxfordshire and so I said, 'Very nice to meet you, very sorry about the flooding in your house... I know your local pub has been flooded, I've been to see the publican and I know you like to go to the pub and so I know it's going to reopen in six months... So I went on like this, twittering on, and she turned around and said, 'God, you sound like a really useful guy, can I have your phone number?... "I went back to my table and said 'The good news is, I met Kate Moss and she wanted my telephone number, the bad news is I think she thinks I'm something to do with drainage."

It turns out she assumed he was a plumber; apparently!

I would be interested to here Kate Moss's side of the story, if she has any recollection that is. It does strike me as unlikely that she believed she was meeting a plumber at a flashy charity do. Though it is believable that she had little idea who David Cameron was, and that is no slur on him but her social awareness generally. But why tell this story?

It has a wonderful self-deprecating style, Cameron positions himself as being a little tongue-tied in the face of such a famous celebrity, much like the average guy in the street; he also plays down his own importance quite jokingly. Since the criticism that Blair received when talking about his religious convictions surrounding the war on Iraq, this perhaps is the correct tone for the chat show and Cameron's performance seemed focused on being likeable, normal and average. The permanent campaign is on!!

You need... PERSONALITY

No-one can deny that Liberal Democrat Industry Spokesman Lembit Opik is a character, and so it is perhaps unsurprising that he argues that "We have to decide it's OK for us to have characters, because the public like characters." Opik has always been a controversial character. He spent many years talking of the dangers of asteroids hitting the earth and his private life is often the subject of tabloid gossip. His partners have included weather girl Sian Lloyd and Gabriela Irimina one half of the novelty pop act The Cheeky Girls, the latter relationship bringing him a lot of media attention but perhaps for the wrong reasons (as the below testifies). So, is he correct in arguing the personality matters?

Well of course he is. Blair emphasised the idea of himself as a 'straight kind of guy', Cameron tells us he is Mr Average, the guy in the street, with both there may well be questions over their authenticity, perhaps their ability to cultivate a persona, but belief in who they are is important. The reason is that voters can assess the extent to which they will do what they want by their closeness to themselves. this is called proximity politics, where voters see someone's personality and policies as being closest to themselves and select that candidate on that basis. But there is more to it than just having personality.

Politicians must also be credible. This was the debate surrounding Charles Kennedy, he was well liked but was he credible as a leader and potential power-broker. Ming Campbell suffers similarly due to age largely. But characters like Boris Johnson and Lembit Opik, politicians who have become celebrities and known for the trivial, controversial or wacky maybe liked but lack credibility. This will be a problem for Johnson as a candidate for London Mayor and perhaps for any party that encourages more personalities. The celebrity politician may become well-known and promote the party but they can also be damaging to a party's credibility; hence there is a fine line to be drawn somewhere between being known and being a likeable, but incredible, celebrity.

In Vogue

Politicians, on resigning, and prime ministers and presidents in particular, often wish to leave some comments for posterity. Autobiographies usually. For Blair there have been a range of soft-focus interviews showing the human dimension and the latest is an interview with Vogue magazine that finds him on the front cover. Some media even claiming his image has been airbrushed to make him look younger

Given he was once voted one of the 'sexiest men' and courted media attention as a celebrity as well as courting celebrities, generally this is probably little surprise. But is there a political strategy behind this?

At the 2005 election Blair was keen to court female voters who had lost trust in him over the Iraq War, is he now concerned about is legacy and the perception these same British women hold of him? But this is Men's Vogue, so who is it that he is trying to win over with this and why? I wonder what the interview contains, but am not yet certain whether I can steal myself to buy Vogue and find out.

You are who you eat [with]!

Barack Obama's latest way of connecting with ordinary voters is to have dinner with them. In promoting the events, which are for anyone who donates $5 or more to the Obama campaign fund, and those who wish for the chance to attend just need to sign up for the opportunity, Obama's email argues: "At a time when Washington lobbyists and special interests are poisoning our politics with their influence, Barack Obama wants to sit down with you and hear what’s on your mind".

The response to the release of the first video of the event is said to be highly positive. Tim of Chehalis, one of the guests at the first 'dinner', is reported as saying "This is one of the coolest events I've ever witnessed. Ordinary citizens are never afforded this kind of opportunity -- to sit down with someone who might be the leader of the free world and have the opportunity to discuss policies and issues". While only a few may have the opportunity, such effects can start a ripple across voters, building a highly positive perception of the type of leader Obama may be. His position in the polls may also well have a strong influence on his party when they select their nominee, so doubly effective.

There is a striking contrast. While perhaps a little irrelevant now, Blair's dinner guests present a less positive image of politics and politicians in the UK. After several demands for the guest list to be published by Liberal Democrat Norman Lamb, it is revealed that guests included singer and gossip column star Charlotte Church and her boyfriend, rugby player Gavin Henson. Also we have TV presenters Vernon Kaye, June Sarpong, Lorraine Kelly and Richard Madeley; journalists David Aaronovitch, Adrian Chiles and Jane Garvey.

Why this was kept secret is perhaps because of the cost of all of this schmoozing, particularly as it suggests the UK Prime Minister was fairly starstruck and after being knocked for entertaining celebrities during the 'Cool Britannia' phase in the late 1990s, carried on with a circle of celebrities. Maybe he was picking up tips for his performances. Perhaps if Blair had, and Brown or Cameron in the future, picks up a few tips from Obama there may be less of a sense of politicians living in their own little world and not understanding the real people.