The expansion of constituency service

Constituents, both individuals, groups and organisations may want to contact their MP from time to time for information or support. The basic convention is that MPs will only deal with an issue within their constituency (this does not include non-constituency issues they might have a spoecial interest in). So if your MP is not of the political party you prefer, you can't go and speak to an MP in another constituency just because they might be from your preferred party. MPs exist to support all constituents, irrespective of how they vote, though MPs are aware that constituency service can help them develop a personal vote which might insure them against adverse national party swings in electoral support.

Therefore, if someone emails their MP regarding a constituency issue, the MPs office may ask for a local address/postcode to check that that they should deal with the issue.

I was very surprised to see that this convention may now be extending to non-parliamentarians. I recently had recourse to email a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate (PPC), and received an automail from them which stated that they could only deal with matters relating to their named constituency, and requesting confimation that the emailer did indeed live in that constituency.

I have never seen this before, but the candidate was clearly applying the constituency convention, I suspect so that they don't waste time to non-constituency matters, or from non-constituents. Is this now the norm?

Viral Twitter?

I am indebted to Darren Lilleker for pointing out to me this interesting use of Twitter. Maude the Cow appears to be Anchor Butter trying to use Twitter a bit like a viral marketing campaign. I suspect that they hope it will become a favourite for people. In effect, they are using this Twitter account as a meme whereby they seek to give their account some impact by associating it with human emotions and cultural norms. One of my favourite meme's is Frank The Cat, where the obvious emotion being tugged at is one of "aah, poor cat", as a consequence it was bit of a Web sensation for a while. Maude the Cow is aiming at another emotion, that of humour, which is hoped (I suspect) will make it a success.

This fairly innovative use of Twitter raises an interesting question at the heart of the Internet. Commercial operations have frequently been quick at seeking to use new Internet developments for competitive advantage. Websites and email easily fit within commercial culture of how to communicate, but I suggest that commercial operations can struggle with other Internet modalities, especially those essentially created to meet personal needs, not corporate. Whilst I know that companies have sought to use social networking sites and weblogs, I believe that beyond market research, these applications should not be ones companies should invest much time in. Weblogs are personal diaries and social networking sites encourage interaction between individuals. Conceptually then, how can an organisation be on Facebook or have a weblog? I know many do, but I don't think it works. Named individuals within corporations could easily have such personal communication channels, but how can a coporate facade? That said, I can see that social networking sites would work as part of internal communication within a political party.

Twitter, as a microblog site does potentially help companies square this conceptual circle. Although clearly designed originally to be a person-to-person tool, I feel it is also possible for Twitter to be an-organisation to person tool in a way that a blog or social networking site may not. As a consequence I suspect this part of the twittersphere to grow, and we may well see political parties adopt this as well as their candidates.

Is it Fair Play to FIFA?

After my post yesterday criticising the way FIFA had handled Le Hand of God affair, I note today that FIFA are at least taking the first step to possibly addressing the crisis. An Extraordinary Meeting implies that Sepp Blatter recognises he cannot ignore the crisis, even if critics might not like his solution for extra officials.

The proof as ever will be in the pudding, and I am not that confident, but at least a first step in crisis management has been taken, albeit very belatedly.

Football and a crisis

Much has been written over the last few days about Thierry Henri's use of a hand during a game of football. I note today that Henri thought about retiring from international football. Discussions about the player, the referee, the two managers and their respective national FAs is pretty much irrelevant. As a crisis for football (and it is) this is something which only the international football body, FIFA, can solve. Yet, this appears to be an issue which the one body able to deal with it, have largely ignored (they may not have behind the sences, but this is the perception many may have). Looking at their media pages, there is a press release which deals with the request to replay the game. But if you look at FIFA's home page, it would appear that nothing untoward has happened in the game of football recently requiring their attention, other than the banning of the Iraqi FA. The reality is that this incident highlights a problem which other sports have addressed, but football is perceived as dragging its feet on. How can modern technology be used to best help the referee? Until FIFA address this issue, and I am not saying exactly what they should do, the crisis will not go away.

I draw a comparision with what is happening in UK politics at present regarding MPs expenses. Personally, I take the view that MPs are not paid enough, and I would significantly increaase their salary and take away the generous expenses. But whatever is the appropriate solution, thus far, like FIFA the real problem is being ignored. Focusing on not employing family members is ignoring the real problems.

Neither MPs nor FIFA seem to get it in terms of the nature of the crisis they are responding to. One is not yet clearly and unambigously demonstrating that it understands public anger, the other does not appear to be openly addressing the issue (they may be in committees but we the public are not being told what is happening).

Who's winning the Twitter race?

In earlier posts I have referred to MPs who Twitter, and that the number is slowly rising. Today I had a look at how many Prospective Parliamentary Candidates (PPCs) have a Twitter account. Tweetminster lists 151 who claim to have a Twitter account, but I found that only 129 have a 'sticky' account. Stickiness, as with my research on MPs use of Twitter, was measured by whether they had tweeted within the last month.

Nine individual party's candidates had a Twitter account, plus three Independent candidates. In terms of parties the results were:
Conservative (44)
Labour (45)
Liberal Democrat (25)
Green party (5)
UKIP (4)
Libertarian Party UK (LPUK) (2)
SNP (1)

It has been suggested that the Internet might help level the playing field between the smaller and larger parties, but the evidence here is that on Twitter there is a politics as usual, with the big 3 parties dominating.

We also note that the Conservatives, although elsewhere considered to be winning the online campaign, seem to be a bit under-represented on Twitter. The Conservatives presumably have the highest number of target seats, but this data would suggest that they are not necesarily turning to Twitter in those seats.

In terms of gender, nearly two-thirds (72.1%) of tweeting PPCs are male. I don't know what the overall gender spplit on PPCs are, but it would be interesting to compare these to see whether women are over- or -under-represented on Twitter.

The financial cost of Le Hand of God?

Sporting icons are often used as celebrity endorsers of products, but they can make me cringe. Two of the best Olympians there have ever been, Sir Chris Hoy and Sir Steve Redgrave, are in front of the camera wooden. One rare contrary example has been the ex-Arsenal footballer Thierry Henri. His delivery of 'Va Va Vroom' for the Renault Clio advert is natural and professional, way above the normal 'amateur's' delivery.

However, last night's World Cup play-off between France and the Republic of Ireland may significantly reduce (or even end) his power as a celebrity endorser in the UK (and Ireland). I suspect that, like Diego Maradona, Henri will now be tagged forever in the minds of many as a cheat. Whilst I could see him in a French or Spanish (he plays in Spain) advert, I can't see him being used as an endorser over here any time soon. I have not seen the incident (or more accurately two hand ball incidents), but what I think is irrelevant, what is salient is that in the eyes of many he is now a 'cheat'. Which company or charity would touch him with a bargepole now?

Celebrity endorsement is used because it is felt that for some audiences the credibility of the source is key to persuading them, and that a well-known or well-loved celebrity can add value to a campaign. I wonder whether we'll ever see Va va Vroom on television again?

A good use of an e-newsletter

I have felt that for some time e-newsletters can be a powerful relationship building tool. They need to be used regularly, the receivers need to subscribe for a year or so, the content must be of use to subscribers and most importantly the best ones are interactive and overtly encourage feedback or dialogue. For commercial marketers such feedback can be useful in developing new products or refining their messages, for politicians e-newsletters can help them explain their position on topical issues, seek feedback and possibly be a voter winner.

One good example of the speedy and topical use of an e-newsletter to support, as part of an intergrated communication approach, was provided by Tim Farron. By 17.30 yesterday I had recieved an email from Tim commenting on yesterday's Queen's Speech, only a few hours after Her Majesty had presented her Government's programme. What Tim said about the Government's legislative programme was esentially the party line. Therefore, he was using his e-newsletter to reinforce a message which would be presented via other media. I suspect Tim has a few thousand subscribers, so whilst they were hearing about the Queen's Speech on the television or radio, some of his constituents also receiving commentary from their MP.

My only criticism is that Tim's approach was one-way, namely his views only, but he could easily have engaged subscribers by asking for their views as well. At the very least they would have felt that their MP listened to them and wanted to hear their voice.

Adoption of Twitter by MPs

Everett Rogers, Diffusion of Innovation sought to explain how audiences adopt new ideas/policies/technologies.

Rogers suggested that in order to be successfully adopted by society/markets, an innovation had to first be of interest to innovators, a very small (typically 2.5% of the target population) who liked to try out new things in their field. This would then lead to early adopters, and then the early and late majority. The laggards would resist that innovation for some considerable time.

We can see this approach applying to MPs adoption of the Internet. For example, Anne Campbell claimed to be the first MP to have a website in 1994. By the time of the 2001 General Election this had risen to about a fifth of all MPs (about 120), which a year later had increased to over 60% and now about 85-90% of MPs have an accessible website. So the initial website providing innovators were slowly joined by some early adopters up to the 1997 General Election (probably less than two dozen in number), then the early majority joined, and then by the 2005 General Election the late majority had adopted websites. Now only a small minority of laggards exist who resist providing a website.

If we look at MPs use of Twitter we are just moving from the early adopter to the beginnings of the early majority stage. Alan Johnson claimed to be the first MP to use Twitter in June 2007 as part of his Labour Party deputy leadership campaign, though it is interesting that he no longer appears to tweet, which is a common feature of innovators: that they often the first to adopt and then move on. In March 2009 the number of Tweeting MPs had slowly risen to 21, probably representing the innovators and some early adopters. Research conducted by myself and Darren Lilleker, found that in June 2009 51 MPs had a sticky Twitter account. Stickiness refers to whether an online presence is regularly maintained to encourage repeat visitors, for Twitter this was assessed to be tweets within the previous month. Using Tweetminster today this number has increased to 77, there are 30 MPs regularly using Twitter who did not in June, but four counted in June no longer have a sticky account. Hence the net increase is 26 more MPs.

Of the four no longer using Twitter, three were from Labour, one from the Conservatives, two were men and two women. At the point of our research in June, women were slightly over-represented, as were the Liberal Democrats (the party whose MPs were most likely to have a Twitter account proportionately) and Labour. Of the 30 new Tweeting MPs, 15 are Labour, 8 Liberal Democrat, 6 Conservative and one Scottish National Party (SNP). This maintains the bias towards the Liberal Democrats and Labour. In the run-up to the next General Election the gap between Liberal Democrats/Labour MPs tweeting and Conservatives is growing, which is not necessarily an issue if the Conservatives are using other off- and on-line channels.

I also note that the slight bias amongst the early adopters to being women, appears to be changed by the early majority, who are mostly male. Twenty seven of the newly tweeting MPs are men, and only 3 are women.

That the next election campaign is only six months or less away is proabbly acting as a spur for MPs to think about which technologies they could use. As with websites before 1997 and 2001, and e-newlsetters before 2005, a very small number of innovators have encouraged others to think about joining the bandwagon.

I have suggested elsewhere that MPs use of any Internet modality can fall into one of four categories: pioneers; magpies; bandwagoners; technophobes. Of the now 77 tweeting MPs there are probably some 20 who are pioneers using it as a normal part of their communication strategies, and shaping their representative role as a consequence. In the run-up to the next election a considerable number of the remaining tweeting MPs will probably be magpies seeking to use twitter as a means of gaining competitive advantage. Some, and an increasing number as we approach the election date, will be bandwagoners, jumping on the latest bandwagon in order not to get left behind.

Will Prime Minister Cameron use webcameron?

David Cameron has been perceived to have adopted the Internet through his use of webcameron. Although the nature of this has changed over time, with for example some of the two-way interactive features no longer present, it is still interesting that the likely next PM is aware of and uses some of the technology. I wonder, will webcameron still operate in June next year, and if so will it be hosted by Number 10 (and so be a Government broadcast) or the Conservative Party (and so a partisan broadcast)?

Political leaders have in the past used new technologies to support their policies and approaches. FD Roosevelt's fireside chats played a key role in building support for his New Deal. How will Cameron use the Internet? I would strongly caution against using webcameron as currently constituted, as it is essentially a one-way broadcast. A more radical approach would be a more two-way approach. A model of e-representation where politicians are seen to be engaging with citizens might help address the lack of public trust in the body politic. For example, using Cameron's existing broadcast approach, could not members of the public (not politicos) have the opportunity to post questions and here him as PM directly answer them?

I am intrigued by how Government leaders elsewhere have utilised the Internet. One example where the Internet, through force of circumstance, has played an important communication role is Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai. Denied a fair crack of the whip by the Zanu-PF dominated media, he has had to use alternative sources of communication. Although access to the Internet in Zimbabwe is low, his use of a website to explain what is going on, and what he is doing, does provide an alternative source of material which will trickle down

I am not suggesting that David Cameron should adopt Morgan Tsvangirai's approach, though he does at least recognise the importance of two-way communciation, rather it suggests that the Internet offers Cameron some useful possibilities of opening up dialogue.

Impact of the Internet on MPs' roles

The role that backbench MPs perform evolves. Since the 1960s many MPs have given greater priority to the constituency role, both in terms of dealing with individual casework and of promoting the constituency as a whole.

The Internet has encouraged minor developments in what some MPs now do to support constituents. I have spoken before about how the Internet makes it easier for an MP to promote a hinterland, of them as an individual person, not just a politician. MPs can also use their online presence as an 'information portal' as an adjunct to their constituency role. Here MPs use their website, e-newsletter or whatever to promote what others are doing in the constituency. This might be community events, ideas, groups or whatever, but it promotes civic participation. The politician benefits indirectly in encouraging a better constituency to live in.

A recent example of this 'informational portal' role is offered by Gisela Stuart who is asking constituents who visit her webstie to 'Nominate a Community Hero'. The website does not make it clear what will happen, who will judge the competition or whether their will be a launch event, but it does appear to be a story about constituents and not the host MP.

Whilst I would not suggest that the Internet has encouraged all MPs to develop an 'informational portal' role, some do appear to have adopted such an approach. In itself this will not address the loss of trust the public have towards politicians, nor reverse the democratic deficit, but it may be a welcome development (if we asume that MPs have lost more fundamental roles within the body politic).

Clever lobbying in the beautiful game

The Premier League has rejected a proposal from Phil Gartside, Chairman of Bolton Wanderers FC, to create a two-tier Premier league and to invite the two dominant Scottish teams, Celtic and Rangers to join. Gartside, like many middle and lower ranking Premier clubs, is concerned about the huge financial gulf between the big four Premier clubs and the rest of the division.

Reading between the lines, it would appear that the Premier league may give serious consideration to some of Gartside's other proposals. This may help feed more television money to the smaller premiership clubs, and so level the playing field a bit within the Premier league. I may well be doing Gartside a disservice, but the press focused on the two high-profile proposals, and Gartside's agenda may have been actually on the less high profile. If I am correct, he has played a blinder, and created a story that might or might not be a long-term goal, but may lead to changes that improve Bolton's financial situation in the short to medium term.

If I am correct, this is a version of the door-in-the-foot (FITD) persuasion technique where you make a large request that is almost certainly going to be denied, and then come back with a smaller request. Cialdini & Ascani 1976 found that students asked to give blood every 2 months for 3 years most declined, but when asked to volunteer the next day, 49% agreed as opposed to 32% of the control group.

Why Gordon Brown won't go in March

Nick Robinson notes that the Conservative high command were concerned about whether Gordon Brown might try to surrpise them with a March election. Robinson then gives some rational reasons for why this won't happen, concerning the timeframe of the Budget.

Political decisions, be it who to vote for, where to allocate money or in this instance when to prorogue parliament, can be influenced by both rational and emotional factors. In short, is the decision made by the head following an informed and logical consideration of relevant material. Or does it reflect the dominance of the heart, not necessarily based on an assessment of the facts, but emotions such as like, trust and attraction.

I don't believe that just the head or the heart rules all 'political' decisons by voters or politician's, but in certain circumstances one or other may. When considering the merits of a particular policy a citizen may seek be more infleucned by the rational. But, as Drew Westen suggests that when push comes to shove, emotion may influence enough voting behaviour to make difference. This theory, which is contrary to the traditional Downesian rational choice model, would possibly explain why most commentators thought that the Conservative Government would lose in 1992, that when it came to it, enough people who felt Labour were the right party to govern could not actually vote for Labour at the last minute, so that the Conservatives squeeked in.

Hence, I suspect all Robinson's careful analysis is superflous, in fact human nature is that it is now unlikely that Brown will ask the Queen to dissolve parliament until he has to. If Brown was going to go early it would have been emotionally much easier shortly after he became PM. The longer he is PM, the more difficult it will be emotionally for him to risk his position.

MPs making a difference

I have noted before that MPs may seek to present a hinterland of them as human beings. I found this example of Tom Brake getting involved in the CSV's Make a Difference day very interesting. It gives a sense of Tom as a caring individual putting something back. But it also highlights what is the role of a backbencher, particularly one not on the Government side of the Chamber. I suspect this is an example of a very active element of the constituency role. That MPs, having limited policy influence and increasingly marginalised by their national parties and the media, seek an alternative justifuiation for their existence. Constituency service has helped meet this need for a purpose. The question is do we want our MPs to go further and further down this route, or do we want them to play a greater role in the development of policy and scrutiny of government actions? I suspect we do want to encourage the constituency service role, for here is where MPs can enhance the representative riole, and hence reach individual constituents. However, I also feel MPs need a more 'meaty' policy role, which might then justify a much higher salary and bypass the argument over expenses.

The role of the Internet in influencing the policy debate

Talking to many MPs about how they first got into different modalities of the Internet, be it website, e-newsletter, social networking site or microblog, one consistent theme has been the role of their staff. I have not conducted any quantitative research on how many, but anectdotally the number must account for a not insignificant minority, say 10-20% of MPs first online forays. Typically, they had a young staff member, full-time, part-time or volunteer intern who knew how to use the Internet, and was allowed to get on with it.

Research by Edelman suggests MPs staffers are infleunced by the Internet, especially the interactive Web 2.0 applications. That such staffers are influenced by certain trusted sites for news and information is not a surprise, of more interest is the fact that many turn to social networking sites, blogs and even microblogs for policy advice. This suggests that Web 2.0 applications may play a role in developing policy ideas, or shape their bosses parliamentary speeches.

Research by myself and Darren Lilleker on MPs use of social networking sites, weblogs and Twitter has focused on how they use these tools to promote their own views and interact with citizens/constituents. Edelman's research adds an interesting angle of how MPs and their staff are in turn using such applications.

The lesson is that those organisations, such as pressure groups, seeking to shape the public agenda may need to consider how they can get parliamentary staffers to view, use and trust their various online offerings.

Labour versus Conservatives online

I saw a story in today's Sunday Times which piqued my interest about the funding problems of the Labour Party. Essentially, the story suggested that Labour was unable to borrow more money and so was doing less activity, such as telephone canvassing, than it might have in the past.

I don't think that this is earth shattering news. Any party in Government for over ten years starts to lose friends. There is clear evidence that, as many did before 1997, some of those with funds to hand are more likely to put it towards the Conservatives, in the belief that they will be the next Government. And we all like to back the winner. What I think is interesting is what this means for how Labour nationally and in local target seats will communicate and campaign.

With such limited funds, one presumably looks to cheaper methods, such as media management and the Internet, and focus less on high costing advertising and direct marketing campaigns. This hypothesis would suggest that Labour could put a lot of effort into the Internet where the financial imbalance would be less of a factor. Traditionally, this level playing field hypothesis applies to the other parties versus the big two, but potentially it might apply to Labour as well.

There are two problems with this assumption. First, whilst Labour were often ahead of the Conservatives at a national level, and even more at a local level, up to about 2005/6 there is some evidence that this has been reversed in the Web 2.0 era. So they don't appear to be investing in the technology to be as innovative, and certainly don't have the breadth of delivery beyond MPs. Second, it has been the smaller parties, especially the Liberal Democrats, who have actually often been the most innovative in their use of both Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 applications.

If I am correct that a) there has been, if not a level playing field, at least an ebb and flow allowing smaller parties to have their voice heard, and b) Labour have fallen back a bit in their onine advantage over their main competitor, then this seems rather odd. It seems to me that Labour is focusing its resources on the party and MPs/PPCs online presence, and not necessarily focusing on the other semi-partisan sites which shape opinion, where the Conservatives appear to have an advantage.

This suggests that at the next election there may not appear to be a whole of difference quantitatively between how the two party HQs and their PPCs use the Internet, which might imply a false picture. Such overt, partisan sites have a limited direct effect on floating voters (though they do on supporters), rather it is the wider online public sphere, often not overtly partisan which may influence both the media and party agendas, and to some extent public opinion. It is here where the Conservatives appear to have an advantage over both Labour and the Liberal Democrtas.

The BBC and Political Education

Very interested to see that the BBC have launched on their website Democracy Live. This is a fantastic educational, and probably research tool, that should help students access and understand politics easier and in more depth. It follows on from a revamp to the Parliament website in January 2009 which added a youtube channel, social networking sites and more use of blogs.

Neither development will necessarily address the lack of interest in partisan politics within society, but they do significantly enhance the experience of those, especially students, who are interested in finding out more. I only briefly used Democracy Live today, but what I saw suggested that it was very user-friendly, and an excellent means of encouraging interest in political debate.