Book Review: Politicking Online

The subtitle to this collection of essays, edited by Costas Panagopoulos, is 'The Transformation of Election Campaign Communications'. The book seeks to map out the ways in which the tools facilitated by online technologies are changing political communication and how campaigners are adapting to the online and digital environment. The analysis is purely focused upon U.S. politics, apart from two chapters, one covering Germany and the other Spain; which do not really offer a real comparative element but place developments in the U.S. in the context of global developments. We find offline inequalities prevail between presidential, gubernatorial and house races, with the lower in the political order a candidate is standing the less likely they are to be campaigning online. We also find that campaigning online can matter, though this is mediated by a range of variables and what comes across clearly is that online and offline must work contiguously in order to generate awareness, support and GOTV. In terms of learning how campaigning work, we learn how tools must be used in combination with one another and how the very latest tools can be used both to measure impact as well as gaining support.

The last of the essays provides some evidence of a Facebook effect, though the discussion does temper the findings putting them into a wider context. The fact that the essays look at social networking sites and new and untested shows how fast paced innovations are. Not in terms of innovations in campaigning but in the social uses of online tools which in turn drive campaigning. Despite being published in 2009 the book seems a little dated purely because of Obama, it raises the question whether academia can fully keep up with real world developments their uses within society, business or politics and their impacts. But, as with all good academic works, Panagopoulos leaves us with five lessons that both those engaged in political campaigning as practitioners or researchers should learn. Adaptation is key, he argues, within practice one has to adapt to new social communication styles and use the same tools as those with whom we wish to converse. Equally academia needs to adapt to new theories that help explain these new practices and their impacts. In practice it is key to know the limits, and this equally follows within academic study where we have to understand that new techniques cannot always replace but complement those which are tried and tested. While it seems odd for a study of U.S. campaigning to say look abroad but there are always lessons to be learned and practices to adapt to independent of how superior the developments in the U.S. are due to the resources used within campaigns. Academics also need to map across nations, not simply focusing on single nations; comparative studies offer means to truly understand the nature of evolution and revolution in terms of campaigning practices. The final two lessons suggest we should all stay alert and keep up. Minor developments can be easily overlooked, but turn into key innovations and so both practitioners and academics should look at each other's work more closely in order to understand and reflect upon what can and should be guiding the search for the communicational edge.

This book provides the grounding for these lessons and offers much thought-provoking data. While it may date quickly, as many studies of campaigning do, each essay provides a basis of understanding within one area of campaigning which we can use as basis for comparative work of both a temporal and spatial variety. Hence, this book should really be on the shelf of anyone interested in political campaigning and the impact of new technologies.

Twitter Control

I know that Hillary Clinton and John McCain are all now within Obama's team, but one would think that they would not all be saying exactly the same thing and almost exactly the same time. However it seems that the Obama machine is now in charge of all their Twitter accounts and so, if you are sad/unlucky/fortunate (delete as appropriate) to subscribe to all you end up with the feed (left). So who really thought that the live confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor needed that much publicity? More substantially, does this not suggest the stifling of the voices of those included into government because of their talent, I know it is 'only' Twitter, but it suggests a strong control mechanism over public/political communication from anyone with the Obama team. This seems to run counter to the notion of including your rivals and to the open and transparent image of the administration. or am I just a pedant?

Political Communication v.1.5

What many of us are fairly familiar with is the traditional top-down model of political communication which is carefully packaged for the media consumption by a mass audience; this is political communication v.1.0. The Internet offers new means of targeting smaller audiences with bespoke messages as well as allowing a more conversational discourse between elected and citizens; this is particularly the case with Web 2.0 applications and tools which increasingly appear as part of the professional political communicator's toolkit. We are finding that O'Reilly's architecture of participation, providing a place where people can come and contribute, is being created; perhaps giving birth to a political public sphere. But for the electoral political organisation there are other imperatives also, these include: avoiding embarrassing contributions and user generated videos, pictures and comments; controlling the message and brand communication; gaining support through perception management; and trying to become the focal point of a community online in order to build offline participatory support. This means that the democratic structure that characterises Web 2.0 is often absent, comments are moderated to ensure control, interaction is limited and politicians can remain spectators of discussions and not engaging directly with voters who come into their participator architecture. Myself and Nigel Jackson thus propose we are seeing political communication v.1.5, adapting slightly to Web 2.0 but also adapting Web 2.0 to the requirements of the electoral cycle. A thought that hopefully will be published soon, comments are welcome.

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?

Can we really spot propaganda?

There is a strong cultural significance surrounding the term propaganda. It is manipulative, it appeals to base desires, and is most associated with the ideological authoritarian regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, etc. So propaganda is a term we use to denigrate communication, to question the validity of the substance as opposed to the objectives of the communicator. Thus, from the US, mayor Jan Mill's communication is described thus by an opponent: "I felt like it was just simply political propaganda simply because it was filled with mis-statements about the truth." Apart from the wonderfully hedged phrase "mis-statements about the truth", does this miss a fundamental point?

According to one online dictionary propaganda is "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person (or) ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect." The key points here are the idea of propaganda being communication that deliberately helps or injures a cause. So it could be lies, exaggerations etc, or it could be facts.

Taking a current example, by focusing on the age of Menzies Campbell, both media editorials and members of his own and opposition parties deliberately undermined his position. The fact that he was unable to rebut those comments made the campaign successful. The fundamental idea here is that propaganda is basically communication with a purpose, that purpose being to affect the attitudes, opinions, beliefs and behaviour of receivers. So we could argue that every newspaper that offers a biased argument, every slanted piece of news that offers facts from a single perspective, every person who tries to make themselves appear better than they really are (which we all do), and every party that spins is doing propaganda? Can't we?

Iraq Triptych

Artist and sculptor Michael Sandle has produced the above to be the centre piece of the Royal Academy's Summer Exhibition. As a protest against the Iraq War, it features Tony and Cherie Blair naked on the steps of 10 Downing Street surrounded by scenes of violence. It has echoes of the children's fable 'The Emporer's New Clothes' where the leader is convinced he looks fantastic and marches out with pride in an 'invisible' cloth of gold but really all his flaws are on show to the watching crowd. A fascinating piece of political communication, using the medium of art, that says a great deal but in a very simple and accessible way.

Not with a whimper

It seemed clear Tony Blair's intention of having a long goodbye and staging his farewell was designed to leave a lasting impression, his years have been characterised by placing comunication as central to political governance; his departure reflected that. In fact his government even attempted to bury a bit of bad news as he went!


But what did he have to say? He thanked friends and family, he talked about society, but then listed the things he wanted in his political epitaph:

There is only one government since 1945 that can say all of the following: more jobs, fewer unemployed, better health and education results, lower crime and economic growth in every quarter. Only one government. This one... Look at the British economy: at ease with globalisation... No country attracts overseas investment like we do... [Values] the minimum wage. Paid holidays as a right. Amongst the best maternity pay and leave today in Europe. Equality for gay people... Or the global movement to support Africa in its struggle against poverty. Climate change, the fight against terrorism. Britain is not a follower today - Britain is a leader... comfortable in the twenty-first century. At home in its own skin, able not just to be proud of its past but also confident of its future. You know I don't think Northern Ireland would have been changed unless Britain had changed. Or the Olympics won if we were still the Britain of 1997.

So that is his record, but what of him?

In Government you have to give the answer, not an answer, the answer... Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right. I may have been wrong, that's your call. But believe one thing, if nothing else. I did what I thought was right for our country.

There you have it, a potted version, the soundbites perhaps, but a skilled piece of political communication designed to position Blair as the man who brought Britian into the 21st century and leaves a country vastly different from the one he inherited 10 years and a few days ago. Rhetoric, a fair appraisal, self-justification, passionate and personal; you decide the purpose of the speech and its style and language. Whatever, history will probably remember that, unless somethign remarkable happens in the next six weeks, that Blair bowed out with a bang and not a whimper.

The social media revolution? Campaigning online

Labour's hierarchy appear to be falling over themselves to have a social media presence. We find an 'independent' site campaigning for http://www.myspace.com/hazel4deputy while Peter Hain's http://www.myspace.com/peter_hain is openly his own. The BBC claims others such as Hilary Benn, Alan Johnson and Harriet Harman also have a profile but they appear to be hard to find. Facebook is also being utilised, but you have to register to find 'friends' and quite frankly I couldn't be bothered.

Social Media consultant Lee Odden talks of a holistic approach to marketing and that online communication should be part of a coordinated strategy. Is this the case, well perhaps. While there are a number of politicians that have successfully embraced the online environment as a form of communication, it seems that Webcameron has created a bandwagon where everyone thinking of campaigning is heading to their PCs first and trying to 'engage'. Will it work, who knows. The general argument (or criticism) is where is the pull factor? But Hazel Blears seems to be attracting a small group of supporters, could this be the beginning of a new stage in the professionalisation of political communication. That rather than being just in the local press, the national media, a serious MP needs to have a not just a website or a public email address but also a Wikipedia entry, a Facebook and Myspace profile, Podcasts on Youtube, a blog and whatever the next stage will be as well? Are we witnessing the birth of political communication via social media?

But there are problems. Are we all then to measure success through hits, friends etc. For a researcher it may make life simpler, we could produce spurious correlations between the Youtube view counter, the blogspot profile views and poll ratings (cool!), but will it prove anything? Is the next election likely to see an explosion in this, and links made between a successful online presence and success in the voting booths, or will this all implode as either users take over control of content or the views are so few it becomes an embarrassment? Questions, questions, questions!!!

R's and elbows

Education Secretary Alan Johnson delivered a long speech yesterday, the soundbite from which is:

'If we expect our teachers to instill the old three “R”s: reading, writing and
arithmetic; then we must develop a new three R’s: rules, responsibility and
respect'

Yet the speech begins rambling about the atrocities against postal workers in Northern Ireland up to 1994, the building of trade unions in Iraq and then a rather nebulous discussion of social responsibility. Had the soundbite not been published it would probably not have been found, reading it I at first thought he was trying to bury some bad news about conduct in schools after many months since the launch of RESPECT (the Blair campaign not the Galloway party). Is it any wonder that we question the professionalism of political communicators when they try to deliver several different messages all at once, when they find themselves unable to be clear and concise. Again, the basic rules of communication are smashed to smithereens!

Political Marketing - a failed idea?

Political Marketing was heralded by at least one authority as a potential solution to disengagement, instead it seems that it is a source of deepening disengagement and dissatisfaction. This, I contend, is not because the idea is flawed; but that the way marketing is used by political parties is actually not marketing but a form of marketised communication strategy.

A study of the UK parties use of marketing at the 2005 General Election noted that rhetorically Labour was most market-oriented but that on the whole the focus when creating policies was internal, it was the process of communication design that was external. This misreads marketing.

If the parties were interested in reconnecting they would not be limiting choice to the electorate, nor would voters be seeking the least worst option or looking more to the quality of local candidate than who should be Prime Minister. Parties approach corporate strategy and communication like magpies; if it looks shiny they will steal it, but anything too complex is left to the high street brands. Hence consumers have relationships with their favourite stores, yet the parties' loyal voters are becoming a feature of history.

E-MPs

In response to the Power Report, Leader of the House of Commons Jack Straw successfully passed a motion that will see MPs given an annual allowance of £10,000 to build and maintain a web presence in order to "contribute to better public understanding of what this Parliament is about and what it does". There is a logic here, e-marketing and e-communication literature suggests that the Internet has the capacity to allow relationships to be established between sender and receiver and for interaction to level out social inequalities. Studies of party e-newsletters confirm that this is possible for political communication, and the potential of blogs is lauded; yet currently this potential is untapped. The parliamentary debate centred on the question of the main function, how could it be about promoting understanding while rejecting campaigning: this left some fundamental questions seemingly unanswered.

1. Are MPs websites really the way to encourage understanding of parliament?
2. Will they have the interactive elements that makes the Internet a tool for relationship building?
3. Is there evidence based on visitor surveys to the COI site that there is a demand for interaction with political institutions?
4. What would be the 'pull' factor to encourage visitors onto these sites?
5. In an age of impression management and permanent campaigning, how do we define what is or is not campaigning?

The lack of answers means that this 10,000 x 659 MPs could be a gross waste of money. Particularly given that each MP, or at least those in the marginal seats, will create their own website anyway in order to campaign online. Given this, are Power's concerns really going to be solved by the emphasis on e-political communication, more importantly is trust and disengagement a problem with the media or the sender and their message?

The personal touch

I revisited some of the research I did around the last General Election (see article or book), one clear finding related to recall of leaflets received and why. No direct marketing strategist will be surprised by this but voters in marginal constituencies remember leaflets that talk about local issues that are of direct relevance to the receiver and appear to have the personal touch (from candidate to voter). The remembered receiving the party focused stuff but did not remember the content at all unless they thought that was a key priority for the next government. In Dorset MRSA and immigration seemed to have little or no resonance whatsoever.

So what? Well perhaps this is the problem with most political communication, it is produced for the mass media, lacks the human touch and is perceived to have no relevance to the receiver, often because they assume if it is from a politician it will be irrelevant. The problem here is that no parties or governments can afford the personalised literature that most marketers use, so the great solution appears as far away as ever!

Ming in a spin

Sir Menzies (Ming) Campbell, the elder statesmen among party leaders, yesterday laid out a variety of challenges for the next Labour leader. Interestingly the media decided to follow their own highly spurious agenda. Following an off the record briefing they were asking whether Ming's speech declared an intention to enter a coalition - was Ming also blowing a dog whistle to be heard by those who want power and are not totally anti-Labour?

A coalition may be likely, given the proximity the parties enjoy in the polls, but is Ming really setting himself up as the power broker? Or is the media just desperate for something interesting to write about the LibDems spring conference? Whatever the answer it is hard to see Gordon and Ming working together, even less likely a cabinet that may include John Reid and Lembit Opik; Margaret Beckett and Vince Cable; John Prescott and Steve Webb. But now the media have placed the idea on the agenda it will run, influencing attitudes and perhaps voting behaviour across the country. This could mean that tactical voting takes on a whole new meaning by the next UK election.

The (dog) whistle blower

Reviewing campaigning at the last UK general election, Ivor Gaber identified the use of the dog-whistle by politicians: the communication of a message designed for core supporters ears only. Gaber noted Labour's messages on benefits for 'workers' under their government while the Conservatives spoke on asylum, immigration, abortion reform and taxation. The latter seems to have been an early blast on the dog-whistle from George Osborne, summarising a long speech on the economy the Tory supporting Telegraph headlined the article with Osborne could cut 4p off tax. Given all the discussion on compassionate conservatism, public services and environmentalism is this a message to the heartlands that the old values remain?

If blogging is the answer...

Yes, you guessed it, ...what is the question. According to Captain Sensible, founder of the Blah Party, Councillor Stephen Tall, Lib-Dem blogger of the year, among others; blogging and the Internet more generally is the way that politicians can connect to their public. But is this really true?

Clearly some MPs can connect to some of the public via the web, Boris Johnson gains a lot of feedback on his blog, and Anne Widdecombe's Widdyweb seems to get a lot of hits; is this making a connection though. There are huge issues of access for many, there is also the question of involvement, or more simply how many of the public are really motivated to seek out their or any MP on the web. Yet the current culture is that every organisation or individual that seeks public attention and support (in whatever form) must be online. It is hyped as the nirvana of communication and image management, but is this true?

The real answer is that we don't yet know. Like any form of communication it works, for some individuals, among a section of the public, for certain purposes etc, etc. Measurement of effect is not impossible, but it is difficult; arguably there is potential for vote winning and connecting but it remains limited. What is surprising is that some MPs appear to have total faith in the idea of an online presence with almost religious zeal: so are the prophets? Or prats as Benjamin Wegg-Prosser was recently described? More importantly are resources being channelled into the web presence that are more effective elsewhere, this is the big question that perhaps many MPs have faced and their zealotry is partly an expression of trying to convince themselves. History, one day, will show us whether they were right or not!

The X Factor

Polls indicate that voters would prefer John Reid or indeed just someone else than Gordon Brown to be the next UK PM. While some could extrapolate from other popularity polls that David Cameron is the preferred long term choice, see the Guardian for an example, this may not be as clear cut as all that.

Dave Brown, a Lecturer in the School of Communication Studies, Auckland University of Technology, commented at yesterday's conference that voters are seeking someone with the 'X Factor', a person with all the characteristics that we are looking for to solve the problems we as a nation are facing. This is probably someone we trust to handle the issues of importance but the connection would be as emotional and perceptual as it would be based upon their ability to present a coherent programme. Brown commented that the US may have that person in Barack Obama, he observes there is no such candidate in the UK.

I was initially dismissive, but perhaps Dave Brown has a point. Our politicians do not inspire us. Familiarity does not engender understanding or liking but contempt, and longevity leads to ennui. This presents all the parties with a problem, their top tier have been around quite a while yet fail to really connect with the voter's ideal party leaders - is there a solution?

Twas the season!

I tried several times over the holiday period to post, however some problem with the interface between my home pc and blogger.com prevented this. Hence I offer a very belated merry christmas and a slightly less belated happy new year to anyone who reads this!

Christmas is a time for the political leaders to disappear off on holiday, according to one BBC reporter Blair spent his in a pop star's gin palace. Hence there is little political communication going on. Well there is, the civil servants and political advisers are running around doing their thing, yet it may not be quite as newsworthy as when the celebrity politicians are there. Equally few scandals emerge during the season of goodwill to all men, well not since Back to Basics anyway!

But there is one annual event that can sometimes be big news, or can slip under the radar, the designing of the party leader's Christmas cards. Arguably we all send Christmas cards that say a little about ourselves; hence I go for humour more often than not. But I am sure we all either think, or hear others say, "I'm not buying that, it looks cheap, what will people think of me". Of course, in the age of party and leader branding, the humble Christmas card now says so much more than is considered by the average man or woman in the street. So what do our leader's cards say?

The Blairs have gone traditional, having previously in 2003 been accused of exploiting the family image, it is the simply the happy couple, on the stairs of Downing Street, with his predecessors looking out from their photographs at him. The trappings of power, the images synonymous with the UK prime minister are all there. Slightly understated, but there. The only perhaps unusual aspect is that the picture is straight on. Normally leaders will be looking slightly down from their image, this though is not the Blair way. He likes to be the straight talker, the regular guy; hence he is not looking downwards but straight forwards at the proud recipient. This, his last Christmas card, says honest statesman regardless of public opinion.

The rivals for his post, at the next election anyway, however have gone for the less statesman like, but are also surprisingly similar. Did they get advice from the same card designer, or image consultant, or are all image consultants alike? Gordon Brown's appears as one of those Christmas cards we can all get, usually in one of those wonderful variety packs, that you wonder who to send it to. Personally I find it most appropriate for teacher friends - just to remind them of what they face after the holiday. The image of the tree, surrounded by representations of children of the world is perhaps reinforcing the notion of him as a caring family man, not the dour Scot the media labelled him way back in 1997. Also perhaps this links to his agenda on world poverty, but the message is far less clear here and far more open to interpretation.

Whether there was an image consultant in the background or not, Cameron's card was designed by a 7 year old Scarlett Sadler, a pupil at Woodstock Primary School within his constituency. The image is simple, the traditional child's view of Christmas. But behind this it says a lot about the sender. Firstly the local printing and production saves money, the green agenda writ large. But alongside this it conveys his image as the family man, the lover of tradition, children, community. It defies any analyst to describe it as cynical branding, perhaps a very smart move in this era of mistrust driven by spin.

Are these cards important, possibly is the answer! They usher in a new era of British politics. These are the men who will contest the next election, these are the images they are beginning to establish within the voter's consciousness; the cards are part of that regardless of what else is said. What then of the political brands when the next election is called. Can we expect a more caring, touchy-feely politics, a more responsive style of government? Probably not! The contest will remain the same, as will the imperatives of government; Cameron is stealing the clothes of Blair as he was in 1997, young, honest, not this opponent! Brown is responding.

The next election will be like any other, however image is going to be all important for both contenders, these cards suggest they may well be trying to enter the same territory. But can Brown cut it as anything but a serious guy, the manager of economic stability? Should he try? Will anyone buy it? We wait to find out when Blair finally leaves Downing Street, when the image consultants get to work on the new PM, when the election is called, and when we see the results of polls and voting who had the image that people responded most to.

Symbolism, Rhetoric and Newness

New Labour, as a phrase, descriptor, perhaps even ideology, was largely a rhetorical device. Its purpose was made clear by Philip Gould in The Unfinished Revolution, the expose of how Labour was modernised into an election winning machine, it was created to delineate the Blair led party from that of his predecessors. It was a re-branding exercise, a marketing gimmick perhaps; fundamentally it was an outward representation of the fact that the party's policies were to be a fusion of the vague Third Way ideas emerging within the global socialist movement and the neo-liberalism established by Thatcher and Reagan during the 1980s. As such therefore New Labour in itself meant very little, only that it created another rhetorical device: 'Old Labour'.

But now we are told that New Labour has had its day, it is moribund, it will crawl up the curtain and join the choir invisible on the day that Blair leaves No10 for the last time. These are the ideas advocated by Welsh First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, the man Blair never wanted to be in that position and who, like Ken Livingstone, found himself facing all manner of tactics designed to hinder his election. Though reasonably quiet in his dissent it appears he now wishes to comment on Labour's future at this seemingly important juncture.

Interestingly he appears to invoke rhetoric familiar to many from beer adverts; that New Labour "reached parts that other Labour programmes and projects and political leaders have not been able to reach". He also likens it to the Venus di Milo "you have to gawp with admiration at its quality and brilliance, but it is indisputably incomplete and beginning to show more than a few signs of its age"; harsh words indeed. He also calls for a 21st Century socialism, though without offering too much detail on what this means. So what is this all about?

The answer is: nothing! Though deemed newsworthy it appears as nothing more than rhetoric on rhetoric about rhetoric. The purpose of New Labour as a phrase was achieved, it was probably moribund by June 1997. Its symbolic value is more in other rhetoric that has become attached to the phrase: 'best when at our boldest', 'New Britain', those phrases that demonstrate being of the modern and not of the traditional or out-dated or conservative. Therefore as an idea 'newness' remains at large, perhaps the point Morgan should make is that Brown can no longer aspire to this given that after 10 years New Labour is no longer new and neither is he.

But does the rhetorical and symbolic aspects of New Labour remain, I argue that they do. Not in the Labour Party, not in this vague idea of 21st Century socialism that is almost beyond definition; no the symbolism that thrust Blair into office in 1997 is alive and well and being exploited by Cameron's Conservative Party. They may not be calling themselves the 'New Conservatives' but they attempt to invoke that new image coupled with not representing themselves as the party not in power so an alternative to the Labour that people seem to be becoming tired of.

Rhetorically, the symbolic associations of new have long escaped from No10, slowly ebbed away by the familiarity that is unavoidable when in government. The clothes of New Labour are being borrowed and adapted to suit a new government in waiting, a new round of rhetoric begins as the Conservatives re-brand themselves in all ways but in name. Hence the fuzzy tree perhaps, though what this says rhetorically or symbolically is more than a little hard to grasp.

How to bury bad news

George W Bush had a really bad day, in fact he admitted himself that he and the Republican Party had received a 'thumping' from US voters. But in his own unique way he brushed this aside. The smile, the impression of innocence remained, though the swagger was described by one journalist as not that of the heroic cowboy who had tamed the wild steed.

But the sense of defeat, and accompanying narratives that should have pervaded the media were cut short. There was more important news on the way. The media's agenda of the weeks preceding the UD mid-terms was going to be fed the ultimate feast: Rumsfeld was to be sacrificed. This has been called for by the pentagon, the armed forces and the voters for months; with the campaign becoming more vociferous as the election neared, so why as the results were being counted did Bush decide a 'new direction' was needed in Iraq? Did he experience a eureka moment, realise that others knew better, or was there a more cunning reason for this announcement?

Anyone who has heard of Karl Rove, and his role as advisor / spin-doctor / media manager extraordinaire behind the Bush presidency should not be surprised by Bush's announcement. While Bush being forced to sack Rumsfeld could be seen as a climb down this is not how it was painted. Perhaps if Rumsfeld had been sacrificed in an attempt to save the election result the coverage would have been worse; but this joint decision is not viewed as a U-turn.

What Bush appears to have achieved is to deflect the coverage from his 'thumping' to the resignation of his Defence Chief - Karl Rove strikes again! Hence we can read this as a fantastic example of managing the news, burying bad news with the story the media wanted; and it seems to have worked. In fact the consensus appears to be that this is the right decision by Bush, could he regain his credibility? Is this the first step? With Rove's guidance who knows how history will remember the man they call Dubya.

How unprofessional is that?

The last Labour MP to resign was Brian Sedgemore, he 'crossed the Rubicon' to support the Libdems at the height of the 2005 General Election. No great loss perhaps thought Blair, but the timing was unpeccable in order to gain maximum media coverage. That, we hear, is the professional way to communicate; that all communication must be aimed at gaining attention. This is as true in this political era as it was previously, though the tools may have changed a little.

And so we turn to the reason for posting: Clare Short, a confirmed anti-Blair maverick, has gone independent. Why? And more important, why now? There are countless moments when this gesture could have not only had an impact but been seen as a principled move. She opposed war against Iraq, but retained ministerial trappings until her credibility had been dashed. Then she stepped down from the front bench and the media said - So What? Tonight she earned fourth place on the BBC news and few will see this as anything but another less than credible act. It was intended to be an anti-Blair statement, but the timing is highly questionable. Had she resigned in a years time, in opposition to Brown's contination of Blair's political trajectory maybe it would have been newsworthy; but as a comment on the legacy of Blair it is ineffectual.

So here is the conundrum - Why resign? Was there a last straw? Was it just a case of things came to a head in her mind? Should she consider the media's demands or how they may comment on her departure? The media think she should, as these questions were all posed in a way to make her look like one of those famous 'flip-flops', just unable to make up her mind or to make the right decision.

So was it a meaningful move or not? Was it another, perhaps the last, maverick act of a career maverick? Does the move make her unprofessional in her timing? How should history judge Clare Short's stance over the last three years - opportunist or devout Labourite hanging on hoping for a leftward swing?