Its all about having a digital footprint

As part of the CENMEP project I have been reviewing how UK political parties used the Internet at the 2009 European parliamentary election. Looking back at Wainer Lusoli's work from 2004 it is hard to see any significant differences in strategy. Websites are now better constructed using the most up to date technologies, but only if you have the resources. In the case of the the majority of the 25 parties standing it was an online brochure offering little that was engaging when compared to the norms of Internet use across the corporate and not-for-profit sector. The big difference is the migration into social networking sites. Most parties now feature on Facebook, many use Twitter, YouTube is an easy way to promote videos be they sophisticated or home made, Flickr hosts photos of the leader or perhaps candidates. These do offer a new level of engagement, as on the whole you can comment on many of the material posted but I wonder if that is really the intention. Few parties seem to do much that encourages interaction. It seems to be, as the post title suggests, a way of extending the party's digital footprint; being found easily and so getting the message out as opposed to communicating with potential voters. So is the use of social networking little more than a way of advertising for free for political organisations? Beyond a small minority that seems to be the case. But the question is can we expect more, can the interactive features of SNS be adapted for political purposes within the context of a persuasive campaign? The suggestion is that we will see more of this at the UK 2010 election but whether there will be a substance to this online migration is a big question - all thoughts and predictions welcome.

Strategy and social media - tricky stuff!

As with much social media, if politicians are to use them as tools for engaging with voters they must be used by the right people. This is not some normative sense of 'right' but the voters that are the key target of persuasive communication to encourage positive attitudes, support and eventually voting behaviour to flow to the party or individual. I admit that using social media may not solely be driven by vote winning, but there is often a strong correlation between being very active both off and online with being in a marginal constituency when looking at MPs' communication.

So can we tell if the users we are reaching are the ones we want to reach? It is very difficult, Obama had Facebook fans from across the globe, indicated by the network they have joined, but the location of those on other sites is hard to tell. Tweetminster has conducted research using Twitter, they find Labour would win an election by 37% to 27% for LibDems and 20% to Conservatives. Party is the main vote influencer (78%), out of the current options Brown is the top choice for prime minister (35%) and use of social networking by MPs influences 43%. What does this tell us?

Well clearly the respondents are not that representative, unless the major pollsters have got it seriously wrong. But Labour and the Liberal Democrats may either have a fairly committed audience on Twitter or have gained one (I suspect the former) Conservatives may not have as large an audience so it may have limited potential for them. These are also people who enjoy social networking (a bit of a no-brainer), probably use it a lot (as they responded to the survey) but also are influenced by party to follow MPs rather than the reverse. This means every MP should be promoting the party (if their strategy is to win votes) and not just themselves as the audience they are talking to are looking at the whole as a composite of the sum of the parts and not seeking personal relationships. Finally, and perhaps crucially, these users are influenced by use of social media, so the fact that parties and MPs are using the same tool as them (or at least just under half of them) is important to them.

So the tool may have an impact, but only in some ways. If the research is useful (and it is easy to criticise it) then it offers a few hints about how to use Twitter strategically. There is though a broader point, the strategic use of social media needs to take into account who the current users are, what drives usage and in particular what drives the proportion of users who do to use political or politicians profiles etc, and then what the party or MP wants from those people. A tricky ask but one that perhaps needs investigating if significant resources are to be channelled into any tools when both individual time and effort are at a premium and money to pay full-time employees is in short supply!

Blog Your Way to Election Success?

According to 'Davick Services' "No matter what kind of campaign you’re running, a Blog allows you to quickly and easily create a place on the web where voters can find you, learn about you, interact with you and contribute to your success". Their reasoning is that:

• Huge impact for very little money
• Creates a dialog between you and the voters
• Blogs collect valuable feedback from voters
• Blogs build trust with voters
• Blogs are a conduit for online campaign contributions that multiply over time

All absolutely true but, and of course there is a but, can blogging really guarantee you electoral success? Here are some reasons I would offer to suggest why this also might not be the case:

• Blogs require a pull factor, their existence does not guarantee traffic
• Blogs can allow opponents to post negative comments
• There is no guarantee that visitors or comment posters are your voters
• Blogs need to find a balance between personal and campaign communication, just campaigning is a turn-off, all personal lacks focus
• Conversations on blogs can lead bloggers down blind alleys (issues important to one poster only), or to talk on issues they prefer to keep quiet on
• Trust must come before asking for money

Online campaigning does work, it has been a key part of Barack Obama's successes to date; but he created himself a pull factor. But it needs to be used wisely and strategically. If someone asked me if they should use a blog as a campaign tool I would ask them what for specifically - if they could not answer then I would say no. The problem is that the answer for many to the thorny question of how to reach most people for the least money is go online. Yes that is true, but... and to ignore that but could be a as serious a mistake as an own goal in the World Cup Final, with the score at 1-1, in the last seconds of injury time!

Cock-up not conspiracy - so that's ok then!

Peter Hain is another nail in the coffin of trust in Labour, not only is the party guilty of mismanaging is funding but so was he during his challenge for Deputy Leadership. It is a mistake he claims, so 5,000 can just be overlooked apparently. To compound the problem his aides are engaged in a blame game. First aide Phil Taylor says it was all done properly when he was in charge, while his successor Steve Morgan says he was brought in to sort out the mess Taylor left in his wake. Now this all may be a mistake but what are we to think as a result.

Hain is a Minister of State, in fact he is Secretary for Works and Pensions. His department must be responsible for millions of pounds, but he is effectively telling us that during something as mundane as a Deputy Leadership contest, where only thousands are involved, he and his small team managed to cock it up; how can he then justify remaining in a position of any responsibility and expect that the public can trust him to run the department effectively? I think it is a fair question!

And, what a waste of money. Thousands spent on a failed campaign, what were donors seeking to gain from donations. Surely pure benevolence cannot justify this. Very worrying! A good argument for all election spending to be capped heavily and for very limited funding that excludes flashy advertising to be provided by us the tax payer. This will mean MPs and the party have to work harder on the streets and free media exposure while utilising the Internet more instead of spending a fortune on flashy ads to slag off their opponents. Well that's my opinion, not often I go off on one but I enjoyed it!

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.

The end of the road

It is notable that an election seems to be creeping back onto the agenda and into the media and public consciousness again and with that the sense that Brown has not got long, or cannot survive too long, and that the next prime minister is to be David Cameron. Even Ian Hislop made that comment on Have I Got News For You. But this talk, particularly if it increases in speculating on the performance of a Cameron led Conservative government, could benefit Brown and Labour.

In 1992 Labour won the campaign but lost the election. One reason was that there was a nervousness about the extent to which Neil Kinnock would perform as prime minister. In other while the opposition leader may be well liked he (or she) may not be perceived as a national leader and their team may not be fully trusted. Thus as we move into next year and if speculation continues, the questions for both Brown and Cameron are:

1. what do popularity ratings mean, and can they convert to votes?
2. has Labour lost public confidence completely or is it the economy that determines victory or defeat?
3. is Cameron perceived as a prime minister, and does the public have confidence in his front bench team?

The answers to these questions should shape the permanent campaign and the election campaign whenever it is held for both the contenders for government.

Its down to Darling and Osborne

Predictions of an immediate election are now being downplayed, of course Gordon Brown had to see what impact the Conservative conference would have. He enjoyed a bounce after his, now it is the Cameron/Osborne bounce we are witnessing. With Osborne's tax cuts playing well in the marginals, and the newspapers showing a favourable disposition to the Conservatives for the first time in about 15 years, calling an election now would be madness for Brown.

A tentative prediction! Alastair Darling is to complete a spending review, within that inheritance tax will be cut and a policy on non-doms (non domicile earners) will be announced. The review will look at reducing public spending and so reducing tax, this will take the wind out of Conservative's sails and then Brown will call an election. Odds on for May 2008.

This may prove utterly wrong and Sunday will see Brown call an election, if he does it is highly risky and will give him three-four weeks to get himself back up the polls. The only reason he might is if he foresees an economic collapse; if that is imminent then he may well want to lose a snap election, let Cameron and Osborne take the credibility hit, and see what happens. But Brown is a man who seems to have had his eye on the job of PM for a long time, it is doubtful he will give it up easily.

Wanted: Pristine Politics

Jamaican politics, and election in particular, have witnessed a significant amount of problems. Corruption is said to be rife and the democratic process questionable. The Jamaica Gleaner, reflecting on the history, has put a call out to the parties and candidates to follow certain standards for the 2007 election, expected to be called on Sunday; those standards include:

• We are, of course, reasonably assured that the outcome of the voting will, by and large, reflect the people's choice. We have a democracy that functions relatively decently. But a process that is relatively decent is not good enough for us. We want it to be pristine. After all, elections are not blood sport. Rather, they are processes by which people exercise their franchise to choose a group of people in whom they can repose their trust to manage the affairs of the country for a particular period.
• Political leaders have a responsibility not only to make statements but to act in accord with these declared values. Put another way, we expect any candidate from any party who breaches the codes presumed by democratic competitiveness to be exposed, severely censured and even ditched by their leaders.
• Second, we expect the remainder of the campaign to be substantially about ideas and specific programmes, rather than vapid and trite declarations or feel-good fun sessions.
• That those who offer themselves as candidates begin to speak with clarity and outline specifics, rather than offering platitudes and promises that are undeliverable. In other words, we hope for a process that is honest and truthful, with declarations of specific goals, with timetables for achievements and actions to be taken in the event of failure.

Reading these ideals makes me wonder why such standards are not demanded more broadly, can we say that, in the UK, the USA or across the EU, Australasia, or any democracy for that matter, such standards are met? It is hard to say yes isn't it? Is the fact that we cannot say yes, these are central to our understanding of an election campaign, the reason that many disengage from campaigns, show a disinterest in electoral politics, or mistrust those who claim to represent us. There's a thought for the weekend!

When elections matter too much

I have heard many stories of rivalry at elections. Outside polling booths it is common for party workers to take names of voters so they can cross them off their lists of people to 'knock-up' later, it also helps them gauge how many of their voters have turned out; well they will pinch each other's chairs, they have on occasions got into fights and been removed by the police. Yes, in Britain there still are reasons to fight over electoral politics.

The Filipino elections, however, take this to a more disturbing level. Militias are active in the campaign, voting papers are snatched and fighting between rival factions have lead to a number of deaths. Polling day (14th May) was described as 'relatively peaceful' despite a number of deaths and woundings; while it would be nice to think that the level of political involvement in the UK would be high enough for people to fight for democracy, perhaps it is better to have signs of apathetic contentment! Democracy cannot operate in a state of fear.