A new type of campaign

David Cameron has launched a new recruitment campaign, mainly using the online tools of Youtube and a Conservatives.tv video exclusely on Facebook. The campaign is about people getting involved in the Conservative party to ensure there is a change in politics: hence the title 'You can get it if your really want' which has a soundtrack of course provided by the late Jimmy Cliff.

The use of social media is an interesting one, Facebook seems to be the fashionable network at the moment, it was even mentioned in Gordon Brown's speech to Labour's Spring Conference. But it may also tie in with Cameron's ongoing theme of 'power to the people' that have seen Stand Up Speak Out have success. But there is a danger, could this offer very hihg expectations of the Conservatives offering a responsive, voter-led, style of government? Why is this dangerous, the question is whether it is possible? As with Blair in 1994-7 the language was about listening and being in-touch, but the pressures of office soon hindered that being put into practice (if there was ever a commitment to this) and so public disappointment; is Cameron following the same path?

$ = Votes

Interesting that many feel that the safest way to assess the standings of hopefuls in the US nomination battle is by the money they amass. Hence one article argues the Obama is making significant progress because he has 'opened 250,000 wallets gaining 339,000 donations'. The article informs readers that: "So far this quarter, Obama aides say $20 million would thrill them, the Edwards' camp says its shooting for $9 million, and Clinton aides say she will be in the $27 million range"; will this correlate with the result one wonders. To put the figures into perspective "Howard Dean built a reputation for unprecedented grass-roots support when 70,000 people contributed about $10.5 million in the first two quarters of 2003". Is this an indication that people want a candidate to have the best campaign money can buy, or that in modern America you not only have to vote for your preferred candidate but also buy them. One wonders what happens when the sponsors feel let down by their candidate if elected, and how they communicate this; maybe Facebook or MySpace in the future will see messages that read "I donated $XXXX, but I don't agree with YYYY, but because of that $XXXX you have to listen I do what I say" and how many "any me's" will there be.

On a less serious note see the 'Race for the White House' board game; only in America?

Mmmm, choices, choices

Newbury's question the council candidates continues to thrive, yesterdays question was from Julian Waghorn, a 61-year-old retired financial analyst, and asked “What is your policy on council tax? Will you keep it tagged to inflation or below? And how do we know you will stick to your promise"; so what were the diverse answers?

Emma Webster (Conservative) “Our pledge is to keep council tax at or below inflation and our track record of delivery over the last two years demonstrates our commitment to this pledge.”

Denise Gaines (Liberal Democrats) “We are going to keep it at or below inflation for the four years. We are promising to do it and we keep our promises."

Grahame Murphy (Labour) “We would try to give best value for money, but not make any promises about reducing it"

Spot the difference? Me neither! Given that Newbury is currently a close contest between the Conservatives representing 27 wards and the Liberal Democrats representing 24, where is the choice here? If council tax is the the key issue for a voter like Mr Waghorn, and gaining a choice over the future cost of living in Newbury is a motivating factor for voting, what is the point? What happened to the Liberal Democrat council tax reform, was it edited out or has it been scrapped? Why is this down to a simple, far too similar, set of answers; but if we offer incentives more might vote - I remain sceptical on this evidence!

I am sad (well sort of) that I will be in Prague and not enjoying the excitement that is results night, though apparently results night could be elongated and a drawn out event due to the various new methods of voting and the long process of counting and verifying postal votes. Wouldn't it be great if there was a record turnout, a nation-wide excitement about the result, but it will not happen - why is that? Next post on Monday, when we know the result, how will all the gimmicks to improve turnout have worked? Well I find it interesting!