Attack of the Lib Dem Bloggers!

Just written my first blog post over on LabourList about Lib Dems plans to create an 'army of bloggers.'

I wonder if they'd look like this?

When polls get axed

I've commissioned quite a few surveys in my time. It is after all one of the main weapons in the PR practitioner's arsenal.

They're used to highlight that public opinion either supports or opposes a particular issue of interest to your client, who are, of course, providing the 'answer.'

But sometimes, the pesky public doesn't play ball. A perfect example of this was the recent YouGov survey commissioned by the Labour pressure group Compass.

Now Compass totally objects to private investment into Royal Mail and have been running an effective campaign against Peter Mandelson's proposals.

So YouGov polled 911 Labour Party members to find out their views. The survey, paid for by email appeals from Compass to its supporters, was then published in The Guardian with the topline that the party membership were against 'part-privatisation' by three to one.

But the Mail on Sunday has revealed that a few of the questions and answers were left out - notably that Peter Mandelson - the 'Prince of Darkness' was more popular than the supposedly left-wing favourite Harriet Harman.

However, there's an even more interesting question and answer which has not been reported, though if you go to YouGov's site you can see the results in full.

When you're constructing a survey for maximum media 'pick-up,' you look to pose a question with a striking comparison - for example Daleks are more familiar to children than real animals.

Compass tried to do this by asking party members how where they would place three politicians on a left-right political barometer. The three people were Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Peter Mandelson.


It appears they were looking for a classic 'shock' result to show that party members thought Mandelson was more right wing than the Tory leader and therefore his actions as Business Secretary were being perceived as that of a right wing Conservative.

Accept it didn't work out that way. Here's the full result:


In politics, people sometimes talk about parties and politicians as being on the left
or right. Using the scale below, where would you place each of the following on that
scale?

Where would you place yourself on this scale?
Very left-wing 11
Fairly left-wing 35
Slightly left-of-centre 32
Centre 14
Slightly right-of-centre 3
Fairly right-wing 1
Very right-wing 1
Don’t know 5

And where would you place Gordon Brown the Prime Minister?
Very left-wing 2
Fairly left-wing 14
Slightly left-of-centre 43
Centre 20
Slightly right-of-centre 9
Fairly right-wing 4
Very right-wing 1
Don’t know 5

Where would you place David Cameron, the Conservative leader?
Very left-wing 1
Fairly left-wing 1
Slightly left-of-centre 4
Centre 7
Slightly right-of-centre 19
Fairly right-wing 36
Very right-wing 26
Don’t know 8

Where would you place Lord (Peter) Mandelson, the Business Secretary?
Very left-wing 1
Fairly left-wing 6
Slightly left-of-centre 25
Centre 29
Slightly right-of-centre 19
Fairly right-wing 8
Very right-wing 3
Don’t know 10

The problem is, when you choose to be selective in the the survey results you publish, you're then open to accusations of censorship.

My advice would have been that Compass should have made all the results public, even if they were buried away in the Notes to Editors section of a press release or on their website.

That's the problem with the public - they have an annoying habit of thinking for themselves!

Wareing the Movie

How NOT to win an election

In the great state of Alaska (Governor S.Palin) another woman was attempting to get to DC to make a real difference.

Diane Benson, who stood against the pitbull with lipstick for the Governorship in 2006, attempted to become the Democratic congessional candidate for Alaska with the aim to clean up government.

You’d think as a Democrat she’d tie herself to the Obama bandwagon.

But no.

Diane had her own ideas of winning people over and illustrating her ‘experience.’

You may be surprised to discover that she didn’t win over Democrats to become their official candidate. In fact, she was defeated by a substantial margin - a clear 20 percentage points.

I wonder if you can you guess why?

Sophie's poor choice

Stand-in presenters always feel they have something to prove. They start with the presumption that people will assume they are second best, a last minute replacement, a poor substitute.

So standing-in for Andrew Marr was always going to be hard; especially for newsreader Sophie Raworth. But going up against Peter Mandelson in your first big interview was not so much jumping in at the deep end as diving into middle of the Atlantic in a Force Ten gale.

However, Sophie succumbed to the belief that if you do a hard interview and produce a 'defining TV moment' you can make a name for yourself quite easily. Today's 'Andrew Marr' was all about Sophie repositioning herself to be taken seriously and what better way then to get one over Mandelson?

She'd obviously decided to make a big thing about the recent articles questioning his stay on a Russian billionaire's yacht.

Peter could quite easily ask what evidence she had to say that influenced any of his decisions (answer: nothing) otherwise it was just repeating a smear.

So to pull it round, Sophie chose to have a dig about Peter's title, incorrectly suggesting he was the 'Baron of Hartlepool of Foy.'

Peter's response is both cutting and brutally hilarious.

The lesson to all interviewers - do your OWN research.

Click here and scroll to 55 minutes in for the full exchange.

Dear David..

I woke up this morning to discover Gordon Brown has emailed me. He's beginning to make a habit of this.

And I for one, am pretty damn pleased he is.

In the past, the party would solely use emails as the web equivalent of the direct marketing mail.

As such, a member's response would be exactly the same as opening a DM letter - brief scan, see they want money, bin it.

I'm glad to see that's changing.

Yesterday's moves were quite remarkable - well, one certainly was. Watching yesterday's TV and today's papers would normally reinforce those concerns. I see the Daily Mail's headline is 'Arise Lord Sleaze.'

That's why Gordon's email works. It's a personal and intimate communication that has no other agenda other than to explain his decision. Take a look:

Dear David

You will have seen from the news that I have carried out changes in the Government today. I wanted to contact you directly to let you know the thinking behind these changes.

We are living through the first truly global financial crisis that started in America, but where we must in Britain now do everything we can to ensure the stability of our economic system.

Serious people are needed for these serious times. Margaret Beckett has come back into Government and I have also promoted some of our Party’s best new talent to help deal with the new challenges we face.

I want to reconstruct the way we govern to meet these challenges. Therefore I have created a new National Economic Council and put it on a day-to-day footing. It will meet for the first time on Monday.

I have brought back Peter Mandelson from Brussels to lead our Business Department. Peter has been a European Commissioner of great distinction. He has unrivalled experience in international business issues and has built a reputation over these last few years as someone who can get things done.

I believe the changes I have announced today are in the national interest. Our undivided attention must be on the security of millions of families and households who have been facing higher bills and now face the uncertainty caused by the financial failures in America and elsewhere.

Thank you for all that you do.

Gordon Brown

That's quite alright, Gordon. And thanks for all you do too!

The email wasn't edited, censored or misquoted. It simply provided a context and reasoning for the reshuffle. As such, I think it will go quite some way to allaying certain members' doubts.

But moving forward, I'd like to see Labour going much further, taking a leaf out of the Democrats book and telling supporters first.

Obama asked his supporters to register their details to find out who his VP choic was. They then received a text before the journalists - they felt included, special and that they mattered more. (Also, a very clever way of capturing data - I think Obama will be sending a few more texts before the campaign's over!)

So imagine how powerful it would have been for members and supporters to find out about the Cabinet reshuffle BEFORE the media.

When we engage with supporters, they respond well. 2.9 million registered for Obama's texts and Go Fourth - the Campaign for a Labour Fourth Term - had a remarkable reaction at conference which has now been transferred to the social networks.

A party member set up a Go Fourth Facebook group. Within two weeks it's gone from a handful of supporters to 1,400 - that's 100 new friends every day. It now has more Facebook supporters than Compass, Progress and even Conservative Future.

They may not all become active supporters but they will be effective advocates. Studies have shown that those who read blogs and actively use Facebook are seven times more likely to be an influencer or opinion former.

So next time you have a big announcement Gordon, why not send an email with this intro:

Dear David

I've carried out changes to the Government today.

But I wanted you to be the FIRST to know.