Alpha Dogs: How Political Spin became a Global Business – BOOK REVIEW

In Alpha Dogs James Harding, Times Editor and former Washington correspondent for the Financial Times, charts the birth and evolution of the political consultant business in the US. Focusing on the partnership between cinema verite film-maker David Sawyer and Ad man Scott Miller, the brains behind the ‘Have a Coke and a smile’ campaign, Harding explains how these two idealists moved into becoming political consultants, started their own agency SMG and exported their model across emergent democracies. The model at the heart of their consultancy was very simple, and one that any modern day consultant would recognise, get inside the heads of the consumer, craft the message, go negative, pre-empt events, tell your story and sell it out. It was this toolkit that was tried and tested getting Kevin White re-elected as mayor of Boston in 1979 and then adapted through numerous unsuccessful (yet very lucrative) forays into South America to be refined in order that they could stage manage the overthrow of the Marcos regime in the Philippines supporting the 1986 campaign of Cory Aquino and two years later unseating General Pinochet in Chile. While the SMG team of consultants could at this stage be arguably on the side of God (or Good) and not Mammon, this was to change over the next decade. Their public failures in Peru and the increasing profit that could be earned from Junk bond sellers, tobacco companies saw SMG shift to a more corporate client portfolio. Miller left, Sawyer was ousted and the consultants spread far and wide across the political spectrum of America and beyond. SMG evolved to become Weber Shandwick, a major force in the public relations industry with a solely corporate focus.

While Harding appears sympathetic to the main characters of Sawyer and Miller, as well as many of the other characters that emerge as key or bit-part players in the SMG story this contrasts to his evaluation of the SMG legacy. While they may have talked of ‘electronic democracy’ of television making key players of the people and putting politics into peoples’ front rooms and not hidden in smoke filled board rooms, Harding contrasts this with the techniques used in order to oil this new democracy. Quoting the words of many consultants a story is built of the evolution in political communication ushered in by SMG. Joe McGinnis is quoted talking of ‘style becoming substance’ and that “The medium is the massage and the masseur gets the votes” (p. 80); for SMG selling a candidate was really about manufacturing an illusion and voters bought these illusions. Overall Harding’s assessment is “a decline in the national conversation, a less meaningful politics, a politics of soundbites and slurs, personalities not policies, image and a lack of imagination” (p. 224). Perhaps this assessment is one that Harding would extend to much of the public relations industry, given the critical tone taken when charting the shift to caring for Mammon and extending the SMG model into the corporate world.

As with many accounts of journalists, this is highly readable and accessible while also being extensively researched combining data from 200 interviews with many of the participants with academic works, SMG strategy documents and contemporary media accounts. It is therefore very important for understanding how the evolution of the political communication industry, how it became professionalised and what consultants would define as being professional. Ultimately, tools aside, winning appears to be everything. Whether it is regimes with dubious records for human rights or not, the well-meaning but inexperienced leader or the politico, the consultant can create the compelling narrative of either the self-less moral candidate or the hard-working professional politician and sell them as a brand. The belief is that the consumer democracy is sovereign, so the tools do not matter, consumers can make up their own minds. Yet when one considers the use of data in order to shape campaigns, the cognitive psychology which underpins message creation and the use of negative attacks one does wonder the extent to which consumers really are sovereign or are just manipulated and confused. Harding brings this contrast out well and hence this represents an important account of the industry and its impact upon the conduct of electioneering and political campaigning globally. He questions this impact, hope is hinted at residing in digital democracy but it is also noted that this is now the terrain of the consultant. The masseurs are now found building territory in social spaces online, Harding perhaps will find that the modern day SMGs will adapt that original toolkit and continue to find ways of manipulating electorates while still covering their techniques with a democratic veneer. They have created a political marketplace, for both personalities and their skills, but is this actually a democratic marketplace? Harding suggests it is not and it is hard to disagree.

Election 2010: party expenditure accounts released

The Electoral Commission has released full details of the party and candidate expenditure from the 2010 UK General Election. There is a lot of detail but there are two key headlines. Firstly is the overall party expenditure compared to one another. As the first graph shows, the Conservative party spent twice the amount as Labour, £16 to £8 million, the Liberal Democrats spend was just over £4 million. When one considers the outcome, it seems Labour got a better bang for bucks; or of course the actual spend has no impact in terms of votes. The disparity between spend and outcome though is quite stark. Of course the Ashcroft funded target seat campaign may explain this, that the money was channeled into specific areas as opposed to a largely national spend but one must wonder about return on investment.

In terms of wise spending, the Conservatives spent an inordinate amount on advertising while Labour focused on direct mail (unsolicited material to electors). That is the one clear difference in terms of communication strategy.

Looking at the overall figures for how spend was used (above graph) we get a degree of an idea of how parties campaign. Spend on direct mail is virtually equal across the major parties suggesting this is the key route used to reach voters. How effective this is is questionable, much direct mail goes straight into the bin, but with targeting and personalisation there is now a finely-honed direct mail strategy. Advertising is high spend and the Conservatives clearly led, with hoardings most heavily used and often carrying negative messages. Interestingly market research is central to each party's campaign, so informing the direct mail strategy, you can even see a bit of green showing the Green Party were equally serious about targeting. What does it all say about the professionalised, or strategy led, election. Awareness using advertising aside, it seems it is the direct route with communication targeted as well as possible that is the prefered mode of communication. Directly to voters, using a range of persuasion tools, yet under the media radar. The online media could be a supplementary means for delivering such messages, especially email, but they lacked the databases, one wonders if this will remain a a feature for the next contest?

Graphs taken from EC website

Foot in Mouth Disease

While busy slaving over marking exam papers, often containing rather strange arguments and phrasing, but it seems the strained logic students display (in the context of time constraints and minds going blank under pressure) is nothing compared to the words of the professional communicators we supposedly have in parliament. Exiting Conservative MP Anthony Steen displayed a bizarre arrogance beign interviewed on World at One, causing Tory bloggers tripping over themselves to distance themselves and William Hague to look deeply embarrased on tonight's Question Time. Gordon Brown declared that he would lose the next election in what he probably thought was a witty retort at yesterday's Question Time; that is the tip of the iceberg of his strange endorsements and condemnations of Hazel Blears. The prefessionalism of politics, the spin and media management has completely unravelled, the parties are focused on trying to rescue their reputations and win points from their opponents and keep the fringe parties at bay. One wonders who is running the country right now, and if they (as a government or parliament) cannot regulate themselves and get their communication right can they really manage the nation. As I type Ben Bradshaw has been stunned by a lady in the audience at Question Time, he cannot answer the claim that Brown should go or why there is a mess; I will be surprised if anyone votes on June 4th, or if anyone votes for any of the major parties, it is the outcome though that we should worry about!

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.

Image: and how it can be interpreted

I borrow the title from an article today's Independent written by Archie Bland who chatted to me about the issues on Friday. The article argues that a bad photo, or more broadly television appearance, can make or break a campaign. Quoting PR consultant Mark Borkowski, the thesis is that "If you ever stop thinking about how you look, you can get caught out." And this is the problem with such images of William Hague in a baseball cap on an amusement park ride, the strange image of John McCain tongue out groping for his seat that has gone viral online and across the media, Miliband and that banana, John Redwood miming badly to the Welsh National Anthem well we could go on. But the key about these images is if they sit comfortably with the voters frame of reference. Basically we all possess a range of perceptions about every public figure, these are called schema. If US voters have a John McCain schema that includes old and frail then these images will build up that perception and could be reasons why they should not elect him as president (this is the point I make in the article about Hague's perceived immaturity, the picture of him as a boy stuck and reduced his credibility). However this negative may be seen as an aberration from the schema, that this is not really him and he cannot be judged by a photo capturing him when off guard, hence then the voter will reject the inference. So while Borkowski is absolutely right about the importance of image the decoding of any image is also a function of existing attitudes and perceptions. For voters in the US, and particularly those floating voters in the swing states do perceive McCain as "a frail old geezer staring fiercely at the backside of the man striding confidently away from him, making a last, desperate play for the vote of the lizards" then the picture will compound that image if not it will be ignored and filed as rather nasty media hype of an off guard aberration by a man who has the qualities to be a President. So the key lesson is not just don't look stupid (though that helps) but don't look stupid in a way that plays to existing prejudices

A lack of strategy

In the current age of professionalised political communication, what is expected to be central to communication is strategic thinking at the macro level. Is Downing Street and Gordon Brown's problem a lack of strategy resulting from the high and quick turnover at the highest level in his short time as prime minister. PR Week today highlights that there are four key vacancies at No 10: Communications Advisor; Chief Press Officer; Head of the Strategic Communications Unit; and Chief Speechwriter. Now one can say these are peripheral roles and what is important is political decision making and not communication strategy. However, if there is no-one considering how to communicate policy, or possibly even to pick up flaws in the decisions that impact on communication (how can we sell the unsellable), then it may explain the strategic failures that seem endemic in policy announcements. With a conference in days and a general election in eighteen months this could a the critical failure in strategic thinking!

Do parties need leaders?

The Green Party has thus far survived while eschewing the whole idea of having a leader, instead they had principle speakers, the whole of whom it is to promote party policy on a national stage (cynics may say just like any member of a party's front bench). Currently their principle speakers are Caroline Lucas MEP and political economist Dr David Wall, both gain significant media coverage and, in many ways, act as leaders if only appearing as focal points. However underpinning the notion of principle speakers was the notion that there was no one leader but it was a movement and the speakers spoke on behalf of that movement; in themselves they did not decide policy, nor were they seeking any form of self aggrandisement.

On her campaign website Carline Lucas argues that "The election of a leadership team offers us new and exciting opportunities to take the radical message of Green politics into the mainstream". Fair enough, they have been mocked for not having a leader in the media; perhaps it is a sign of them evolving into a political party as opposed to a movement; having a leader is professional, it shows organisation. But is it really necessary? Are they better of with the principle of speakers standing on the shoulders of a movement they represent? I guess it raises the question of the role of the leader, are they the navigator, the rudder, or simple the representative. Tradition tells us the leader is the navigator the plots the political course of the party, in the words of US President Harry Truman "A leader is a man [person] who has the ability to get other people to do what they don't want to do and like it"; this certainly is the role assumed by Blair and Cameron, the successful reforming party leaders of recent years, but is the Green Party ready to be led? The man who Lucas supports to be her deputy, and who in turn supports her for leader, Adrian Ramsay, thinks the party do want a 'leader' and it is Lucas' "extraordinary abilities and expertise" that make her the best choice. While I agree she would make a great leader, is the the start of the shift away from a movement and towards being something the Greens are not actually comfortable with being: a professional electoral party?

It's all about the media

Reflecting on Guto Harri's appointment as Communication Advisor to new Mayor of London Boris Johnson, a former BBC journalist and PR policy advisor; It is interesting that many of the top communication advisors in politics have a background in the media. It seems the skills of the journalist the receiver are most sought, rather than in public relations, advertising, marketing or the more outward facing corporate communication. While there is a lot of cross-over between the journalism and PR particularly, it would seem that the journalist (Alastair Campbell, Bernard Ingham etc, etc) and the knowledge of how the media operates as well as the contacts, is what politicians think they need most. While Harri is an exception perhaps, I wonder if journalists are the right advisors. Journalism has a whole set of norms that politicians must work with and adapt to, but other profession's skills may be more able to advise on how to communicate to and interact with the public effectively - just a thought!

The professional campaign

Iain Dale is currently reporting from Crewe as he helps with the Conservative campaign, he notes the lack of poster-boards all over, things that used to be a staple element of a campaign (for those who have never seen them there is a picture, the only one I could find online in fact). They were once everywhere across constituencies, now they tend to be on high volume roads, but all the same it was a symbol that there was an election taking place that reminded everyone the contest was on. Now it seems it is more about media coverage, and this could be why the Conservatives are winning. David Cameron has been there three times, countless members of the Shadow Cabinet have been there, and these high profile visits lead to media coverage. Party leaders make news purposely to gain coverage, Cameron today joined forces with his candidate Edward Timpson to invite Gordon Brown to visit the constituency to discuss the concerns of the real people. This is perhaps the modern, professional campaign, getting to the greatest number of people using the best means: the local newspaper.

The attack strategy

Not sure if Brian Paddick's is a serious challenge or a case of testing the water for strategy pointers and seeing if the polls move; the latest, last ditch, attack is a couple of 'viral ads' on Youtube designed to "highlight a few of the many reasons why both Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson would be the wrong choice to be the Mayor of London". The first: "The Ken and Friends World Tour" invites you to follow an exotic trip with Ken Livingstone so that you can party with Fidal (sic yes I thought it was Fidel too) Castro in Cuba and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela"



The second entitled "Missing Idiot," shows "an Oxfordshire resident calls Private Investigator Shirley Holmes to report that their village is missing its local idiot. Can you guess who the missing idiot is?"

Both are a little bit painful to watch, purely attacking, cheaply made and well for me I'm not sure they are credible. They make a point and perhaps fit with much user-generated content on Youtube but as a political ad I wonder about their credibility or if they are fit for purpose. Neither make untrue claims or allegations, so may well reinforce negative perceptions of both but if they become popular in the next couple of days (only 1,000 views so far), given Paddick is so far behind, I can see them only leading to non-voting rather than supporting Paddick due to the size of swing required for him to have any chance of winning. Good plan, bad plan... not sure at all about these!

Penn not working with Paddick

Despite PR Week reporting Mark Penn was to advise Brian Paddick, which I repeated, I am reliably informed this is inaccurate; actually American web strategist Jerome Armstrong of the WebStrong Group are his team. And they are innovating. Using Ustream.TV, the live video webcasting site, Paddick will tonight (7.30-8.30 pm) answer questions in a live hustings. Campaign Manager Andrew Reeves said: “The live webchat will allow Brian to hold a virtual hustings with Londoners from the comfort of their own home. Using the Internet as a new way of engaging with Londoners will help Brian reach out to larger audiences and have a one-to-one dialogue with voters who would not otherwise attend political events. “Our Ustream.TV video webchat is a pioneering first in British politics and the next step in our ambitious web campaigning programme to promote Brian’s message of change and serious solutions for London.” Used widely in America, and part of a trend that utilises web technology to allow citizens to interact directly with candidates, it seems this is becoming more common. Key questions for me are: how many people will participate; will access be unregulated and if so can opponents hijack the questioning; will different people participate and engage, not just the already engaged and active? Sadly I will be on a train and unable to watch but I await the postmortem with interest. I do think that the Mayoral election is a testing ground for the next UK General Election, which wil also draw on the lessons from the US this year, if it works Ustream may get busy!

Americanisation?

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

The unprofessional professional?

Mark Penn (left) has been a trusted adviser and aide to the Clintons since the mid 1990s, it has been a sideline alongside to his proper job of running public relations company Burson-Marsteller, a global giant in the sector who has the mission statement of providing a 'gold standard' to clients. But will Penn's credibility be damaged by his performance serving Hillary Clinton? There are a number of areas of the campaign where the "Monday-morning quarterbackers" (media pundits that dissect campaigns) have found Penn at fault: his over confidence in her as the obvious winner, the reliance on the Clinton name and lack of understanding of the public mood and desire for change being the major areas. It was a conflict of interests that sealed his fate, he was negotiating a free trade agreement with Columbia that Bush is trying to drive through Congress that the Democrats and Clinton in particular oppose wholeheartedly; hence Bush's urgency. Its seems the PR man got it wrong on a number of counts; is this surprising.

Well maybe and maybe not. While Penn may have the experience of managing the communication and reputation of millions of household brands (be they consumer goods or nations) he may not fully understand public engagement with politics. We do not get bored of all brands in a product sector, maybe one brand, but not them all. We do not desire new brands to appear that offer something totally different. Importantly we also are likely to trust most high street brands. These things are different in politics and in the US in particular at the moment. The polls seem to show a boredom with the brands and what they represent, thus much is focused on the character and persona of the candidate for presidency. Second the reason for Obama's success is the desire for systemic change by a significant amount of voters; the only question they face is whether Obama is the right man to change the system. And trust, well who trusts politicians? PR does not normally face such a complex and hostile environment, also it does no normally overtly play with negative messages, and you can have as many clients at the same time as you can handle and there are rarely conflicts of interests, especially not on ideological grounds.

All this raises an interesting question are the communications, marketing and public relations professionals really equipped to work within modern political campaigning? Do they really have the skills and knowledge required and are they able to transfer and adapt their skills to suit the context of politics? A big question!

Is it not just a little childish?

It is a little surprising that when visiting her Peckham constituency, surrounded by police officers, Harriet Harman felt it necessary to wear a stab vest. In particular when in her defence she claimed she dressed in 'appropriate clothing'. William Hague did not exactly go for the jugular when making the jibe: "Presumably when you go to a cabinet meeting you dress as a clown." Neither did Harman talk about real issues in responding "If am looking for advice on what to wear or what not to wear, I think the very last person I would look to for advice is the man in a baseball cap," such it seems is the standard fare for PMQs even when it is the first time a woman has stood at the dispatch box since Thatcher. It seems that only John Humphreys on the BBC Today Programme felt willing to tackle her on the important issue that the everyday Londoner may consider: "You wear a hard hat on a building site because there are dangers there. There is the danger that something might drop on your head. You don't need to wear a bullet-proof vest on the streets of London, do you?" And that is the issue, one explored further more broadly in the media but not in parliament, it suggests the streets of Peckham are not safe to walk and this is not a good message for a cabinet member to send out when gun and knife crime are prominent in the media. What amazes me is that the professional image consultants and dressers seem unable to give good advice these days.

Deliberately Unspun or just unprofessional?

When Gordon Brown first became Prime Minister he said he would reject spin as a tactic, and some bits of his communication were questioned as to whether they gave the perception of someone to whom image does not matter. This tactic may well have worn thin now though, particularly when his own colleagues are describing his speaking style as 'flat'. With that as context consider the email sent out by Labour to start their campaign for the local elections; a campaign of which the "starting point is, and always will be, the struggles and the hopes and ambitions of hard-working families". It is accompanied by the photograph (right) of genial Gordon, or is it the Boston Strangler; chief Dawn of the Dead zombie, what does this picture say? To be fair it should be a film of him talking but if your email blocks the javascript you just get this still image; it seems no-one considered that eventuality. What does it say to you?

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!

The Media Mix Remains Key: but we may be on the cusp of the digital era

Some very interesting findings have emerged from a survey conducted by SS&K and Advertising Age of 1,997 New Hampshire voters reveals firstly that no media is dominant for voters seeking information on which to base their choice. 56% saw TV ads from the candidates, 51% watched TV debates and/or news analysis of the debates, 40% saw the candidates on talk shows or other TV appearances and 47% said they read articles or newspapers featuring a candidate. The researchers note that New Hampshire has the most involved voters who take the primaries seriously, but that there are indications that online communication is reaching a significant level of voters.

While most prominent among under 30s voters, 40% of adults visited a candidate's home page on the web (52% of under 30s), 26% of all respondents regardless of age visited a candidate's profile on a social-networking site (36% of those under 30 and 15% of those over 30), but interestingly out of those who visited a candidate's Facebook or MySpace profile significant numbers befriended them or became supporters. Obama gained 38%, Clinton 28%, McCain 41% and Romney 33%; so between 500 and 730 of those polled. If representative of the broader electorate this could explain the numbers of social network supporters. Similarly there seems to be a lot of traffic visiting the range of online presences candidates now offer (see table below).

The full details and commentary is available from Adage.com, but whatever happens it suggests that candidates and parties are increasingly likely to include social networking as much as websites and emails. While it will be as hard, if not harder, to prove any effect of social networking for a political campaign; no candidate will dare ignore it anymore than traditional media and due to it being free may well see it as a good way of focusing on the floating voter, possibly with lower interest in politics, but whose support could be crucial if mobilised.

Professional = Centralised

I commented on my annoyance about the 'clones', the Labour ministers who repeat the official lines with the appearance of being unable to think independently. But this is the professional communication model it seems. Former Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell argued today that he had tried to "professionalise" the party to make it "more up-to-date" and "more fit for 24-hour-a-day news". The ongoing problem for the party, Campbell claims, is that the party has "too many alternative power sources".

Basically Campbell argues that the media has become a news machine that needs feeding and that will throw out stories based on any "vocal public expression" that seems to offer a contrary perspective or, in the case of the LibDems, comments about the age of Campbell as leader. Parties, it appears, must control all expression in order that the media can only report on information from other sources and the party has the opportunity to close down debate.

Where Campbell seems to be wrong is that it just doesn't work. Dissent can always be found and, one would imagine, that the larger the party the more alternative voices could be found. But even when power over official communication is centralised and controlled, the speak your weight machine style of communication does not close down a story. The election that never was is a large nail in the coffin of Brown's premiership despite the 'getting on the with job' response being issued by just about everyone who has been asked. Perhaps there is a journalistic rebellion against the centralisation and they are determined to pick away at the party machine until the story unravels. Whatever the case, while it may be professional to have a party line but one wonders if it is tenable under the 24 news cycle's microscope that the tactic is designed to counter.

The Facebook Experiment

There is a David Cameron fansite on Facebook, it is bland, non-interactive and I am surprised to say that it managed 710 fans, I was also a little surprised the party, or Cameron had bothered, given their use of other websites. Actually they had not. Mike Rouse came clean admitting it was "an exercise in proving that Facebook is a place that Cameron and his office and the wider Conservative Party (and politicians of other persuasions too for that matter) could come to engage with people" and he says he has "deliberately not advertised the group or added many applications to the page, just to show that 100 people could be reached just simply by having this page". It worked, his task is now to lobby Conservative Central office to get approval.

One problem though, why do people become fans of David Cameron or any politician? Not, as in the case of Adrian Sanders who I blogged about on Sunday, to get in contact with him or to interact; none of that goes on via his fansite. So a word of caution with this, Facebook is about social networking not promotion. There is already a backlash among members against the amount of applications that are really nothing more than advertising. Politicians should join if they want to network and use the network, but not just to have a profile sat there to say 'I'm here'. If you cant throw sheep at or play scrabble with them (metaphors for various applications), they are not real members.

The happiness of the pedant

I enjoy being pedantic now and again. Not necessarily with student assignments, they are learning, but when professional communicators produce communication that is vague, can be misinterpreted or makes no sense it is a pleasure to pick the holes or read a pedantic stripping away of the sense of an official document. John Redwood provided just that in his comments on Ed Ball's 'Children's Plan'.

I was emailed by 'Ed', well it was a Labour circular asking me to comment on the document, I clicked on the link provided, it was wrong. After scouring the web for the Department of Children, Schools and Families I located a copy, I was now wondering if they really wanted to consult me on this, or anybody for that matter. I think the normal rule is make it easy if you really want feedback, if you don't make it look like you do but make it hard: now what do you think was the case?

One of Redwood's points in particular interested me however, a reference to co-location: "that new primary schools should be co-located with the “police, social care, advice and welfare services…”. When I asked him if he really thought a police station on the same site as a primary school would make the school more attractive to parents he looked puzzled as he did not seem to realise co-locating police with children at school could mean siting the police station at the school". I thought surely this was not being suggested!

There are only three references to co-location in the full report: the one closest to a definition is "staff in co-located services are more likely to talk to each other and provide joined-up support. For example, co-location of health visitors and midwives helps smooth transition between antenatal and postnatal periods"; so we are talking a one-stop shop idea where several things can be provided in a 'joined-up' way under a single roof (so lots of management speak). Chapter 7 of the report sets out Labour's ambition in more detail (ahah!!)

Well err maybe. There is the phrase "locating services under one roof in the places people visit frequently"; so schools in supermarkets perhaps? The opening part suggests joining up health care and education, so this is teaching that the wrong food, alcohol, cigarettes are bad? That's new! There is box 7.2 which is a list of vague aims and managerial buzz-words (see below) if it makes any sense or informs of the practical detail please let me know, maybe it is me being slow. The chapter then tails off talking about so many different issues that it is hard to tell what is happening and where. Now to be fair to Mr Balls it does not suggest housing schools in police stations or vice versa, but then again it is so vague it could mean just that. Once again government provides a document that is virtually meaningless in the specifics that anything could be seen as meeting the appropriate target, offers consultation but makes it difficult, and sets aspirations few can disagree with. But what does it mean?

The first law of producing communication that stimulates intelligent thought and debate is to make it comprehensible and encourage the audience to actually read/listen etc. This is none of that, given the prevalence of professional communicators in government is this the design I wonder. Is the detail wrung out of it to ensure that it offers an appearance of activity? Whatever it reads to me as meeting standards of bad communication only: any views?