This blog is all about communications and politics. And much of the time it is about how they combine. All the parties in Britain have experienced difficulties, at different times, in speaking to voters in a way that wasn't political but ordinary. Why is this important? Well because voters are people and they don't think or feel like voters. Yet, during a political campaign that is exactly how the parties see them.
Words like liberty, social justice, decentralisation, just don't reasonate in the ways that the parties think they do. For a good while, Labour were at the top of their game communicating to the electorate. Now the Conservatives have taken pole position and the Liberal Democrats are focusing on political language.
Charlotte Gore, in her new blog Do What You're told: Don't Vote Lib Dem has produced a poster for the Lib Dems.
Being yourself is priceless says so much so simply.
If you are a liberal you can talk about the individual controlling their life, making their own decisions but there is no emotion here only intellectual concepts. Nothing wrong with that. You need the intellectual concepts to tell you what you are about and to help devise your policy. But then you need to tell the voters, sorry the people, and that is when you need to engage emotionally.
Gore's poster does just that. It is about individualism but it is emotional. It implies that the party will do everything it can to make sure you can be yourself. The picture she uses is good too: warm, positive and hopeful. I would say liberating but that is a political word.
All political communicators, all communcators in fact, should take note.
Saturday, 31 May 2008
smokin'
A few months the idea was put about that cigarettes would be sold under the counter. At the time, I assumed this was a story given to the media to direct their attention away from another story. Sadly, I can't remember what it was. It was quite a big story and appeared quite damaging to the Government. Since there have been quite a few of them recently, you can understand why I am having trouble remembering which one it was.
It turns out that this is a serious proposal. Not only are there plans to put cigarettes under the counter, the Government is also thinking of legislating on the text and design of the packs. Iain Dale makes some interesting points about the whole thing.
As far as I know, the research done in this area says that when governments tell people they shouldn't do something because it is bad, there is very little change in behaviour. The recent Government campaign to help people quit smoking has been far more successful because it offers something concrete to people who do want to stop sticking a cigarette in their mouth.
Those who enjoy the pleasure of nicotine will continue to puff away regardless of the images that are shown to them. This is not a political point, it's a communications one.
Again as far as I know, banning something or making it illegal doesn't stop people from doing it. There is enough empirical evidence from the years of prohibition in America to tell us that. Of course, the proposals aren't about banning packs of ciagarettes. They are about making it harder for people to buy them.
So regardless of the rights or wrongs of what the Government is suggesting, if banning doesn't work and telling people something is bad for you doesn't work then it is quite safe to assume that making something trickier to buy will have mininum effect.
The Government says that this is all about stopping children from smoking. I really don't want to be sarcastic but as we all know when you tell a teenager they can't have something because it is bad for them, they always say 'oh okay, thanks for that, I won't be more interested in it because adults say I shouldn't and because they are hiding it from me.'
Time to declare an interest. I have never smoked in my life so this will not inconvenience me.
It turns out that this is a serious proposal. Not only are there plans to put cigarettes under the counter, the Government is also thinking of legislating on the text and design of the packs. Iain Dale makes some interesting points about the whole thing.
As far as I know, the research done in this area says that when governments tell people they shouldn't do something because it is bad, there is very little change in behaviour. The recent Government campaign to help people quit smoking has been far more successful because it offers something concrete to people who do want to stop sticking a cigarette in their mouth.
Those who enjoy the pleasure of nicotine will continue to puff away regardless of the images that are shown to them. This is not a political point, it's a communications one.
Again as far as I know, banning something or making it illegal doesn't stop people from doing it. There is enough empirical evidence from the years of prohibition in America to tell us that. Of course, the proposals aren't about banning packs of ciagarettes. They are about making it harder for people to buy them.
So regardless of the rights or wrongs of what the Government is suggesting, if banning doesn't work and telling people something is bad for you doesn't work then it is quite safe to assume that making something trickier to buy will have mininum effect.
The Government says that this is all about stopping children from smoking. I really don't want to be sarcastic but as we all know when you tell a teenager they can't have something because it is bad for them, they always say 'oh okay, thanks for that, I won't be more interested in it because adults say I shouldn't and because they are hiding it from me.'
Time to declare an interest. I have never smoked in my life so this will not inconvenience me.
Who would you shop?
By chance, there are two stories in the news this weekend that throw up remarkably similar themes. In Britain a mother has gone to the Police about her sons. They beat up a stranger, if you hadn't seen the story, and would have got away with it if it wasn't for their mother. And in America, Scott McClellan has published a damning book about his time working for George W. Bush.
Some are accusing McClellan of doing it for the money. The US Politico blog has managed to get hold of the ex press spokesperson's pitch for the book. The post discusses how different the pitch is to what was eventually published.
But regardless of whether he did it for money, both episodes throw up questions about loyalty and values.
Both Carol Saldinack and Scott McCellan faced the same dilemma: do we betray the people we are closest to? As Saldinack has not taken any fees for the media interviews, one can presumably rule out any financial gain on her part. We can only conclude she felt she had to do the right thing because there was an ethical imperative to do so. One might be inclined to be more sceptical with McCellan, since we know he has benefited, but most commentators seem to think he also acted out of a sense of duty - a duty to things he believed in.
There is also something going on about culpability. I was going to say mea culpa but George Orwell advised against using Latin when writing journalistic prose.
McCellan was responsible for feeding the Washington press corp stories that he now says were distortions. From watching him being interviewed on CNN last night, it seemed as though he was truly pained by what he had done during his time working for the President and pained by going public now.
We are very quick to say that our society is somehow rotten, that there are no values anymore. Perhaps we should think again.
Some are accusing McClellan of doing it for the money. The US Politico blog has managed to get hold of the ex press spokesperson's pitch for the book. The post discusses how different the pitch is to what was eventually published.
But regardless of whether he did it for money, both episodes throw up questions about loyalty and values.
Both Carol Saldinack and Scott McCellan faced the same dilemma: do we betray the people we are closest to? As Saldinack has not taken any fees for the media interviews, one can presumably rule out any financial gain on her part. We can only conclude she felt she had to do the right thing because there was an ethical imperative to do so. One might be inclined to be more sceptical with McCellan, since we know he has benefited, but most commentators seem to think he also acted out of a sense of duty - a duty to things he believed in.
There is also something going on about culpability. I was going to say mea culpa but George Orwell advised against using Latin when writing journalistic prose.
McCellan was responsible for feeding the Washington press corp stories that he now says were distortions. From watching him being interviewed on CNN last night, it seemed as though he was truly pained by what he had done during his time working for the President and pained by going public now.
We are very quick to say that our society is somehow rotten, that there are no values anymore. Perhaps we should think again.
Monday, 26 May 2008
A snap election in late June
Lately, a lot of people have been giving Gordon Brown advice. I doubt he is a regular reader of my blog but I ask myself, why should that stop me from making some suggestions?
The advice has ranged from resigning now to working out some clear themes. Today in Open House, Chris Schuler suggests Brown should go for a general election in the autumn of 2009 at the very latest. I have always thought Brown would go for a sping 2009 election, whatever the conventional wisdon said about the economy or the polls. But now, if I were his adviser, I would say call a snap election right now.
With a drubbing in the local elections and a very bad result in a by-election, this might appear madness.
The economy is going through a rocky time, whether it is Brown's fault or not, and Brown has earned a reputation as someone who delays. My guess is the electorate aren't punishing Labour for the economy per se but are worried that someone who dithers cannot be trusted to make the right decisions during an economic storm. The 10p rate must have reinforced the view that the Government is out of sync with people's experience. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of all that, it is the perception that matters.
Brown needs to turn that all around. So here is a narrative that would take the opposition parties and his own MPs by surprise.
He realises people have concerns. He explains that he has thought long and hard about how people see him and how he has been doing the job. He recognises that the public wanted a chance to endorse or reject him as Prime Minister. He did consider whether he should do that last autumn and decided there was no need. Now he sees the need. He wants to set out his stall to the voters. Times will be rough in the next year or so and he wants to make sure the electorate back his vision of Britain. I'll leave it to Brown and the Labour party to say what that vision is.
Suddenly, Brown becomes decisive, brave and winds his opponents. Cameron still has some work to do to establish his party as the next Government.
It is a high risk strategy. When Edward Heath went to the country and asked 'who governs Britain', the electorate said not you.
But it might just return Brown to No. 10.
The advice has ranged from resigning now to working out some clear themes. Today in Open House, Chris Schuler suggests Brown should go for a general election in the autumn of 2009 at the very latest. I have always thought Brown would go for a sping 2009 election, whatever the conventional wisdon said about the economy or the polls. But now, if I were his adviser, I would say call a snap election right now.
With a drubbing in the local elections and a very bad result in a by-election, this might appear madness.
The economy is going through a rocky time, whether it is Brown's fault or not, and Brown has earned a reputation as someone who delays. My guess is the electorate aren't punishing Labour for the economy per se but are worried that someone who dithers cannot be trusted to make the right decisions during an economic storm. The 10p rate must have reinforced the view that the Government is out of sync with people's experience. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of all that, it is the perception that matters.
Brown needs to turn that all around. So here is a narrative that would take the opposition parties and his own MPs by surprise.
He realises people have concerns. He explains that he has thought long and hard about how people see him and how he has been doing the job. He recognises that the public wanted a chance to endorse or reject him as Prime Minister. He did consider whether he should do that last autumn and decided there was no need. Now he sees the need. He wants to set out his stall to the voters. Times will be rough in the next year or so and he wants to make sure the electorate back his vision of Britain. I'll leave it to Brown and the Labour party to say what that vision is.
Suddenly, Brown becomes decisive, brave and winds his opponents. Cameron still has some work to do to establish his party as the next Government.
It is a high risk strategy. When Edward Heath went to the country and asked 'who governs Britain', the electorate said not you.
But it might just return Brown to No. 10.
Sunday, 25 May 2008
The American Presidential race
Conventional wisdom has it that the slugfest of Obama and Clinton is allowing McCain to storm ahead in the polls and consolidate his position amongst the American electorate. This piece from the International Herald Tribune says maybe that isn't quite happening.
And if you want some light relief, then try the Clintonian Rhapsody.
And if you want some light relief, then try the Clintonian Rhapsody.
The art of communication
The art of non-verbal comedy has all but died out these days. The great classics of the last thirty years have all been dialogue heavy. There's nothing wrong with that. And occassionally in episodes of Seinfeld or Curb your Enthusiasm there are moments that hark back to vaudeville and the silent era.
I stumbled across this Sid Ceasar clip on Funny or Die. It shows how much can be expressed without words. I found it very funny but then I have been a fan of Ceasar for a long time. Along with Lucille Ball and Phil Silvers he helped define American TV comedy. His Show of Shows had an amazing group of writers: Carl Reiner, Mel Brooks, Neil Simon, Danny Simon and Woody Allen.
I stumbled across this Sid Ceasar clip on Funny or Die. It shows how much can be expressed without words. I found it very funny but then I have been a fan of Ceasar for a long time. Along with Lucille Ball and Phil Silvers he helped define American TV comedy. His Show of Shows had an amazing group of writers: Carl Reiner, Mel Brooks, Neil Simon, Danny Simon and Woody Allen.
Friday, 23 May 2008
Nudge
Nudge is a book that looks at how government can help people make better decisions without taking all control away from them. It is discussed on the art of the possible blog.
The art of the possible is a very interesting project and worth a look. The site brings "together liberal and libertarian writers who agree on certain politically and morally enlightened essentials. Their discussions here serve to delineate the reasons why basic human rights must always be defended. Their disagreements, by contrast, will illustrate why forming new alliances is hard, and perhaps serve as a reminder as to why new alliances are so rare."
I have now added them as a link.
The art of the possible is a very interesting project and worth a look. The site brings "together liberal and libertarian writers who agree on certain politically and morally enlightened essentials. Their discussions here serve to delineate the reasons why basic human rights must always be defended. Their disagreements, by contrast, will illustrate why forming new alliances is hard, and perhaps serve as a reminder as to why new alliances are so rare."
I have now added them as a link.
StoryBoard - everyone's got a story
I have recently discovered StoryBoard. The site is run by Robin Reed and Eric Winick. I met Eric in Edinburgh when he was directing a play at the Festival a good few years ago. So, I must declare an interest. We are friends and I have always admired his directing work and the plays he has written.
During those years, Eric has become more and more interested in storytelling. StoryBoard is the result. The site has a range of stories told by people about incidents in their lives. It is a glorious celebration of the mundane, profound, romantic and quirky. Each recording is professionally produced with excellent use of music.
The wonderful thing about the web, and the technology that comes with it, is that it allows this sort of thing. The site deserves many listeners.
I have enjoyed all the ones I have heard so far. If I had to choose one that really worked for me it would be Faux Joe: it has the hope of love, the excitement of youth and a wry humour.
During those years, Eric has become more and more interested in storytelling. StoryBoard is the result. The site has a range of stories told by people about incidents in their lives. It is a glorious celebration of the mundane, profound, romantic and quirky. Each recording is professionally produced with excellent use of music.
The wonderful thing about the web, and the technology that comes with it, is that it allows this sort of thing. The site deserves many listeners.
I have enjoyed all the ones I have heard so far. If I had to choose one that really worked for me it would be Faux Joe: it has the hope of love, the excitement of youth and a wry humour.
Wednesday, 21 May 2008
The myth of Donald Draper
In the penultimate episode of the first season of Mad Men, we discover the truth about Donald Draper. We already knew he was a creation, a myth, and now we know how it came about. We are not quite sure why: no doubt that is to come.
As the show reveals a fraction of truth it also shows us Kennedy winning the US Presidential election. Kennedy also created a myth. Summed up by the word Camelot, Kennedy stood for something different in American politics - change, moral righteousness, youth. But the show has Draper's boss claiming that Nixon would have won if Kennedy's father hadn't bought the election in Chicago. This charge has been around for a while and I am not certain of its veracity. Presumably, it is fairly widely held or the writers wouldn't have put it in.
On one level, Mad Men is about suburbia, advertising, sex, smoking and soap opera. But there is a richer sub-text. The representation of what was going on in American political society. Perhaps it is what always goes on. The gap between reality and myth; the chasm between what one does and what one says.
In Draper all this comes together. And the show neatly lays out what is to come: 1968.
As the show reveals a fraction of truth it also shows us Kennedy winning the US Presidential election. Kennedy also created a myth. Summed up by the word Camelot, Kennedy stood for something different in American politics - change, moral righteousness, youth. But the show has Draper's boss claiming that Nixon would have won if Kennedy's father hadn't bought the election in Chicago. This charge has been around for a while and I am not certain of its veracity. Presumably, it is fairly widely held or the writers wouldn't have put it in.
On one level, Mad Men is about suburbia, advertising, sex, smoking and soap opera. But there is a richer sub-text. The representation of what was going on in American political society. Perhaps it is what always goes on. The gap between reality and myth; the chasm between what one does and what one says.
In Draper all this comes together. And the show neatly lays out what is to come: 1968.
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
The Clegg narrative in action
In a recent post, I discussed Nick Clegg's narrative. In today's Independent, he sets out his views on parliament. But his piece is wider than that and shows the narrative in action.
Sunday, 18 May 2008
Open source economics and Meetup politics
I have almost finished reading Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody. If I wasn't writing this, I would have finished it.
It's an interesting book and well worth a read if you are interested in social/ digital media, work in PR or political communication.
Shirky is very good at explaining why the sites such as MySpace and Facebook have made a difference to how people organize things and why this matters.
Two things in particular got my attention. In the latter part of the book he discusses the Meetup phenomena. If you have never used Meetup this is how it works. You go to the website and search for an interest or region. If you see something you like you can join it and meet people who want to chat about the same thing or just hang out with people who have the same taste. You can start your own group if you can't find what you want. Meetup provides the software and technology to allow this to happen. What they don't do is suggest the groups.
I could set up a group for ginger haired men is north London who like Jean Renoir films. Then I would wait to see if there were other ginger haired men who wanted to join. My guess is that this would be a very small group. After all, apart from carrying the same ginger gene why would you only want to talk to red heads about Jean Renoir? But I could set this up nevertheless and it would probably fail. Shirky stresses this point: Meetup allows people to fail. In fact, it does more than that. The way it is designed encourages people to fail so that they can find the right answer.
Organisations can't afford failure. Nor can governments. That isn't to say they don't fail. A large software company could not create Linux because the economics of open source software aren't viable. They aren't viable because failure is part of the deal when working on the project and one person might have a fantasitc idea but every other idea of theirs might be a dud. In a company you don't want to employ someone for one great idea. So you end up employing people who are consistent but don't set the worl alight.
Yet open source has happened because people made a voluntary association. People still need to make money but that doesn't mean that the principle behind this cannot be applied to economic activity. I haven't read Wikinomics but Shirky talks about examples in that book to show how these principles are being applied.
If the Government decided to set up a support network for ginger haired men in north London who liked Jean Renoir films it would fail. Not because it is the Government but because it would fail regardless. But if the Government did it, it would be blamed for failure and have to then do something for this group to show it wasn't abandoning them. And this is the problem for Governments and organisations. Actually, it is the problem for all of us. However clever you are, you only have limited knowledge and information. To try and make things happen based on that limited information will always be flawed. Better to create an enabler that supports the actions that people want to undertake and then let them fail.
After my Meetup failure, I would probably rethink and set up a group in London for people who appreciated Jean Renoir, regardless of hair colour, gender or location in the city. But I'd have had the chance to get it wrong and that would help me get it right.
Politicians from all parties talk about letting people take control of their lives. They talk about the enabling state. I doubt that digital media has all the answers. What it does is points the way to how things could work.
What is interesting is that the underlying principles of Meetup are liberal assumptions about individuals and what governments or organisations can know. And the underlying assumptions about open source activity are all about voluntary association: the key to open markets. Shirky says here comes everybody but very possibly, here comes liberalism.
It's an interesting book and well worth a read if you are interested in social/ digital media, work in PR or political communication.
Shirky is very good at explaining why the sites such as MySpace and Facebook have made a difference to how people organize things and why this matters.
Two things in particular got my attention. In the latter part of the book he discusses the Meetup phenomena. If you have never used Meetup this is how it works. You go to the website and search for an interest or region. If you see something you like you can join it and meet people who want to chat about the same thing or just hang out with people who have the same taste. You can start your own group if you can't find what you want. Meetup provides the software and technology to allow this to happen. What they don't do is suggest the groups.
I could set up a group for ginger haired men is north London who like Jean Renoir films. Then I would wait to see if there were other ginger haired men who wanted to join. My guess is that this would be a very small group. After all, apart from carrying the same ginger gene why would you only want to talk to red heads about Jean Renoir? But I could set this up nevertheless and it would probably fail. Shirky stresses this point: Meetup allows people to fail. In fact, it does more than that. The way it is designed encourages people to fail so that they can find the right answer.
Organisations can't afford failure. Nor can governments. That isn't to say they don't fail. A large software company could not create Linux because the economics of open source software aren't viable. They aren't viable because failure is part of the deal when working on the project and one person might have a fantasitc idea but every other idea of theirs might be a dud. In a company you don't want to employ someone for one great idea. So you end up employing people who are consistent but don't set the worl alight.
Yet open source has happened because people made a voluntary association. People still need to make money but that doesn't mean that the principle behind this cannot be applied to economic activity. I haven't read Wikinomics but Shirky talks about examples in that book to show how these principles are being applied.
If the Government decided to set up a support network for ginger haired men in north London who liked Jean Renoir films it would fail. Not because it is the Government but because it would fail regardless. But if the Government did it, it would be blamed for failure and have to then do something for this group to show it wasn't abandoning them. And this is the problem for Governments and organisations. Actually, it is the problem for all of us. However clever you are, you only have limited knowledge and information. To try and make things happen based on that limited information will always be flawed. Better to create an enabler that supports the actions that people want to undertake and then let them fail.
After my Meetup failure, I would probably rethink and set up a group in London for people who appreciated Jean Renoir, regardless of hair colour, gender or location in the city. But I'd have had the chance to get it wrong and that would help me get it right.
Politicians from all parties talk about letting people take control of their lives. They talk about the enabling state. I doubt that digital media has all the answers. What it does is points the way to how things could work.
What is interesting is that the underlying principles of Meetup are liberal assumptions about individuals and what governments or organisations can know. And the underlying assumptions about open source activity are all about voluntary association: the key to open markets. Shirky says here comes everybody but very possibly, here comes liberalism.
Monday, 12 May 2008
Wendy Alexander and the backdoor coup
In the last few weeks Gordon Brown has had to deal with various political storms. One has been Wendy Alexander's 'bring it on' demand. If you missed this, the leader of the Scottish Labour party suggested that Alex Salmond should call a referendum now on whether Scotland should be independent. What followed as an argument over what she actually said or meant. Was she calling Salmond's bluff, highlighting the issue or did she genuinely believe that it was best to have a referendum now so that the issue would be resolved once and for all?
What everyone missed was the Pandora's box she was opening, if in fact she was suggesting a referendum be called now. Labour believes they would win the vote and Britain would stay Britain. Salmond wasn't to hold the referendum in five years time. He believes at the point the Scots will go for it.
What if he did call it now and what if he won? The break-up of the union would take a little time to sort out but presumably Gordon Brown and all the Scottish MPs in government would have to stand down immediately. No one has suggested that Wendy Alexander was mounting a coup by the backdoor, after all she is known to be close to Brown. But how strange it would be if things worked out that way. To have to stop being Prime Minister of Britain because one of your allies called for a referendum on an issue they didn't believe in.
What everyone missed was the Pandora's box she was opening, if in fact she was suggesting a referendum be called now. Labour believes they would win the vote and Britain would stay Britain. Salmond wasn't to hold the referendum in five years time. He believes at the point the Scots will go for it.
What if he did call it now and what if he won? The break-up of the union would take a little time to sort out but presumably Gordon Brown and all the Scottish MPs in government would have to stand down immediately. No one has suggested that Wendy Alexander was mounting a coup by the backdoor, after all she is known to be close to Brown. But how strange it would be if things worked out that way. To have to stop being Prime Minister of Britain because one of your allies called for a referendum on an issue they didn't believe in.
Saturday, 10 May 2008
The Clegg narrative
Leaders of political parties have to have a narrative these days. It was probably always like that. It is just that in the past we never noticed it and no one pointed it out.
The party provides some sort of narrative: its founding principles, objectives and values. But deliberately or not, leaders also have a narrative and if they don't others step in and spin a tale around the leader's feet.
Nick Clegg has talked about broken politics and making Britain a more liberal place to live. He has also talked about the liberal tradition that runs through the country's history. Of course, there are others that compete for space: Cleggover and Nick Clegg's family background. The latter links in with the liberal tradition, the former will be forgotten.
No doubt, all British politicians and their advisers are looking across the pond to learn from the Obama narrative.
He has two interconnected plot lines: 'change' and 'yes we can'. They are nicely combined in a statement that appears on his website.
Obama doesn't talk about change because he is a Democrat. David Cameron positions himself as the candidate of change. What both men have in common is that they are in opposition. If President Obama faces re-election he will argue that it is better to stay with the candidate you know. His Republican opponent will learn a new mantra: change.
'Yes we can' is the plot line with reasonance. The Pilgrims came to America to create a better life for themselves. The Founding Fathers came together to make a better political system. America is not just about individuals, it is about individuals working together to make something better. It is the belief, the narrative of America, that 'yes we can'.
Obama's narrative is America's narrative. In fact, because of his cultural background and achievements Obama personifies the narrative.
Clegg taps into the British narrative of liberty when he talks about his family's experience of internment, of the fight for liberty and the need to restore a liberal Britain. Only time will tell if he can capture the imagination of the British electorate in the way Obama has enthrolled Americans.
The party provides some sort of narrative: its founding principles, objectives and values. But deliberately or not, leaders also have a narrative and if they don't others step in and spin a tale around the leader's feet.
Nick Clegg has talked about broken politics and making Britain a more liberal place to live. He has also talked about the liberal tradition that runs through the country's history. Of course, there are others that compete for space: Cleggover and Nick Clegg's family background. The latter links in with the liberal tradition, the former will be forgotten.
No doubt, all British politicians and their advisers are looking across the pond to learn from the Obama narrative.
He has two interconnected plot lines: 'change' and 'yes we can'. They are nicely combined in a statement that appears on his website.
I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington... I'm asking you to believe in yours
Obama doesn't talk about change because he is a Democrat. David Cameron positions himself as the candidate of change. What both men have in common is that they are in opposition. If President Obama faces re-election he will argue that it is better to stay with the candidate you know. His Republican opponent will learn a new mantra: change.
'Yes we can' is the plot line with reasonance. The Pilgrims came to America to create a better life for themselves. The Founding Fathers came together to make a better political system. America is not just about individuals, it is about individuals working together to make something better. It is the belief, the narrative of America, that 'yes we can'.
Obama's narrative is America's narrative. In fact, because of his cultural background and achievements Obama personifies the narrative.
Clegg taps into the British narrative of liberty when he talks about his family's experience of internment, of the fight for liberty and the need to restore a liberal Britain. Only time will tell if he can capture the imagination of the British electorate in the way Obama has enthrolled Americans.
Friday, 9 May 2008
The dilemmas of liberalism
If you are interested in liberalism and how it can be put into action, this post on the Art of the Possible is worth a read.
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
The Cameron narrative
Up until very recently, the Cameron narrative has been that it 'is now okay to vote Conservative'.
When David Cameron became leader of his party he inherited a fairly low share of the vote and a feeling that the Conservatives were the 'nasty party'. Voting blue to go green was one part of Cameron's pitch to the electorate. Key messages went out to liberals. Conservative values are described as 'giving more people opportunity and power over their lives'. That certainly appeals to liberals and could even woo Labour voters.
Cameron had given people permission to vote Conservative. On Thursday they did. Now the Steve Hilton playbook needs a new narrative to cement the Conservative position and help Cameron move from Notting Hill to Westminster.
At this stage Cameron can't risk displaying all his wares. New Labour learned that in the run-up to the 1992 general election.
Presumably, the narrative will be similar to Obama's 'yes we can'. Cameron will tell the British voters that his party is the party of change and Labour has had its day. He has already peppered his speeches with these messages. In the next year, expect much more.
When David Cameron became leader of his party he inherited a fairly low share of the vote and a feeling that the Conservatives were the 'nasty party'. Voting blue to go green was one part of Cameron's pitch to the electorate. Key messages went out to liberals. Conservative values are described as 'giving more people opportunity and power over their lives'. That certainly appeals to liberals and could even woo Labour voters.
Cameron had given people permission to vote Conservative. On Thursday they did. Now the Steve Hilton playbook needs a new narrative to cement the Conservative position and help Cameron move from Notting Hill to Westminster.
At this stage Cameron can't risk displaying all his wares. New Labour learned that in the run-up to the 1992 general election.
Presumably, the narrative will be similar to Obama's 'yes we can'. Cameron will tell the British voters that his party is the party of change and Labour has had its day. He has already peppered his speeches with these messages. In the next year, expect much more.
Monday, 5 May 2008
The emptiness of Left and Right
Apparently, some MPs in the Labour party want Gordon Brown to move to the Left, while others want him to move to the Right. Someone recently described Simon Hughes as someone on the Left of the Liberal Democrats and someone else said to me they didn't like Boris Johnson because he was right-wing and a libertarian. When I asked what they meant by right-wing, they replied that he was a racist. Before pointing out that I didn't believe he was a racist, and neither does Diane Abbott, I asked why racism was right-wing.
I studied A level Politics many years ago. The terms of Left and Right bothered me then and continued to bother me when I read Government at Essex; a very 'left-wing' university. There I learnt that Jean Blondel had attempted to address the problem by creating a dimensional box to explain how Stalin, seen as on the Left, could be so similar to Hitler, seen on the Right. It was rather like the Political Compass.
Despite my misgivings, I have always used the terms Left and Right. They act as short-hand to describe political positions. When I was at Essex I even lapsed, Rik-like from the Young Ones, into calling anything I didn't like and saw as right-wing as fascist.
Left and Right were born during the French revolution. You sat on the Left of the National Assembly if you were opposed the 'ancien regime'. If you supported it, you sat on the Right. Those on the Left were in favour of liberty and the free market. They described their position as laissez-faire capitalism.
During the Cold War, the Left were those who believed in a command economy and egalitarianism, if not of outcome then at least of opportunity, while the Right were the ones supporting the free market. Things are never simple though and since the Berlin Wall came down, they have become more complicated. Which leaves me to wonder whether this short-hand is at all helpful.
When I was growing up in the seventies and eighties, the Left were a coalition of progressives. They were on the side of the people: they wanted a fairer society, a better world, they were optimistic. The Right was seen as reactionary: they wanted to turn the clock back to a world where the poor had to get on with it without help, where business was favoured and selfishness ruled. In those terms who wouldn't want to be on the Left? Well quite a few who saw themselves on the Right. But both descriptions are woefully inadequate to describe the political views of people who supported parties spanning the political divide.
When I read Hobbes and Rousseau at university I was struck by how close their views were to each other and how someone who aligned themselves with national socialism or fascism could agree with them. Yet Hobbes was seen as someone who supported the existing system albeit reformed, while Rousseau was a revolutionary. Part of the reason is that both believed that society can be planned and controlled. The very opposite of the tradition that includes John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume and John Stuart Mill.
I concluded there were two political traditions: authoritarian and liberalism. One believes that the individual should give up their sovereignty to the state in return for security and the other that believes that individuals should be sovereign over themselves. I then discovered quite a few people were thinking the same thing. However, these terms haven't really entered the popular vocabulary. The next question for me was to work out which party in Britain represents which tradition?
Again, there there is no simple answer. These traditions have become mangled. And people take different stances on different issues. It is rare to find someone who is purely one thing or another.
If you want an illustration of this, think of Orwell. Orwell is one of the great defenders of liberty. In 1984 his hero is called Winston. At the same time a British Prime Minister of that name had just led the country through a war against fascism. Orwell hated imperialism, Churchill rather liked it. Orwell wanted a socialised economy yet couldn't stand communism and recognised the latent fascism of his fellow Labour party members.
Which comes back to why Stalin and Hitler are so similar yet at the opposite ends of the political spectrum. Yes you can divide them up into being authoritarian in how they run government or the market but is is more than that. Both were representatives of an ideology that believed that individuals should give up their sovereignty and that the state could control and plan society in order to improve it. Both came from a rationalist tradition.
That doesn't mean that anyone who is from the rationalist tradition is about to send intellectuals to the countryside, remove their glasses and after they work the land for a while shoot them in the head. But given all that it tells me that we should be rethinking how we classify political views.
What does it mean to say Simon Hughes is on the Left? Is racism part of this mix or separate? Why is being on the Left optimistic and being on the Right all about selfishness? Well if it were true fair enough. But I don't buy it. That isn't to say that there isn't some truth in the stereotypes. That is the problem with cliches: they are describing something that resonates.
Sadly, no one has come up with an alternative. And perhaps that is why we continue to use terms that mean very little.
But here is the real problem. If we keep using empty terms to people who think they mean something that they don't, at some point they will begin to question the validity of the political conversation. And then they will stop listening and eventually stop voting.
I studied A level Politics many years ago. The terms of Left and Right bothered me then and continued to bother me when I read Government at Essex; a very 'left-wing' university. There I learnt that Jean Blondel had attempted to address the problem by creating a dimensional box to explain how Stalin, seen as on the Left, could be so similar to Hitler, seen on the Right. It was rather like the Political Compass.
Despite my misgivings, I have always used the terms Left and Right. They act as short-hand to describe political positions. When I was at Essex I even lapsed, Rik-like from the Young Ones, into calling anything I didn't like and saw as right-wing as fascist.
Left and Right were born during the French revolution. You sat on the Left of the National Assembly if you were opposed the 'ancien regime'. If you supported it, you sat on the Right. Those on the Left were in favour of liberty and the free market. They described their position as laissez-faire capitalism.
During the Cold War, the Left were those who believed in a command economy and egalitarianism, if not of outcome then at least of opportunity, while the Right were the ones supporting the free market. Things are never simple though and since the Berlin Wall came down, they have become more complicated. Which leaves me to wonder whether this short-hand is at all helpful.
When I was growing up in the seventies and eighties, the Left were a coalition of progressives. They were on the side of the people: they wanted a fairer society, a better world, they were optimistic. The Right was seen as reactionary: they wanted to turn the clock back to a world where the poor had to get on with it without help, where business was favoured and selfishness ruled. In those terms who wouldn't want to be on the Left? Well quite a few who saw themselves on the Right. But both descriptions are woefully inadequate to describe the political views of people who supported parties spanning the political divide.
When I read Hobbes and Rousseau at university I was struck by how close their views were to each other and how someone who aligned themselves with national socialism or fascism could agree with them. Yet Hobbes was seen as someone who supported the existing system albeit reformed, while Rousseau was a revolutionary. Part of the reason is that both believed that society can be planned and controlled. The very opposite of the tradition that includes John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume and John Stuart Mill.
I concluded there were two political traditions: authoritarian and liberalism. One believes that the individual should give up their sovereignty to the state in return for security and the other that believes that individuals should be sovereign over themselves. I then discovered quite a few people were thinking the same thing. However, these terms haven't really entered the popular vocabulary. The next question for me was to work out which party in Britain represents which tradition?
Again, there there is no simple answer. These traditions have become mangled. And people take different stances on different issues. It is rare to find someone who is purely one thing or another.
If you want an illustration of this, think of Orwell. Orwell is one of the great defenders of liberty. In 1984 his hero is called Winston. At the same time a British Prime Minister of that name had just led the country through a war against fascism. Orwell hated imperialism, Churchill rather liked it. Orwell wanted a socialised economy yet couldn't stand communism and recognised the latent fascism of his fellow Labour party members.
Which comes back to why Stalin and Hitler are so similar yet at the opposite ends of the political spectrum. Yes you can divide them up into being authoritarian in how they run government or the market but is is more than that. Both were representatives of an ideology that believed that individuals should give up their sovereignty and that the state could control and plan society in order to improve it. Both came from a rationalist tradition.
That doesn't mean that anyone who is from the rationalist tradition is about to send intellectuals to the countryside, remove their glasses and after they work the land for a while shoot them in the head. But given all that it tells me that we should be rethinking how we classify political views.
What does it mean to say Simon Hughes is on the Left? Is racism part of this mix or separate? Why is being on the Left optimistic and being on the Right all about selfishness? Well if it were true fair enough. But I don't buy it. That isn't to say that there isn't some truth in the stereotypes. That is the problem with cliches: they are describing something that resonates.
Sadly, no one has come up with an alternative. And perhaps that is why we continue to use terms that mean very little.
But here is the real problem. If we keep using empty terms to people who think they mean something that they don't, at some point they will begin to question the validity of the political conversation. And then they will stop listening and eventually stop voting.
The new Brown narrative: a mistake
Gordon Brown spent most of Sunday morning touring the television studios. The reason was clear. Labour had been hit hard in the local elections and this was his counter-attack. It also gave him an opportunity to re-write the narrative the Conservatives have constructed for him. He replaced dithering for someone who makes mistakes.
We won't know for a while if the British electorate prefer a Prime Minister who makes mistakes to one who can't make up his mind. It is too early to pass judgement on the tactic.
The idea of course is to say, I had a policy that I thought was good and I got it wrong. This is mostly to do with the ten pence tax rate. Yet, Brown insisted to Andrew Marr that people would be better off because the rate was always temporary and tax credits would sort the problem out. He appeared to be saying that because he knew they would be, they should accept that and not argue.
Is there another narrative here? There has always been a strong paternalistic tradition within the Labour movement and it was on ample display during that segment of the interview. Some people are comfortable with a government that looks after you, others aren't.
If I was advising Brown and the Labour party, I would be looking at a completely different narrative. After eleven years in power, paternalism can become increasingly unattractive because even if you like it, it will get mixed up with other things like complacency, and power for the sake of power and the attitude that you should be in charge.
It might be that Brown isn't at all paternalistic. But he and his advisers need to think hard about the messages they put out. The closer we get to a general election, the harder it will be to win the voters back.
We won't know for a while if the British electorate prefer a Prime Minister who makes mistakes to one who can't make up his mind. It is too early to pass judgement on the tactic.
The idea of course is to say, I had a policy that I thought was good and I got it wrong. This is mostly to do with the ten pence tax rate. Yet, Brown insisted to Andrew Marr that people would be better off because the rate was always temporary and tax credits would sort the problem out. He appeared to be saying that because he knew they would be, they should accept that and not argue.
Is there another narrative here? There has always been a strong paternalistic tradition within the Labour movement and it was on ample display during that segment of the interview. Some people are comfortable with a government that looks after you, others aren't.
If I was advising Brown and the Labour party, I would be looking at a completely different narrative. After eleven years in power, paternalism can become increasingly unattractive because even if you like it, it will get mixed up with other things like complacency, and power for the sake of power and the attitude that you should be in charge.
It might be that Brown isn't at all paternalistic. But he and his advisers need to think hard about the messages they put out. The closer we get to a general election, the harder it will be to win the voters back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)