Americanisation?

As I commented earlier, Ken now has Obama's team working for him; Paddick announced a few days ago that Mark Penn, sacked by Hillary Clinton, is now on his team to assist Democrat strategist Rick Ridder and US ‘blog­father' Jerome Armstrong. Gordon Brown and Boris Johnson seem to be sticking mostly with home grown talent, Brown recently hiring Mark Flanagan of LBC to a team with predominantly UK-based experience. but it is interesting that Americans are the most prized catches it seems, is it due to the fact that US politics is that little bit ahead in technology and strategy, is it based on the idea that if they can do well in the US the UK should be a piece of cake; or is it that there are so many professional political strategists in the US that they have to go abroad to find work? What the UK lacks are political consultancies and this is mainly due to the lack of funding for political campaigns, in the US the spending is bigger than many third world countries' debt, one does beget the other. But maybe more of the big PR and Marketing companies should set up a political wing, one of the key questions surrounding Americanisation as a concept is whether US practice can be transplanted within other nation's polities; some say yes, some say no. Without belittling the great work of our US colleagues, it does make me wonder whether a UK firm would have a better understanding of UK people, politics and communication? It's an interesting question if nothing else.

Too important for discussion?

Nuclear defence is historically an emotive issue with the fear being that if a nuclear capability exists then more states will aspire to become nuclear powers and the more nuclear powers there are the more likelihood there is of actual usage of the weapons. However it often seems that the reason for having nuclear capability is more like a badge denoting power than something that can actually be used: as per this quote from Yes Prime Minister.

The debate has arisen again with the government having approved the use of Menwith Hill in North Yorkshire for the 'Son of Star Wars' programme. Ministers gave approval without parliamentary consultation and the anti-nuclear lobby are furious about that fact. The real problem though is the communication problem at the inter-state level. Britain claims that the defence is against rogue states: Iran or North Korea being used as examples. Russia on the other hand see it as a renewal of the arms race.

The problem is that it is fairly obvious that neither Iran or North Korea could actually hit the UK and doubtful their missiles (if they exist) could hit any target that the defence system covers at the current time. So is it an attempt to make the British feel protected? In an era of terrorism probably not! So it remains nothing more than a way of ensuring a seat at the top table in world politics; but given that many nations seem to do very well without a nuclear weapons, an aggressive foreign policy or a position of being a global power, why is such a role so important for Britain?

Contributing to public life

Two comments/statements that made me wonder about the thinking processes within British politics.

The first from Downing Street commenting on the never denied suggestion that GMTV's Fiona Phillips was invited to play a key role in government: "In previous statements by the prime minister, he said he would welcome all men and women of talent who want to contribute to public life"

The second on a Liberal Democrat MPs website says: "If you are under 25 and a young person living in XXXX, I want to know what you think and what you believe about the issues facing you today.Just filling in this survey will enable me to understand your views better and act on them locally and in Parliament. Whether you are worried about the war in Iraq, or just the lack of decent pubs in your area - I want to know" Clicking through to the survey and you are presented with the line: "Once you have answered all the questions, simply add up all the 'yes' answers and all the 'no' answers and follow the instructions overleaf to find out who you should vote for". Yes, it is a series of loaded statements that lead to the answer 'vote Liberal Democrat'

Why does it seems that politicians never really want to talk to the ordinary people about what they think about the big issues and how the country should be managed? Is it just too difficult or does everything in politics come down to vote winning?

What's in a name 2

Gordon Brown is talking of creating citizen juries to help determine policy. These, like a jury in a court of law, hear evidence from experts and deliberate the key points in order to reach a verdict. The main principle is, as with most research, that once a small sample of a population have heard the evidence their deliberations can fairly represent the perspectives of the wider community. The Guardian heralds this as a 'New type of politics', but is it?

A criticism of New Labour under Blair was the use of focus groups. The principle of a focus group is to collect together a number of people who are representative of their broader social grouping on the principle that they will discuss and debate issues and offer the solutions that the wider group would find atractive. I have used these to aid the design of shampoo bottles (it paid the bills) and to find out why voters in safe seats are less likely to vote and why those in marginal seats are more likely to (a forthcoming publication).

So is there a difference? Fundamentally no, but they have different connotations. Within the research industry focus groups are highly respected and often used, within political circles they are suggested as a sign of weak government, Citizen juries are sold as consultation among the informed, an idea which first emerged with the Big Conversation, but can be described as a departure from the focus group.

Speaking in June of this year Gordon Brown claimed the following:

“In 2007, you have got to engage and involve people much more… engage them in discussing a big issue, it could be smoking, I did one on that, I did one on the British way of life… you work through the problem. I believe that citizens juries and citizen jury service could be a thing of the future: inviting people in all parts of the country… 100 or 200 or 300 people discussing an issue through. [They] feedback to government and then government responding and saying this is what we are going to do as a result. This is an important way of consulting.”

A new open politics perhaps, better use of marketing techniques perhaps, and it is the name that separates them from being the focus groups used by Philip Gould to design numerous Labour advertisements, slogans and campaign messages. But to be taken seriously there must be a visible link between the consultation and policy, if not it will be dismissed as an empty marketing technique now it has been sold to the media.

Consulting Conservatives

An email went around yesterday from David Cameron, this announced the launch of Stand Up, Speak Up "an online platform for everyone in the country to get involved in shaping the next Conservative manifesto... Politics is about giving a lead, and we have set out a clear direction for our country: more green, more local, more family-friendly - less arrogant about what politicians can do on their own, and more optimistic about what we can achieve if we all work together. That's why it matters so much to me that we ask for your views in helping to shape our election manifesto.... [BUT!!!] As I made clear at the start of this process, those recommendations do not automatically become Conservative policy. There will be some proposals we do not agree with. In some areas, hard choices will have to be made between competing priorities. And of course, we will only commit to policies that Britain can afford."

The site intro focuses on the 'Fixing Our Broken Society' agenda and includes a negative broadcast detailing the failures of Blair and Brown; whether or not that is a good thing is open to debate. But the site then draws the visitor to view policy documents, just follow the 'Join the Policy Debate' link, well download PDFs anyway - the offering is either the 5 minute, 15 minute or hour version. Perhaps to be more interactive on substance key ideas should be on the page itself but the information is there listing the problems policy wonks have identified.

The next stage is to vote or debate. Voting is a pretty simplistic affair, you can say which is most important and from a list of six three can be selected - so personal debt, educational failure [not loaded at all], family breakdown, voluntary sector, economic dependency or addiction. Well it is a list certainly. But the debate is the more interesting section. Each of the categories has a debating area with a list of topics, some generating a lot of comment. For example the section on tax credits for married couples gained 70 comments in two days (15th & 16th July). Response from the Conservatives is promised. Site Editor, Stephen Crabb MP, using the title 'Social Justice Champion', promises: "I’ll be watching the voting, reading your comments and giving my feedback on a regular basis". As an extra, contributors can sign up for the chance to win one of five places to debate policy with David Cameron himself, though signing up is by taking part in all the stages of the read, vote, debate process - so selected due to their views perhaps.

But what is the function of this. Well it certainly appears to offer any visitor who wishes to register the chance to contribute to policy development. The caveat in the Cameron email is honest and sensible, though how all the comments will be aggregated is less than clear. The fear if there is a direct link to policy though is the notion of tyranny exacted by the minority who choose to take part, and the party must be aware of this so to what extent can they use the comments. Alternatively is this simply an exercise in gathering supportive comments that they can they quote back to demonstrate there is public support for a policy. Hard to say, but that makes far more sense than trying to use these comments for design purposes.

If this is the purpose, it is all about creating social acceptance around their policy proposals. A politician saying that we should encourage marriage, that schools are failing or whatever may well be mistrusted. The public saying it can make people who have no personal knowledge more likely to agree. A politician publicly launching a consultation exercise, allowing it to run, then quoting from contributions to reinforce ideas already in their PDFs, is suggesting that there is some sense of co-production taking place [shared ownership of ideas] but really it is a process of leading people to think a certain way through the careful detailing of the recommendations presented in their report and how they were reached.

Clearly if a policy is universally criticised it will probably disappear from the manifesto but on the whole it appears that just like Labour's Big Conversation, unless visitors have detailed experience or knowledge, comments will largely be simple gut reactions driven by ideological reactions to the proposals. It may offer a sense of what the nation thinks but it is questionable as to whether any real debate will take place and hard to see how it could inform policy design. But it equally may not matter, appearance may be sufficient!

Moving on the debate

Blair's speech of 12th June where he launched an attack on the now famous 'Feral Beasts of the Media' was the launch pad a for a consultation process. The debate mapper is described by the creators as a part of the government's e-democracy project designed "to develop a web-based means for people to collaboratively identify and display all of the arguments pertinent to any political debate clearly and fairly, so that all of the participants in the debate have the chance to see the debate as a whole and to understand how the positions they hold exist within that debate": hence the debate map (pictured). The debate on the content of the 12th June speech is to close in five days and is for a panel of invited experts. It is unclear if this initiative is the start of a consultation process to match that of the Conservatives which George Osborne argued will be founded on open access to information, social networking [via MySpace etc], and an open-source bottom-up deliberative approach. Is this a passing fad where enthusiasm is being thrown at all things 'e', or the start of a revolution in the way politics and political communication is done?

Policy Consultation: does it work?

An initiative that seems to have sneaked under the radar, but is attracting some interesting contributions, are the various e-forums set up within the Conservative home page. Under the auspices of The Public Services Improvement Policy Group the forums are tasked with finding "long term solutions that will secure lasting improvements in our public services". Using a range of consultative fora, particualrly the internet, the review will be designed as a result of "drawing on the experiences and ideas of people across the public services. Practitioners, public service employees, public and professional bodies as well as users are all contributing to this policy review". Taking just one example, it seems a range of practitioners and users are submitting their key gripes; in theory this could highlight the problems in the current system and has the ptoential to produce policies that satisfy users if there is a clear link between contributing and gaining improvements. The key, however, will be how funding is balanced out. I remember one prominent politician once arguing that political marketing, or producing the policies the public want, is largely impossible: get them in a room, he said, show them the percentage funds dedicated to each area, ask them if they want more doctors should we do this by cuttign the number of police? The reason for the problem is that maximum funds are wanted in every area but public shy away from the tough decisions of real politik and will not argue for divertign funds from one area to another: in other words they want everything! Thus any listening campaign can appear to be no more than rhetoric and a marketing device unless the product matches the promises. Will this suffer the same fate or is it to usher in a more consultative and interactive democracy?