Posts Tagged ‘David Cameron’

On the 4^th of January The Conservative Party launched their election campaign by releasing this new 15-ft wide poster, which is erected on 759 sites across the country. Already it has been one of the talking points of the election campaign and like marmite, people either love or hate it. So, I wanted to have a look at the key features that are drawing attention:

The face: The Conservative Party have conceded that the face has had ‘minor’ airbrushing. Left-wing critics have drawn attention to this saying it shows his preoccupation with style, whilst the Conservatives say the picture was chosen partly by Samantha Cameron as it was serious-looking.

The clothes: Cameron is shown without a tie, which has become a common feature of his leadership. Apparently this was developed by Steve Hilton, his PR guru, to show that he is both in touch and ready for business. Advertisers have said that this image gives off a strong message of his willingness to get on with the job of Prime Minister.

The text: The use of the term ‘I’ in the second sentence has been used to emphasise Cameron’s popularity over Gordon Brown, advertisers suggest. Combined with the photo it emphasises him rather than the party as the selling point to the voters. It is reported that Conservative polling suggests this is one of Cameron’s big pluses. Critics have parodied the big brother nature of the poster and said it shows Cameron is a modern element in an old-fashioned party.

The message: The message, highlighting the NHS, has been used to counter the Labour attempts to define themselves as a party of investment. It is also highlighting one of the cores of the Conservative election strategy - the size of the budget deficit.

Some people have highlighted the use of the term ‘cut’ in the same sentence as the NHS may impact negatively. The terms could be associated and seem too negative.

Reaction to the poster

Labour party figures immediately attacked the poster because it was airbrushed. John Prescott went on the attack parodying David Cameron and the Daily Mirror also criticised the poster.

But other advertising figures have said it sends a strong message and plays to his key strengths. Commentators also say that it shows the speedier start to the election campaign on behalf of the Conservative Party. This could reflect the greater funds reported to be at the Conservative leaders’ disposal.

So, bearing that all in mind, what do you think? Hit, Miss, Maybe?

For me it is a HIT - simple, effective and to the point. But I know others will think differently.

I read something interesting and provocative in PR Week today. It was an article outlining the views of different Directors of Public Affairs companies on David Cameron and Gordon Brown’s election campaigns. The article focused particularly on David Cameron’s announcements on the NHS yesterday and Labour’s retort, which could be seen as the two parties kicking off their election campaigns. One particular comment by Phillip Snape, Managing Director of PSA Communications, was extremely interesting. He said of the election campaigns:

‘No one is listening to them [Brown and Cameron]. Everyone has already made their minds up and this is all background music. It is boring.’

I find this a spurious point of view. It suggests that the ‘Punch and Judy’ politics of election campaigns - the adverts, the slogans and the glitzy promises - will have a relatively small effect on the majority of voters, who find this overt posturing off-putting. He, also, seems to find this element of the election run up ‘boring’.

I disagree on both counts. The next six months will be the critical last stage of a close and enthralling contest. The UK Polling Report is showing that the Labour Party’s poll showing has rallied in the second half of 2009, rising from an average of c.23% to c.29%, whilst the Conservative Party’s has fluctuated between 37% and 43% in the same period. This may suggest that the Conservative Party have a strong lead in the polls, but the number of seats they have to take from Labour means that these numbers would only realise roughly a 26 seat majority for the Conservative Party - a long way off certain victory. Clearly the unstable polls represent a general public still not absolutely certain who they want at the next election and whilst the Conservative Party will almost certainly have a higher share of the vote they are not ensured victory.

In this climate the next 6 months could be critical. Voters have had two and a half years to size up David Cameron and Gordon Brown - their characters, policies and styles - and still some are undecided. Yet, (unless they abstain) these voters will be forced to make up their mind in the next few months and in our modern society, filled with apathy, it is eminently feasible that an undecided voter could be swayed to vote one way or the other by an eye-catching policy, good debate performance or brilliant advertisement in the run up to the election.

For this reason I think the election campaigns will be extremely exciting and relevant and should not be dismissed.

But I think this is an interesting debate, what do you think? Is the election decided or is it still all up for grabs?

The Queen’s Speech, which took place last Wednesday, went as we predicted with proposals announced on fiscal responsibility, financial services, constitutional reform, education and energy amongst others. The Speech was short and to the point with only 13 bills and 2 draft bills announced and no announcements on Health (one of the largest Government departments), immigration or MPs’ expenses.

The Speech was touted as being the most political for a decade, as was to be expected with a General Election taking place next year and once the Queen had left Parliament Gordon Brown and David Cameron drew the battle lines. The Prime Minster defended the speech saying that it showed that the Government was ’standing up for Britain’ and criticised the Conservatives over their inheritance tax policy, whilst the Leader of the Opposition responded by calling the Speech ‘half-baked’ and a ‘waste of the country’s time’. These soundbites, like the contents of the Speech itself, were not particularly surprising.

There is now a period of reflection in the House of Commons as the Speech will be debated for no fewer than 6 days. With that in mind we gathered together leading parliamentarians to see what they made of the speech:

Dr Des Turner MP

Labour Member of Parliament for Brighton Kemptown

“Given that the Parliamentary Session will be shortened by the General Election this was a very ambitious Queen’s Speech, containing very real and useful legislation.

I totally disagree with those who think it is simply part of the Election manifesto - such claims are very wide of the mark.

These measures are very important and legislation like the care for the elderly Bill are part of a long overdue revolution for people who are in the latter part of their lives.”

Chloe Smith MP

Conservative Member of Parliament for Norwich North

“For me the Queen’s Speech was a mixed bag. For the most part it was all about the Labour Party serving itself rather than the country. It was a case of politics not Government.

There were a number of measures that simply served to create the next Labour election manifesto and you have to ask yourself if these measures are so important then why have they taken 12 years to be implemented? Furthermore, a number of measures were policies that the Government should be getting on with anyway rather than legislating on.

Having said that there was one measure that my constituents might welcome, which was the announcement on flood defences.”

Lord Avebury

Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Spokesperson for the Home Office

“The Queen’s Speech has rightly been criticised for pretending that so many Bills can be passed in the few days of Parliamentary sittings before the 2010 general election. When there is no chance of getting most of them into law it is farcical.

I hoped there would be more realism but this is obviously just for the shop window. Nobody would guess that six months from now a new government will have to make huge spending cuts.

The absence of any mention of a referendum on electoral reform, widely supported in all three parties, is a serious disappointment.”

The Queen's Speech - far from a royal affair.

On Wednesday this week the Queen will stand before the House of Lords and present the Government’s agenda for the coming year. This is an extremely important event; a chance for the Government to highlight its upcoming priorities and for the opposition parties to take them to task over their proposals and suggest how they would do things differently. With a General Election to be called by June 2010, this is to be the last Queen’s Speech before the election. For this reason I’d like to take a look at the importance of the speech and give some predictions of what to look out for:

Why is the Queen’s Speech important?

I think there are three fundamental reasons that this year’s Queen’s Speech is so critical:

• Policy: In a normal year the Queen’s Speech is important because it sets out the Government’s policy agenda for the coming year and outlines the Bills that will be proposed. As this is an election year the speech is essential as it is one of the Government’s last chances to state publicly and formally their agenda for the coming year and stake a claim to hold onto power come the election. It is also a good opportunity to draw the battle lines with the Conservative Party on key policy issues such as finance, education, crime and health ahead of the General Election. For this reason the opposition parties will be looking to discredit the Government and highlight their own policy priorities
• The Polls: 4 of the last 5 UK polls have put the Conservative Party 14 points ahead of the Labour Government with the Lib Dems trailing 4-10 points behind Labour. Taking the average scores for each party over the last five polls the Conservative Party would have a majority of 58 if these trends were reflected at the next General Election. But just a 2 point drop for the Conservatives and a 2 point rise for the Labour Party would deliver a hung parliament. So for Labour the Queen’s Speech is a chance to showcase a range of policies and hopefully reduce the Conservative Party’s poll lead. For both opposition parties it is a chance to analyse Gordon Brown’s proposals; discredit them and promote their own policies. It is important for the Conservative Party and Lib Dems not to give way significantly to Labour in the polls and it gives the opposition parties a chance to look at some of Labour’s headline policies in detail and criticise them publicly
• Time is running out: With only 70 more sitting days of Parliament until the next election Labour only have three big opportunities to state their case before the election is called: The Queen’s Speech; the Pre-Budget Report and the Budget. Of those three opportunities the Queen’s Speech is most focused on policy direction and prospective bills and sets the policy agenda. Also, it does not have to focus so much on important economic figures such as economic growth and unemployment, which have been sources of distress during the economic downturn. The opposition parties will be keen for the Government not to steal a march in the polls on the back of the Queen’s Speech. They will see it as a small victory if the polls do not radically change on the back of the Queen’s speech as it will mean that Labour are running out of high profile opportunities to change public perception.

What is predicted?

The Speech: It is suggested that Gordon Brown will go for a short sharp Queen’s Speech highlighting headline bills on: fiscal responsibility; social care; energy; policing and crime; health and education. Gordon Brown is clearly gearing these bills up to be the basis for his election manifesto and it is being suggested that the Bills to be proposed are specifically targeted at areas that the Conservatives have opposed, such as targets in the NHS and the DNA database. This is clearly throwing the gauntlet down to the Conservatives Party and defining the political battlegrounds between the two main parties before the election. The Government are looking to take the initiative and outmanoeuvre the Conservative Party in key policy areas.

The Conservative response: The Conservatives are likely to oppose the Speech in two different ways. Firstly, David Cameron will almost certainly criticise Gordon Brown for announcing policies late in the day; not having the time to bring them through before the next General Election and that this is blatant headline chasing, which does not change the fact that Gordon Brown has lost the voters’ trust. Secondly, each Shadow Secretary of State will outline both the principles they disagree with in the Speech and the detail. They will be looking to define their position in opposition to the Government’s proposals. The Conservative Party will face a race against time; they will want to wrest control of the electoral battleground from Labour by defusing any popular Labour announcements made in the Speech and highlighting their counter measures. David Cameron will want to try and focus media attention on Gordon Brown’s weakness and the failings in the Speech rather than allowing the media debate to focus on Brown’s new policy announcements.

The Lib Dem approach: As the third largest party the Lib Dems are in a difficult position. The Leader, Nick Clegg, has come out and called for the Queen’s Speech to be scrapped in favour of an emergency announcement on political reform. Clearly this is not a viable option as the speech is a long-standing tradition, but it has given Nick Clegg front-page media attention before the Speech and gives him a platform from which to discredit the Government’s proposals. For Nick Clegg it is a case of chasing any possible headlines lest the Lib Dems be sidelined in favour of the main battle between the Conservative Party and Labour Government.

These are just predictions of course, so follow Ruder Finn on this blog and on Twitter (@Ruderfinnuk) on Wednesday 18^th of November from 11am for our build up and live minute-by-minute analysis of the Queen’s Speech.

Please leave your own predictions or any insights as I would love to have a flavour of any important issues people are focusing on or awaiting from the speech.

The Lib Dem’s seaside conference

The Lib Dem Conference this year seems to have been more exciting than usual. I am afraid to say that too often I have dismissed it as a warm up for the main two conferences. But this year it has delivered a punch.

Whether you love Nick Clegg or you see him as a David Cameron downgrade, this year he has brought greater presence and press coverage to the conference than before. The newspapers have followed what, in particular, Clegg and Cable have had to say.

The two dominating policy announcements for me have been the ‘Mansion Tax’ - Vince Cable’s announcement that people with houses over £1 million would be charged a tax at 0.5% on the value of a house above this amount and Nick Clegg’s announcement of ’savage’ cuts.

These two issues gained great coverage. Cable’s was seen as wooing the left whilst Clegg’s was an admission that the Recession would lead to inevitable funding squeezes and the Lib Dems admitting that the way ahead would be difficult. With both of these two policy announcements the Lib Dems got the communications right, but the process and messaging wrong.

With the ‘Mansion Tax’ Vince Cable received great coverage and it has been debated widely in the press and on news channels. In fact people have been scrutinising it as if it could be introduced by a Government. This shows that the Lib Dems have been taken more seriously at this conference.

But equally that is why it has received so much criticism. Vince Cable was opposed by many colleagues on the issue, consulted thinly with MPs and has now admitted that he may need to consult more on the idea before updating the terms of it. In fact the initial big splash it gained has now been tarnished by the in-fighting that has followed. It has been a case of big splash with poor messaging.

Similarly Nick Clegg’s announcement of ’savage’ cuts was a strong call that gained a great deal of coverage, but again the messaging and PR behind the announcement was extremely poor. Nick Clegg has not thought through the messaging because ’savage’ cuts, as opposed to just ‘cuts’, suggests that frontline services will suffer. Again it is a case of Lib Dems making a great deal of noise and being scrutinised seriously and being found wanting on their messaging.

Overall the Lib Dems seemed to make progress this conference, being taken seriously. But their messaging has been found wanting. They need to now work out their proposals tightly and sell them with the right language that says they are a party that can govern not just a third option.

Throughout his Premiership, Gordon Brown has been accused of dithering.

First it was the will he, won’t he non-election decision way back in 2007. Since then he has been accused of taking far too long over decisions of national importance on numerous occasions including Heathrow, the banking crisis and most recently, the long absence of a UK Government statement surrounding the decision to free Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi . If he’d made a statement earlier, I’m sure he and his Cabinet wouldn’t have been drawn into this mess about Libya quite so deeply.

Even his “cautiously optimistic” interview with the FT regarding the recovery from the economic crisis sounds like he is hedging his bets.

But the silence coming from Number 10 in regards to a Leader’s Debate during the upcoming election campaign is personally dumfounding and not a little bit frustrating. David Cameron has accepted the invitation, as has Nick Clegg, but there is nothing from the Prime Minister. Sky News has said that if Brown doesn’t turn up, there will be an empty seat on the podium if he fails to attend and debate.

Granted, a debate could be dangerous for Brown as it could potentially highlight his weaknesses or make David Cameron and Nick Clegg look Prime Ministerial, but surely that is better than not-showing up and there stands an empty chair. With Brown’s and Labour’s poll numbers through the floor, surely it is imperative that Brown shows up and tries to engage with the public. Brown clearly needs to be more decisive and more approachable to win the next election and a good showing in a national debate may not be the answer, but it would certainly help.

In modern times, there has never been such a disconnection between the public and Westminster. To simply get people to the polls and to keep out the BNP, the main party leaders need to show what they stand for and why people should care. Not showing up would be devastating and Brown’s silence on the issue is definitely hurting him even further.

As I write this, 2029 people have signed a petition from Sky News calling for a Leader’s debate since September 1^st and that number is rapidly climbing, at least 900 in the past few hours.

But, this dithering raises an even larger question. As Philip Johnston of the Telegraph stated in his blog on a similar subject almost a year ago, Brown certainly doesn’t inspire confidence with his decision making. So what is the reason behind it?

Is Brown unable to make immediate decisions without consulting every man and his dog? Is he getting bad advice? Is he terrified of the repercussions of a bad decision? Is it a mixture of everything?

For Labour to claw back in the polls, Brown needs to be stronger and less hesitant than he currently is and someone in his team needs to take matters in hand. Labour needs a strong Brown and they need him now.

Cross-posted with Nick O’s Diary.

The Tweetminster webpage, where Conservative MPs are outnumbered by their Labour counterparts

As a newcomer to Twitter, I can’t help wondering why there are only 66 MPs signed up to a social media site that they could use daily to stay in touch with their constituents?

More importantly I find it bizarre that of the 66 MPs on Twitter there are more than 4 times as many Labour MPs (over 40) as Conservatives (9) on Twitter.

Why is this?

The Conservative Party website is full of videos, YouTube links, blogs and audio messages and there are a couple of extremely successful Conservative blogs like Order Order and Conservative Home (although not directly connected to the central Conservative Party). David Cameron has packed his Shadow Cabinet with media savvy figures like Jeremy Hunt - founder of Hotcourses - and spent the last 4 years spearheading Webcameron and the Conservative Wall - innovative uses of interactive media.

So why are they so behind on Twitter?

I am going to put forward a series of hypotheses that could explain this mismatch:

• 1. Proportion - I thought at first that because there are more Labour MPs in Parliament it could seem like more are tweeting when the proportions are the same. But there are 349 Labour MPs compared with 192 Conservative MPs, yet there are only 9 Conservative tweeters and over 40 Labour tweeters. In terms of proportion this means only 5% of Conservative MPs tweet whereas 11% of Labour MPs do - a clear Labour margin.
• 2. Age - The Conservative Party has often had a reputation as a party of older more traditional members, which could be seen as a reason for the Conservative Party not embracing Twitter. But as of the 2005 election Labour MPs were on average three years older than the average Conservative MP at 52 and 49 respectively. So age alone cannot be a factor.
• 3. Occupation -Background could be a more important factor than age as the Conservative Party has a far higher proportion of MPs from traditional professions such as the law, business and finance as compared with the Labour Party’s greater number of teachers, lecturers and political organisers. This may reflect a greater background of engagement in modern media amongst the Labour Party as compared with the legal and financial careers of Conservative MPs.
• 4. Constituency Impact - But for me, the most redolent reason for why Conservative MPs can blog but not tweet is that whilst they are slowly seeing how blogs can help them to stay in touch with their constituents, they cannot understand Twitter’s benefits. In rural Conservative seats in Cumbria, Sussex and Hampshire there is most likely less frequency of creative and media jobs and less engagement with social media than the urban constituencies like Manchester, London and Birmingham where Labour MPs dominate. The greater number of students, teenagers and 20s-30s working in careers that use social media in Labour constituencies makes Twitter more relevant and usable in campaigning as Boris Johnson has showed as Mayor of London -a constituency with a modern and creative media hub.

These are my main thoughts on this twitter conundrum; but to get to the bottom of this question I am going to conduct a survey of MPs and people involved in political communications who may have a better idea of why there are less Conservatives than Labour MPs on Twitter.  With this in mind I will blog again in a fortnight and outline my findings on the big question:

Where are all the Conservative (MP) Tweeters?

Poor old Jacqui Smith, her husband’s adult films; her sister’s accommodation; Bob Quick’s security leak - there seems to be an endless cast involved in her long drawn-out decline. With the latest wave of media attention over hiring an accountant to fill in her tax returns, it became obvious that the game was up; Jacqui Smith was so exposed and vulnerable that she was ineffective as Home Secretary, attracting copious media attention and derision.

But more so than Jacqui Smith herself, Gordon Brown has been seriously damaged by this latest headline. Like the election he never called in 2007; his indecision over expenses and Hazel Blears’ resignation (after he criticised but did not sack her), Gordon Brown’s thoughtfulness and desire to weigh up decisions have cost him dearly. Clearly he is a highly intelligent man and as Chancellor of the Exchequer this assured, thoughtful approach brought him plaudits. It was always rumoured he ran domestic policy and was instrumental in election strategy, as the consummate policy setter. At the time that same character trait was reassuring, contrasting very well with Tony Blair: Brown the man of substance, Blair the charismatic media man.

But sadly when he took the country’s top job in summer 2007 no-one mentioned that whilst a formidable presence and thinker in politics he was sorely untested at leading decisively. After his initial success in the first few months the pressure was focused on him in the autumn and he was so aware of acting in a measured and substantial way, he appeared to delay in whether or not to call a snap election. His delay and radio silence seemed like plodding.

From then on the problem has grown. He has become accustomed to allowing David Cameron to produce sound bites, steal the headlines and dictate debates, while he sulks in the background and declares he is “getting on with the job”. In the financial crisis, his area of expertise, his desire to think technically about the problems and weigh up options made him look slow to react over Northern Rock. He and Alistair Darling were criticised for not seeing the signs and acting earlier. It emerged that they had an idea of the scale of the crisis, but seemed to wait to see how it turned out.

Even now the reason this premiership seems so doomed is because there is no-one willing to say it is not. The media jumps on every error and despite a terrible spring there has been no reshuffle, no decisive measures, nothing that stands out - the nothing Budget showed this. It seems apparent that although intellectually astute and good on policy, when backed into a corner Gordon brown would rather talk over the problems than strike back. It is this deliberate, thoughtful approach that in 2007 was so craved, which has now made his premiership seem like it is comatose. Sadly as a man of substance it is unlikely he will change his ways and it seems now his peak was already behind him when he became Prime Minster in 2007. He is just not suited to the time-sensitivities and decisiveness that being Prime Minister requires.