Perceptions of leadership

An interesting report from the Institute of Leadership and Management on perceptions of the major political leaders in the UK, business leaders (Richard Branson, Karren Brady and Rupert Murdoch) as well as three other major national leaders (Barack Obama, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy). The report highlights the problems all parties face in winning over public opinion during the forthcoming General Election.

The main finding relates to their Leadership Quotient (shown above), on which Gordon Brown is bottom (Branson top) but none of his two rivals come out of this well it has to be said. Cameron is highest on 5.66 (out of 10); in a context of Branson scoring over 8/10. Clegg is in a close second with Brown lagging behind. But when looking at the qualities behind these, Cameron scores badly for integrity; Clegg for leadership abilities; Cameron does very well for communication and engagement and, while Brown scores worst for having vision, no party leader is perceived to be clearly possessing vision.

The representativeness of the sample is dubious, or at least in terms of representing the UK electorate, as 21.1% would vote for other parties which suggests they are unusual compared to the mass electorate or are not UK voters. When looking at voting behaviour however, Cameron is not winning over all the disaffected Labour voters, the split is even between him and Clegg. The overall reports concludes that Brown should work on communication and engagement; Cameron on demonstrating ability and integrity; Clegg meanwhile needs to also demonstrate ability to lead. "Gordon Brown in particular has a real challenge. While he has a core of strong supporters who rate him highly, the problem is the low opinion of the majority. Many of these people have moved away from Labour and have deep reservations about his vision, his communication skills and his ability to engage them, and build commitment."

While none of this is in any way earth shattering, it is interesting that these judgements match much media commentary regarding the leaders and generally reflect doubts already voiced widely. What it really seems to show is how close the contest is and perhaps what little overall differences there are between the leaders as overall packages. None has the support awarded to Branson, or indeed Barack Obama who has second place but is deemed as being better at communication and having the highest integrity. Perhaps the challenge for both leaders is to erase those last minute doubts that many voters may experience - do they trust either Brown or Cameron fully, and who do they trust most?

Just who is being bullied here?

It has become a fair question, is it Gordon Brown who is being bullied by a hostile media; Christine Pratt of the National Bullying Helpline - just to maintain balance and perhaps due to the whiff of blood the pack now have; the Conservatives who some allege to be behind Pratt sticking her head above the parapet? Its all really a bit bizarre.

At any point anyone in a position of power can be accused of bullying, people management is a skill which some have and some don't. What the atmosphere is really like inside No. 10 Downing Street is not fully discussed. It is either very tranquil and calm and the leader is benign, or everyone appears to be in constant fear that Gordon Brown will explode in a rage - my suspicion is there is a lot of the former and a little of the latter but that certain events get exaggerated to make a good story. Whether some staff have or do feel aggrieved is something that should firstly be handled internally and not used for political capital at the end of the day; there are after all procedures that any organisation would expect its employees and employers to follow.

What has become rather odd is that some fairly vague allegations supplied by Andrew Ranwnsley and published in yesterdays Observer have become a huge story; tales of Brown's temper are old news and I remember Andrew Marr asking who is Gordon Brown about 4-5 years ago in a BBC special - the opening music was 'Monster' by The Automatic. Brown denied one thing, ever hitting anyone. Mandelson denied a little more than that. Then Christine Pratt waded in to tell the world that her helpline has received calls from employees of No. 10.

Whatever the political argument this is a breach of confidence and as much has been said several times. Why she did this is open to question and the finger has pointed at the Conservative party as engineering this as part of a personalised dirty tricks campaign. Not out of the question and sadly a part of politics - McBride et al are part of a long tradition here. The damage to the NBH organisation and perhaps the Conservatives if links are proven could be serious, especially if there is no evidence that Pratt's claims are truthful. It has certainly brought NBH into the spotlight and a posts here and here have been circulated arguing "if you call the National Bullying Helpline for help, because you believe you’re being bullied at work, and you follow their advice, they might tell your employer that you are the bully, call your grievance vexatious, and leave you in a worse position than when you started". Of course the opposition parties are calling for an enquiry while Labour deny all allegations. The whole affair seems a huge mess to be honest and I tend to agree with Mandelson's comments (which I rarely say) he suggests ""I assumed that this was a storm in a teacup manufactured by somebody who wanted to get some good headlines for his book... It now looks like more of a political operation that's under way, directed at the prime minister personally." I would not personally accuse Andrew Rawnsley, but it does seem rather a convenient series of events and the idea of Pratt talking because she felt that the government was in denial is a rather odd line of argument.

Politics is perhaps becoming too personal and this is a symptom of this. Brown as a figure polarises public opinion. Cameron is not exactly more popular but not as unpopular. But neither should be seen as an endorsement. Attacks seem to be more and more personal, particularly against Brown, and from a wide range or sources. Within the hypermedia age anyone can say anything and it become a piece of political/election communication. Perhaps this is Christine Pratt's role, it was a personal move for political reasons, any more would be an accusation and even this is conjecture. But there is a big why question and it relates full circle to where I started with this ramble. Who is being bullied here? Brown is constantly under fire for being himself, one wonders how much sympathy such attacks earn him and reinforce images of the 'nasty' opposition. It may not matter who did what, to whom, or why; it is public perceptions that matter and it may be that these attacks actually help Brown far more than the range of oppositional forces think as they continue these attacks.

Why I love UGC

The real bonus with Web 2.0 is that it easily facilitates ordinary web users to create their own content and contribute to campaigns. This was forwarded to me by one of my students, no name! I guess they lean away from the Conservatives!

After a little investigation I found a lot of different posters, all of a similar vein though perhaps less blunt, floating around on Twitter. The site where these originate is very simple and allows anyone to generate the words to fit around the now famous, possibly airbrushed, picture of Cameron. It is a creation of Andy Barefoot who supports neither Labour or Conservatives, maybe a Liberal Democrat (??) and his site has a few more sophisticated versions. But the power of these is that all those online activists can create them, circulate them, some may go viral, a lot of people have a laugh but, in political terms, it may have an impact on overall perceptions of David Cameron. This may not be based on the message itself, though they may be reminders of negatives linked to Cameron's history or persona, the above links to the Labour 'Dave the Chameleon' video and his background in public relations as negatives. But such offhand allusions to a negative message that makes this powerful; impact is based mainly on the fact that people we know (our friends on Facebook, Bebo and social networks or those we follow on Tumblr and Twitter or email contacts) do not like Cameron and oppose him as prime minister. I wait to see the same done to Labour and Gordon Brown, or is deemed too easy a target?

Is Brown really Britain's worst dressed man?

GQ magazine have published their best/worst dressed man list, something which is usually of little interest to someone like me (probably as I would fall into the latter category - before anyone else says it!). It is unclear exactly who all the panel of experts that determine the rankings are but they include fashion designers/gurus/experts. Interestingly Gordon Brown has come out as worst dressed, though he is in interesting company with Boris Johnson, Russell Brand and Peter Stringfellow, and only narrowly beats French President Nicolas Sarkozy into second place. David Cameron, in stark contrast, is eighth and the write up talks of him being Britain's next prime minister - which does make one wonder if the review is politically biased in some way.

The bigger question is though, is Brown really that badly dressed. How could this be given he must have a wealth of staff to advise him on presentation (though admittedly they have had little impact in a number of areas thus far). Is there a lingering perception of him as someone bad presented and badly dressed that overrides our reading of each individual appearance? Is there a bias against him regardless? It is interesting that he emerges bottom, especially when the story on the BBC news site is accompanied by a picture of him looking quite smart - or is that just me? The question is, is it just Gordon who never quite looks right, or does he actually dress badly?

We Have More To Offer

Is the translation of 'wir haben mehr zur bieten' the caption of an ad by the Christian Democrats in the current German election campaign.

While there are various readings and interpretations of the phrase itself, juxtaposed with the picture of party leader Angela Merkel and her colleague Vera Lengsfeld suddenly there are other readings and interpretations that may or may not be intended (though it is hard to imagine the pictures are chosen in a random way). Looking at the ad one wonders exactly what it was that the producers, and indeed Merkel herself, wanted to convey and if this is the sort of image and brand connotations Merkel and the CDU want or not. Interesting definitely!

Gordon Brown in his comfort zone

This is fascinating, there are some inaccuracies in the text here and there but what I find incredible about this is that here is a completely different side to Gordon Brown. His amusing anecdotes work, he has ideas, why is it then this character does not emerge in Westminster

I think it is comfort zones. Here he is in one. He is expressing ideas to an audience that want to hear and are not waiting to trip him up. He can be passionate here, whereas Westminster is too locked within party politics. An amazing difference. Perhaps demonstrates that some, like Tony Blair and David Cameron have not just the charisma but the mental skills that allow them to acclimatise to the pressures that face party leaders. Brown is a passionate but cerebral politician, he perhaps lacks those skills and so does not appeal to the audience that want simple cues about the character of a leader in the current fragmented media age. Just my thoughts!

Caption Competition

Sorry if you were expecting a picture to add comments to (well you can if you like!) or a prize (which you wont get) but looking at Boris Johnson's Twitter feed and amid his comments on where he is going or what he is doing (there is also public information in his own inimical style: i.e. "World Hepatitis Day today. 1 in 12 people are infected with Hep B or C. Shocking stuff. Get tested chums) but also he forwards links to Twitpics (you can make your own jokes about that) such as the one left. Looking at it I wondered exactly why he was sharing this. OK, there is is at the Tower of London with two beefeaters; but surely this is more like a holiday snap than a picture that indicates a hard working Mayor. On the whole the pictures feature Boris with the great and the good; but it is not just about image and presentation. Boris's pseudo celebrity status means he has quite a following and so gets a lot of comments; few are negative and most are in a very informal style as if one friend is talking to another. The above elicited the below comments.

Several tell him to get his hands out of his pockets, Rosina Carley calls him a 'scran bag' (whatever that is), 'empatt' a gorgeous scamp; it is very jokey and showing affection rather than opprobrium. And my point? Well the informality of him and his followers gives an impression of accessibility and openness. His very deliberate style of informality allows him to get away with a lot and this may be a good model to adopt for political leaders. Rather than the overtly third party approach of No. 10 Downing Street which has now morphed into the USEGOV newsfeed, this seems to be Boris. So could this be a good way of managing your public image?

Why perception matters

Unsurprisingly polls indicate an landslide away from Labour next Thursday, they now lag behind even UKIP. More interesting is, according to the Times' analysis of the Populous poll is that, on the expenses scandal "Asked which of the leaders had been most damaged, 62 per cent said Mr Brown, 5 per cent Mr Cameron, 1 per cent Nick Clegg, and 25 per cent said they had been equally damaged". This does seem surprising given the fact that the worst excesses seem to have been perpetrated by the so-called Tory grandees with their servants quarters, duck islands and moats; but perhaps it isn't! David Cameron saw an opportunity here and grasped it. Not only can he complete the modernisation of the Conservatives but he also was quick to condemn and investigate those worst implicated while calling for reform. He has also openly called for new candidates to stand to clean up politics in a move more in line with the Jury Team's call than what would be expected of a mainstream party. Gordon Brown seems to have been reluctant to sack anyone of note and also to condemn anyone. Maybe he knows it would be hypocrisy, maybe he cannot afford to lose anyone or maybe he just doesn't know what to do. Given he was already unpopular and seen as indecisive and out of touch this could have been his moment to seize the initiative; he failed again. Thus, when looking at who is most tarnished, the guy doing and saying nothing and seeming to hope it goes away, who already has a bad reputation, is going to be in the worst position. The public are probably ready to believe anything negative about Gordon Brown's leadership style; and he seems to be playing to the stereotype some sections of the media and his political opponents have built around him.

Making David Cameron

The Conservatives are quick out of the blocks in producing an election video and they have, largely, taken a positive tone presenting David Cameron as in-touch with the people, an honest, straight-talker who engages an audience. Using clips of him on trains travelling the country and from the Cameron Direct events answering questions from ordinary people, it presents an image of him and also tells a story. The ordinary people arrive as floating voters and leave pro-Conservative.

Not sure if all the comments, and there are only eight so far, are from real people or party activists (and it is a fair point to ask if there is a difference) but if this is a typical response of an ordinary voter it presses the right buttons. MultipleTom writes "I like the authenticity of this election broadcast, particularly the real people talking about their real views with no regard to party line. it contrasts well against Brown's broadcast which is just him talking into a camera about how wonderful he is". Of course it is construction of reality that fits the narrative desired by the producers of the video, each person is carefully selected, so is each question and answer session to fit the overall narrative - it is well crafted authenticity. To me it is well done, very much borrowing from Obama in offering a the personal (or is that interpersonal) touch rather than the party based, top-down attack.

Keep Smiling

You know how the media were saying Brown looked too dour, serious, out-of-touch, one of his media advisers must have told him to smile more. I have seen facial analysis done, and often the person being analysed can be very surprised to find how they look and what perceptions an audience may have based on their facial and body movement - I always dread a student telling me what they think of my 'performance' during lectures. Brown, I think, must have been told to move his face and body more and to smile. So here he is smiling.

Now, does he look authentic? Err No! Is he smiling at the right times, well he is smiling when he makes positive statements such as "screening those in contact with those diagnosed as having swine flu"; but is this really something to smile about? Err No! The major point is also this is not Brown's key problem. It is the range of problems that have beset him and his government starting with the election that never was, his backtracking, his tendency to procrastinate and talk about logic rather than emotion, it is basically his personality that is the issue. These things may actually make him a good leader, he weighs things up, he does not work with gut reactions but it can also be painted as him being uncertain and inconsistent. So message to the advisor - tell Gordon to STOP SMILING unless he actually feels he has something to smile about and it is a natural smile. Fake smiles are just too obvious and look just plain wrong - or is it just me?

Seeking Trust

Finally there is to be an overhaul of MP's funding, perhaps the move is too late, and some may say too little (either in stringency or generosity) but the allowances are going to be converted into a flat rate. The announcement was not to the press gallery, and was not leaked prior to announcement, but was released in video format to be embedded on news sites etc (it is below), so why this new way of releasing an announcement?



Well here is my take. The video can be embedded, as said, it is short and easy to watch or listen to (1.28 minutes) and so the message can be delivered directly to the news audience by Brown without commentary. Also the whole thing could be shown on news bulletins, though this is unlikely after the first release which was broadcast on BBC24 etc. But also it is about trust. In theory, and perhaps the credibility Brown has is the question that may mediate this, a direct announcement is trusted. A politician looking sincerely into the camera, saying the things that many wanted to hear after the succession of near-scandals, places the speaker as someone in touch and to be trusted. Perhaps it is also timely given Brown's slump in the polls and his loss of credibility in running the economy; though this perhaps assumes too much strategy and quick thinking. It could be the start of a series of broadcasts, from any or all parties, first released to the media and then posted to YouTube maybe. Basically it is the ongoing party political broadcast, though without the introduction suggesting it is time to put the kettle on. Will it work is the big question?

When party divisions go too far

How much inter-party hatred must there exist for this to happen. Alex Salmond, the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament, asked that the Assembly express condolences and then suspend the days business as a mark of respect for the deaths of the 16 workers and crew of the helicopter which crashed into the North Sea yesterday. Lord George Foulkes, Labour peer and backbench MSP for the Lothians responded accusing Salmond of acting like a “quasi-head of State” hinting it was an attempt at suppressing the work of an Assembly whose role is to "hold the government to account" as today should have been First Minister's Questions (their PMQs). Foulkes argues Salmond is "trying to use this for political purposes".

So clearly there is little trust between the parties, particularly among Labour MSPs for Salmond it would appear. However, it all seems rather bizarre, something of an indictment of the Assembly and its members, and rather devalues the work of the Assembly. I am unsure exactly what is behind all of this, do share the details if you know, but is this really the right issue to use as a party political point by either side?

Is the facade crumbling?

While no single event or mistake heralds a shift in emphasis or indicates decline but something is astray with Obama's communication after taking office. He makes gaffes, jokes about special Olympics, seems at times at sea during press conferences (see his response to the BBC's Nick Robinson yesterday) - it was not what he said it was the way he looked and spoke, maybe it was jetlag or maybe he is better at the scripted event. And then there is the presidential twitter feed, what do these mean. Are there links that are supposed to be there but have been forgotten? 'The Cost of Inaction' well we can guess but not too sure, 'Another Leg in the Stool', I think the only response to that is WTF unless i missed something. Now either it has been hacked into, and if so why has no-one noticed? Or someone is operating it that has no idea what they are doing. What ever the case it strikes me, as an objective observer, that Obama is not quite as good as a President as he was as a candidate and perhaps it is the fact that he doesn't have the same quality communication advisors and strategists around him. It was one thing to propel a candidate to the White House but, it seems, it is different to adapt that style to one of a president.

Gaining Views or Collecting Data

The Labour Party, and interestingly it is the party rather than the government or 10 Downing Street are inviting anyone "tell us what you want to say to the G20 world leaders before the summit and we’ll make sure we pass on as many of your comments as possible". The site asks for a question in no more than 200 words (though they state the optimum is 140 characters) and an email address, and this is the one bit that draws suspicion, they warn that "The Labour Party and its elected representatives may contact you using the data you supply". So clearly it is a device to collect emails and can be used for promotion, which is essentially a core rule of campaigning so understandable, and any contact from visitors may suggest wanting to start a conversation anyway. But the question is how many of the questions actually will be answered. You are able to view the questions, but there is nothing to say if these questions will be posed, how, or how any feedback will be given to those asking the question. An interesting idea though and gives the impression of listening to the 'market', however as with many of these things it requires some follow up to make people feel their views matter.

Just as an afterthought, whoever designed the picture did not think it through too well. Obama looks straight at the visitor smiling, this conveys the image of honesty and openness as well as him as a likeable person. Brown is staring into the distance looking serious but also slightly aloof (my impression) but it does kind of set them as being very different when Brown may well want a little of Obama's charisma to rub off on him. Perhaps it is intentional and serious Brown is felt to be the better image to convey but I wonder if the juxtapositioning of the two contrasting images is wise.

Bad PR

It is quite common for MPs across all parties, across every decade, and independent of the economic situation to talk of public restraint in pay demands but be perceived to be not following suit. While I have some sympathy with the comment made by Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party, Dame Angela Rumbold, in reply to an OAP's letter concerning MPs' £9,000 pay increase 'I am really rather fed up with people who complain about a rather modest increase. ... If pensioners were working 90 hours a week, as I am, maybe there would be more sympathy for your case', the way she said it did little for her case. This is equally the case with the fact that two Councillors in Poole, Dorset have been disciplined for voting against an increase of up to 67% in expenses for some councillors. The councillors, who may well be fighting an election soon perhaps won themselves more votes when one of those, Carol Deas (pictured), is quoted as saying “I’ve been thrown out for representing the residents.” but the image of the Conservative party does not look great if this goes unanswered and there is no more to it than simply that two councillors decided it was not a good move to increase their expenses in a time of economic crisis and when they represent wards full of elderly and less well-off individuals struggling to pay their council tax. They seem to have public support, their ward's resident's association minutes that "The Southern Poole Chairmens’ Group had issued a unanimous protest since these Councillors were respected for their support for Residents’ concerns". If politics is all about perception then this does the party no favours while enhancing the independent status of the councillors in question.

Insights into the political mindset!

There has been a lot made of the 'tirade' or 'F-word rant' launched against Keith Vaz by Boris Johnson after he was criticised in a BBC interview and thought he would be recalled to give more evidence. The issue at hand was whether Boris Johnson had divulged information to David Cameron about Damian Green's arrest that Cameron would not have been party to but the Mayor of London would (following all that, if not its all in the media). The conversation demonstrates a series of fears held by Boris Johnson, that anything he does could become a huge party political issue and, as a corrollary of that, will damage the standing of the Conservatives. Thus there are these wonderful comments about Johnson's decision to turn up to committee and what might be suggested if did not. While a private conversation now it is public it is very revealing about how Johnson and perhaps the Conservative party as a whole worry about any negative press as they stick the boot into Brown: such is the nature of a competitive democracy!

In terms of perceptions Boris does not come across well, the transcript shows signs of petulance while Vaz remains very calm and indeed fair given the circumstnaces; whether it will cause any real ripples for hte party or Johnson is unlikely but it is a fascinating exchange.

Full text of the conversation is below:

BJ: Have seen the broadcast regarding the letter I sent to you following Tuesday's evidence session. I'm unbelievably disappointed in the way my evidence is being treated.
I said to you that I could not remember the exact details at the time. Clarified the facts as soon as I was made aware/reminded of what happened. So fucking angry that you have gone on TV saying that I will be recalled to HASC (the Committee) to give further.
KV: I don't know what broadcast you have seen.
BJ: On the BBC. You are using the HASC for party political purposes. I used to think that you were a straight guy. A man that you could do business with. This is fucking ridiculous.
KV: I never said that I would recall you in the Committee.
BJ: You have gone on television and connived to try and give the impression that I fucking tipped off David Cameron. You are trying to make me look like a fucking fool. I cannot believe that you have allowed the HASC to become a part of this. This is such fucking bullshit.
KV: You turned up to the evidence session on Tuesday with no diary or notes.
BJ: I fucking warned you beforehand that I would not be very good on details.
KV: I have circulated your letter to every member of the Committee.
The only thing missing from the letter is the exact time of the call. Why didn't you just include the time of the call?
BJ: You have abused the Committee and I will not let this rest.
KV: This is a matter for all members of the Committee, I didn't want to call you to give evidence, other members did, including Conservative members, I want to conclude the inquiry next Tuesday. I do not want to recall you, I want this inquiry to be concluded next Tuesday.
BJ: I have been asked endlessly about phone conversation with Paul Stephenson but calls with Cameron were completely fucking irrelevant. Why did you have to go to the BBC? I was under the impression that you would come back to me first.
KV: You went to the Evening Standard on Tuesday immediately after the evidence session and said that you spoke to David Cameron at 1.10pm. I said when we walked out of the room that we should go and deal with the press, but you said no because they were only sketch writers.

BJ: You have behaved in an unbelievably naked partisan way. Labour Party? Fucking smear tactics from the Labour Party.
KV: How can you even say that when in PMQs today David Cameron used something that I said against the Labour Government. No one will believe you that I am being partisan. You have written to me using the word "lunchtime" as an explanation. Give us a time and that is the end of it. I have no intention of re-calling you. You came in unprepared and treated the Committee as a joke, you were extremely discourteous and the Committee members were not impressed. You are not the subject of the inquiry, this has to go before the Committee, all they will ask for is the time. We just need the time. This is not in my hands, this is in the hands of the whole Committee. BJ: It was about 1.15pm
KV: Well, why didn't you just say that in the letter? Where were you anyway? What was it about Ladbroke Grove station?
BJ: I was at a congestion charge event at about lunchtime, travelling back.
KV: You came into the evidence session very unprepared and treated the Committee very rudely. Showed no respect to the Committee.
BJ: Did not treat the Committee rudely.
KV: You stormed out before the end!
BJ: I stayed for at least 30 minutes when I was told I would only be needed for 20 minutes. I waited for 15 minutes. I answered all of the questions and just because I cannot remember one thing. This is shit.
KV: I gave you the option of not coming due to being busy sorting out London. You took this to mean a party political strategy when it wasn't.
BJ: Well, I didn't want it to be a fucking smear on Transport for London.
KV: The letter sent is defective. We only need the time of the call and this should have been said in the letter.
BJ: Will an approximate time do? Between 1pm and 1.30pm or 1.15pm and 1.30pm.
KV: Yes, that will be fine. It is Members of the Committee who want you to be recalled, including Conservative members. They also want to call David Cameron to give evidence. I do not want to do that. I want the matter to be closed. The matter will be closed if we have the time.
I want to find out about Damian Green. I'm one of few who wanted this investigation and you weren't taking it seriously. You have only become a subject because he gave such bad evidence.
I do not want to recall you, I want to finish on Tuesday. But you should have treated the session with more respect.
BJ: You have made a mountain out of a molehill.
KV: I gave you the way out. You didn't even have to turn up on Tuesday; it could have been delayed until next week.
BJ: I didn't want to do that as I thought a big thing would be made about the London transport system not working.
KV: Did you tell Cameron?
BJ: The key point that is not getting across - I didn't give any fucking information to Cameron.
KV: So you didn't tell him.
BJ: Nothing he didn't already know

Playing in the snow with Carol Vorderman

I quite like this idea, I am sure this is a case of how can we rescue the launch of a policy initiative when snowed in but I still quite like it. In fact it probably works better than the original.

What we should have seen is David Cameron, Michael Gove and Carol Vorderman launching an initiative to inspire children to be better at mathematics. The venue would have been Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham College in Lewisham (a heavily over-subscribed academy with a strong reputation whose alumni include newsreader Fiona Bruce, musicians and lyricists Joe Strummer and Steve Harley and the Wright-Phillips - not exactly a school where the children are likely to fail at maths perhaps). But instead, due to snow the school was closed and so Cameron and Vorderman went to throw snowballs at one another while at the same time delivering the message that schools needed to do better. But, and for a party this is important, what is most interesting. The tour of the school, with celebrity in tow or not, or the more playful snowball fight that many may be interested in watching that culminates in a bit of party branding and a political message. In an age when people may be bored with party politics and fail to engage with messages of substance, this may have been a far better way to reach the widest audience. It has the branding, the celebrity endorsement and a pull factor; Hatchams College may have been a bit dry in comparison.

And its about style

Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's The Daily Show does an amusing critique of Obama's persona during press conferences compared to those of his soon to be predecessor.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

President Goofus and President Gallant - Peer Pressers

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

What is remarkable is the difference, the respect paid to journalists, the honesty and transparent style - in particular saying it would be disingenuous to suggest there would be no political appointments to ambassadorships. It suggests a different style of presidency consistent with his change and man of the people brand. It also suggests a more controlled and measured President. Bush appears to spend a significant amount of time thinking on his feet and getting it wrong. Obama also shows he is thinking on his feet, he may face criticism for appearing to pause and think, but this may also show he is considering not just what the answer is but how to phrase it. It is a style which will be important, he will face the media a lot and the way he faces the tough questions will be increasingly important. As Stewart says there are some areas where he needs to up his game but he also needs to keep that humility.

Images of the future

Ok, so its been a while, and it feels longer, but to be honest real politics has been a little boring. It is hard to see innovation without following Obama, and UK politics has descended into a tit for tat battle over who would run the country better. Sometimes interesting but I wonder how much this permanent (propaganda-style) campaigning actually turns voters off. However, and better late than never, I found a great article in the Independent on how an general election campaign may look if one is called in 2009 [as an aside Gordon Brown said on the Andrew Marr Show this morning that his first priority was the economy and an election could not be further from his mind, but he still refused to rule a contest out in 2009]. Anyway back to the story, basically they approached six advertising agencies and asked them what key messages may be prioritised. They chose, and I reproduce the best visual - the new 'Wiggy', (originally done to William Hague) but interestingly it is all negative. The Conservatives would criticise Labour for economic mismanagement, the image of Brown and Darling as Laurel and hardy I could see appearing, while all Labour can really do is undermine the image of the Conservatives as having changed.

My hope is that this image does not translate into reality. While it would be fun to see amusing images of party leaders and notables doctored is a campaign the place and should the Conservatives only attack. The agencies seem to think so, possibly because they cannot think of a positive message synonymous with Cameron's Conservatives, possibly because they see that as the easiest way to win an election. But could this strategy backfire? One of the key observations about the US Election was that McCain was overwhelmingly negative and personal in his attacks, Obama meanwhile compared his 'newness' with the 'system' while slowly become more policy heavy. The Conservatives need to show they offer a change for the better and not just that the current government are (for the want of a better word) crap. Public opinion may not agree that all the economic problems are the fault of Brown and Darling, equally they will not trust a party that simply attacks. The big challenge is what message can Brown offer that will be believed. It seems few (or at least not those floating voters that may decide an election) believe Labour have delivered improvements to the country. Hence we find just one suggestion, the updated Wiggy, the biggest communication challenge for Brown is find a positive message that has resonance with the non-aligned voter!

A bit strong, or striking the right chord?

Politicians are often quite measured in their language, particularly criticisms of opponents. However, the battle between Cameron and Brown is one that seems to be not simply political but also personal; or at least that seems to be the perception both leaders (Cameron in particular) want to offer. While it would appear that getting everyone, including single parents, back to work would work well with Conservative voters, it is Cameron that has emerged as the chief opponent to the plan. And interestingly he is defending the family in his attack on the 'macho... sick' Brown. Well that is the way much of the media report his quote, but in saying that "I think this is all some kind of macho positioning exercise, in which case I think it is pretty sick", in further questioning the thinking by saying "``I don't know whether James Purnell is just trying to be tough or if he genuinely thinks it is OK to force mothers of young children to go to work. Either way, I think this is a shameful proposal." and concluding his comments on the subject with a overall criticism that "These, I believe, are all signs of a Government that has been in power for too long", he is setting out his stall as against anything the government has to offer. This could be dangerous if they have to adopt government policy if they do win the next election, equally it could strike the wrong note among party loyalists; however the strategy is to be anything but Labour and make criticisms link with observations about being out of touch and 'in government for too long'. The time for a change (for the better) may well be the key message for the next election campaign, and Cameron is positioning himself as diametrically opposed to anything Brown's team can offer.