****
This isn't a post about policies. It's not a post about whether Ukip are good, bad or the spawn of Beelzebub. Nor is it a post-mortem on this year's local council elections in Bradford. Elections that saw Labour (just) take overall control of the Council.
It's an observation on the nature of local campaigning and the exploitation - without the offer of solution - of people's worries and concerns.
In Bingley Rural and the Worth Valley the massed troops of Ukip's 'People's Army' are few in number. Judging by attendance at the count, they are no better served for activists than Conservatives or Labour. In truth there are probably fewer.
Yet they managed to deliver four different pieces of literature to some parts of Bingley Rural, similar numbers of different leaflets in Worth Valley, and have the time to fold, stuff and mail up to two personalised letters for some residents. Trust me, dear reader, I know how much time and effort this takes.
Plus of course, Ukip took advantage of the Yorkshire wide free delivery available to all political parties for the European elections.
I'm saying all this because the reality, of course, is that Ukip didn't deliver all those leaflets. They - quite legally and legitimately - paid private delivery companies to do it for them. Lots of nice, hard-working people (quite a few of them from assorted parts of Eastern Europe) earning a few quid an hour tromping along the streets delivering. I followed one such deliverer while getting out the leaflets in Cullingworth for Bingley Rural's now re-elected Cllr Ellis and my Worth Valley colleagues met similar in Oxenhope.
Nothing wrong (assuming the election expenses allowed are not exceeded) with all this of course. But think how much it costs. And compare this to how most of those wicked 'mainstream party' local candidates get their literature out. We do it the old fashioned way - either ourselves by plodding up and down dropping each leaflet in a letterbox or by asking other local residents very nicely whether they'd mind delivering a hundred or so leaflets for us. For all the criticisms of us, the reality at the local level is that our campaigning is absolutely local and dependent on the availability of volunteers to do the leg work.
If we replace legs with money (which is what Ukip did in Bingley Rural and Worth Valley) the nature of local politics changes. In the simplest of terms it stops being local. For sure, you need to have a local candidate and ten electors. But that's it - the rest is done centrally using targeted leaflets, mailings and so forth. And the message is no longer one about campaigns for a new village hall or the options for traffic calming along a dangerous stretch of highway. Instead it becomes a more general appeal based on national or international issues - a negative camapaign, anonymous and exploitative.
This might be the future of local elections especially if the numbers of activists dwindle. But, if it is that future, we will be poorer for it and will expose ourselves to the buying of elections. The good news is that, for this time at least, Ukip's attempt to buy its way into Bradford politics failed - all that effort and just one seat. Nevertheless, there will be a future attempt by Ukip - or some other party - to do likewise.
One thing I do know is that my election address next year will include the words - "written in Cullingworth, printed in Bradford and delivered to you by volunteers from your village."
....
Showing posts with label political campaigning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political campaigning. Show all posts
Saturday, 24 May 2014
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
Wednesday Whimsy: Fud!
****
Back in the dark ages when computers needed their own office block let alone their own room, the word “fud” was coined. “Fud” – as I’m sure you all know – described the disinformation and attack campaigns directed by IBM salesmen at people who might switch to competitor organisations. These campaigns leant heavily on the “no-one got sacked for buying IBM” adage and sought to question the reliability, support and capability of competing machines. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt – fud – was sown in the minds of customers.
It seems to me that we haven’t used this word enough! The strategy of casting doubts (not to mention fear and uncertainty) in the minds of the target audience is central to political campaigning – and especially to the left’s campaigns. The entire Labour strategy in the recent general election was founded on fud – disinformation that spread fear, uncertainty and doubt among those tempted to desert the party. Key targets – middle-class public sector workers, ethnic minorities, union members – were bombarded with negative stories about what the Evil Tories would do in power, how this threatened them, was based on questionable evidence and would probably make things worse.
What we had was the strategy of the father in Hillaire Belloc’s Jim on being informed of Jim’s death:
Or, as we now know it, fud!
....
Back in the dark ages when computers needed their own office block let alone their own room, the word “fud” was coined. “Fud” – as I’m sure you all know – described the disinformation and attack campaigns directed by IBM salesmen at people who might switch to competitor organisations. These campaigns leant heavily on the “no-one got sacked for buying IBM” adage and sought to question the reliability, support and capability of competing machines. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt – fud – was sown in the minds of customers.
It seems to me that we haven’t used this word enough! The strategy of casting doubts (not to mention fear and uncertainty) in the minds of the target audience is central to political campaigning – and especially to the left’s campaigns. The entire Labour strategy in the recent general election was founded on fud – disinformation that spread fear, uncertainty and doubt among those tempted to desert the party. Key targets – middle-class public sector workers, ethnic minorities, union members – were bombarded with negative stories about what the Evil Tories would do in power, how this threatened them, was based on questionable evidence and would probably make things worse.
What we had was the strategy of the father in Hillaire Belloc’s Jim on being informed of Jim’s death:
When Nurse informed his Parents, they
Were more Concerned than I can say:—His Mother, as She dried her eyes,
Said, “Well—it gives me no surprise,
He would not do as he was told!”
His Father, who was self-controlled,
Bade all the children round attend
To James’s miserable end,
And always keep a-hold of Nurse
For fear of finding something worse.
Or, as we now know it, fud!
....
Sunday, 3 January 2010
Social media can't win an election for anyone - get out and knock on doors!
***
They’re at it again swallowing the “social media are changing political campaigning” line put out by the blogosphere’s elite. Today Toby Helm in the Observer is peddling this line:
"Election 2010 will show how much the world has changed – and how susceptible election outcomes now are to the unpredictability of events online."
Just let’s be clear, Mr. Helm presents no evidence to support this contention – I’m not a fully fledged psephological anorak but I’m pretty sure there isn’t any evidence of election outcomes being shaped by “events online”. In fact, those last two words are significant and are why Toby Helm and the blogocrats are wrong – events don’t happen on-line, they happen in the real world.
The second reason why Toby Helm and the others frothing out social media cant are wrong, rests with the very selectivity of new media and with the fact that, as I wrote a while back, the electorate are mostly idiots (in the original Greek sense) and I even described them:
"Round here they’re probably in their thirties or forties, employed at a middle management level in business and industry. They worry about how well their kids do at school, they concern themselves with making their family safe, they grumble a bit about paying taxes but have enough cash afterwards for it not to really matter. Such folk are ordinary, hard-working and inherently conservative. But they also see little or no link between the act of voting in a politician from one party or another and the significant things in their lives."
What these folk aren’t doing is reading political blogs, watching Gordon or Dave’s podcasts or YouTube videos or doing anything other than being irritated by politics gatecrashing their gentle Facebook or Twitter entertainment. These people probably won’t be watching the “Great Leaders Debate” – preferring instead whatever else the multitude of channels has dished up for them that day (or maybe a DVD or a computer game). These are good people who understand that life isn’t all about shouty demands for change, who find politicians a little bit sad (if they don’t actively despise them) and really would rather Government bothered more about good services than social engineering.
I like these people but would rather talk with them about football, music, last night's telly, where they’re going on their holidays, the new car…almost any bloody thing but politics. Toby, the next election won’t be won or lost on-line – at best social media will swing a few votes, at worst it will represent a further dumbing down of politics and a greater distance between the politically engaged and the normal man in the street.
Get out and knock on doors!
...
They’re at it again swallowing the “social media are changing political campaigning” line put out by the blogosphere’s elite. Today Toby Helm in the Observer is peddling this line:
"Election 2010 will show how much the world has changed – and how susceptible election outcomes now are to the unpredictability of events online."
Just let’s be clear, Mr. Helm presents no evidence to support this contention – I’m not a fully fledged psephological anorak but I’m pretty sure there isn’t any evidence of election outcomes being shaped by “events online”. In fact, those last two words are significant and are why Toby Helm and the blogocrats are wrong – events don’t happen on-line, they happen in the real world.
The second reason why Toby Helm and the others frothing out social media cant are wrong, rests with the very selectivity of new media and with the fact that, as I wrote a while back, the electorate are mostly idiots (in the original Greek sense) and I even described them:
"Round here they’re probably in their thirties or forties, employed at a middle management level in business and industry. They worry about how well their kids do at school, they concern themselves with making their family safe, they grumble a bit about paying taxes but have enough cash afterwards for it not to really matter. Such folk are ordinary, hard-working and inherently conservative. But they also see little or no link between the act of voting in a politician from one party or another and the significant things in their lives."
What these folk aren’t doing is reading political blogs, watching Gordon or Dave’s podcasts or YouTube videos or doing anything other than being irritated by politics gatecrashing their gentle Facebook or Twitter entertainment. These people probably won’t be watching the “Great Leaders Debate” – preferring instead whatever else the multitude of channels has dished up for them that day (or maybe a DVD or a computer game). These are good people who understand that life isn’t all about shouty demands for change, who find politicians a little bit sad (if they don’t actively despise them) and really would rather Government bothered more about good services than social engineering.
I like these people but would rather talk with them about football, music, last night's telly, where they’re going on their holidays, the new car…almost any bloody thing but politics. Toby, the next election won’t be won or lost on-line – at best social media will swing a few votes, at worst it will represent a further dumbing down of politics and a greater distance between the politically engaged and the normal man in the street.
Get out and knock on doors!
...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)