The Campaign Company Blog

'Ninging' the debate on healthcare back to life...

Having been commissioned by the Cumbria PCT to consult the public on changes to health care services, we recently embarked on a tour of different locations in North Cumbria to obtain responses to the proposed reforms.

To keep TCC staff, the PCT and interested parties updated on our progress, I created a 'ning' site.  Ning is a DIY social networking site, rather like a Facebook group, on which you can post blogs, forum discussions, photos and videos to discuss with an invited audience.  It proved to be a fantastic small-scale project management tool; a great way of keeping in touch and facilitating debates on different aspects of the health service that were, perhaps, particularly prevalent in the days engagement activities.

The question of whether 'nings' are best suited for internal discussion or public consumption was brought into sharp perspective when members of the public were inadvertently invited to join the site.  Ultimately, it sparked off an interesting debate between professionals and local people on the changes proposed under the consultation.  I would have no hesitation using a 'ning' again for a similar purpose, but it is vital to establish exactly what its purpose is to be before beginning...

Do as I say, not as I do?

We were recently engaging with a community where they were asked to express their views broadly for or against an issue. The issue as such was one where people in the office would also take differing views, if only for a spot of light-hearted banter.

The point I made in our discussions was that what was far more interesting was that those who were critical also expressed their views on the benefits and the same applied vice versa. Very few people were either completely for or against on this issue where you could actually express a clear yes or no. Clearly the depth of our engagement showed that people hold complex views on the subject..

I think one of the interesting areas that one discovers within community engagement is the difference between what people say and their actual behaviour: eg people say they disagree with something and then, when given the choice, behave somewhat differently.

We see this in people's views and actions with recycling, gambling, healthy living, using big shops when they say they really prefer smaller local shops etc. The current debate on the future of local post offices is a good example. People say they want a local one but usage is declining as people vote with their feet and use other service provision - some on the internet..

Some of this may be due to people weighing up incentives against what they perceive to be commonly held views. Thus we see people say they like their community to stay the same and will oppose an over-development next door to them, but if a developer offers them £50,000+ on top of the value of their property they don't then say "no, this will ruin the neighbourhood I am moving from, so I won't accept this extra money.

Organisations like the RSA are currently studying the dichotomy between views and behaviour as a driver for challenges such as "private activity, public despair", which we have previously blogged and its an area that there will clearly be more debate. As we are discovering in some areas we are working in, people have very complex views on "entitlement" both for themselves and others. The challenge for politicians and society is how much should we actually restrict people's choices and potentially damaging behaviour or how much should we debate with it in a slower process  of engagement?

In other words - how far do civil liberties go and how possible is it to impose one approach to areas of personal behaviour in a single state, let alone a complex global society where some people in future may see their on-line community as far more important than their local community. .

I used to think you could impose such an approach but now I am not so sure?

This is why social marketing is such an interesting area with much wider applications than what it is being used for at present and why I think TCC are well positioned to be at the centre of that..

I suspect it goes back to the point I made at the beginning that people rarely hold a single view on these issues (see The Political Brain for more info - it has much wider application than politics) and that immediate influences at any point in time are really important.

McCain and Ming and the age thing..

I am sure that this will have been written about and I've missed it but what is the explanation for the trashing of Menzies Campbell(aged 66) and the lionisation of John McCain (aged 71) on the basis of their age?

Is the demographic profile of the US and UK so different? Are the US media just biding their time before turning on McCain? Is there genuinely a more mature(!)attitude to ageing in the US?

And doesn't it appear that in the UK that far from becoming more enlightened about the role of older people in public life etc, attitudes are actually moving the other way?

Jonathan(aged 53)

Googling Alone! - A quick way to assess local social capital

You may have heard of the book Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam where he surveys the decline of social capital and suggests how it can be revived. The evidence base is generally drawn from American sources, however the points he make are very much applicable to other developed democracies.

Putnam conducted a lot of research for his book, but many working in their community trying to assess social capital for their area do not the time or the academic resources Putnam had.

Perhaps there is a web 2.0 solution?

If you are reading this article, there is a good chance you use Google or another good web search engine. If you use Google a lot you may be aware of many of its search facilities. One of the most interesting is if you type a full postcode in you get many internet entries associated with that geographical area.

As someone who was a Councillor for 20 years, I was fortunate in having a pretty good understanding of the social geography of my area. As a result recently I started typing in postcodes for some of the wealthier areas of my borough and some of the poorest.

The results were reasonably predictable. In areas that were quite wealthy you would find postings for people who ran their own businesses or were in community groups. In poorer areas you would generally find websites that related to wider public sector bodies but little community or small scale enterprise activity. At times I found up to 10 times as many pages for a relatively well-off residential road with no other facilities compared to a poorer area of flatted social housing.

Of course some might say it is all about access to home computers between poor and well off areas and that in poorer areas it is the mobile phone that has much more usage. A fair point. However in this much more connected world access to and participation on the internet can be a reinforcing factor for developing social capital in wealthier areas. The fact that the gap is so wide in the number of Google pages is a useful proxy indicator for quickly assessing levels of basic social capital and social connectedness.

What can we do about this?

One idea I had was that Local Strategic Partnerships (LSP) could trawl every postcode in their locality and ensure they are connected with every group listed. I suspect there is good software that can automate much of this process. This in itself might go some way to increase the overall stock of social capital across a local authority area as more groups and individuals would be connected to key local stakeholders. A far-sighted LSP might even seek to connect people within a community together through encouraging the development of geographical based social networking software similar to Residents HQ that I have previously blogged about.

Another thought was for Local Strategic Partnerships to identify 10-20 postcodes with low Google pages and perhaps conduct a pilot survey of them regarding internet access. It may be that residents are not using free facilities in local libraries? Some extra publicity and perhaps even the sort of doorstep engagement that TCC recommends for many projects could be easily provided. This could be linked to an offer of simple computer training.

This sort of approach might go some way to connecting people up and creating the sort of network effects that can perhaps start to increase the stock of social capital in some poorer communities.

Registering to Vote - Making you Count!

Never having learned to drive, means I use the bus a lot which means I get a bit of extra time to devour more of a newspaper - that way giving me a few extra new thoughts on a wider range of subjects. Being in TCC also means I like looking at how other people get their message across and also how we can Make Democracy Work!

When you combine this together you get blog postings like this!

As I got off the bus stop I always look at the bus stop advertising. This is not because I am an avid consumer - indeed I am probably quite a non-materialist really. It is because social marketing campaigns - an area which TCC works in - are often advertised at bus stops.

This time I saw an advert for registering to vote for the London Mayoral election. I didn't think it was a good poster - it wasn't a great design and didn't really encourage you to register, though I suppose it was helpful as an information item. There is clearly a need to advertise registration as up to 1 million Londoners might not be registered to vote in May in the GLA elections. As I walked on to the library I then mentally challenged myself as to what I would do instead!

It struck me that what real incentive was there to make young people want to register? Having your say is hardly tangible in a mature consumer democracy like the UK. It is not as if a young person is going to struggle like many South African voting for the first time after a lot of queueing in 1994.

Many young people may also make the ostensibly rational consumerist calculation, that "will my single vote make any difference"? Until we teach more about the science of change at an earlier age and that small acts really do make a difference either by making a big change on its own or being part of an amplification of a change this rationalisation will continue to exist. As Bobby Kennedy said in South Africa in 1966:

"Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centres of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."

In addition for some sort of Tipping Point to occur, such as the collapse of a pile of sand, it needed a single grain of sand to move.

Collapsing sand and Bobby Kennedy's soaring rhetoric might be an interesting explanation to me, but are not a great incentive for others leading busy lives in a reasonably secure democracy where voting and politics in general are lower down their priority list.

The insight I had at the bus stop and on the way to the library - where I am now typing this blog posting - was that it was the act of registering itself that was the problem. For all the centuries of developing democracy, is a vote every few years a great return on filling in a form?

Unlike the past when the registration form was one of the more important things you filled in every year, we all now fill in hundreds of forms a year, many online and many much more exciting or important than the humble electoral registration form. In other words, in an era of mortgage applications, bank loans and overseas holidays, the poor old electoral registration form had fallen down the hierarchy of important acts that you do.

What we need is to make registering to vote a lot more of a key thing, not just for young people but for citizens of all ages.

In recent years the main debate on registration has been on security and voting fraud and whether there should be individual registration or household registration. As one can imagine, this has not been a great encouragement to either registering or voting.

I think this is a false choice as with all the digital databases we now have we can actually have both types of registration, with one acting as a check on the other. Where an individual registration conflicts with a household return, the local authority electoral registration unit should check the issue out. This might require greater resources to operate, but my other suggestions below also recommend more resources being spent on this key entrance point to democratic participation.

Below are a few of my ideas for reforming the electoral registration process for all voters that not only assists with registration itself but also encourages voting:

• Should first registering to vote be done at schools like an internal Citizenship ceremony. With the school leaving age soon to be 18, this could be a key role for them and the culmination of years of PHSE lessons.
• The registration form should come with a standard booklet explaining all your opportunities to participate. Some would be things that already exist. Some extra forms of participation are suggested below.
• The registration form should offer you text message and email notice of public debates hosted by your local authority where Councillors are available to answer questions a few times a year.
• Many people say they want to have their say. The registration form should offer you an online local authority level discussion area where the local strategic partnership and your MP will hold online sessions so they can be questioned, with online votes on issues etc.
• It should offer you an opportunity to register for annual free draws to meet the Prime Minster and the cabinet and opposition party leaders perhaps with a few days holiday in a London hotel thrown in to make it more of a holiday.
• For young people how about a free draw to enable some to have their child trust fund topped up or your university tuition fees written off. Over the next few years we will see people realise how valuable the child trust fund is and that adding to that will become an increasing incentive to many families.
• You could request to join a political party and specify which one you wanted to join. This would have to be a party registered with the Electoral Commission, but the local authority would then pass your name on to the relevant national party to follow up if they wished.
• You could request to become a school governor or to sit on a local government outside body or a local community group or charity. The local authority could then add you to a list that the Councillors could use to draw from a wider range of experience. This approach might even help with improving political party recruitment and making them more representative of their communities.

Some might disagree with some of these ideas or might have other, even better, suggestions. My fundamental point is that filling a form for a single democratic purpose that has been unchanged for many years, is not enough in these more complex times. The form should be transformed into a gateway into a whole range of participatory democratic activity. That way we all should have more opportunities to make democracy work!

An E-Bowl of Sugar!

An interesting new approach to social networking, which is normally associated with widely dispersed communities.

This time it is to reinforce a real geographical community.

Residents UK is a social network site for people living within modern blocks of flats to communicate with each other. In other words people don't ignore their neighbours or have a chance meeting on the landing but actually move in and check out who lives in the block and who might share an interest with them or who can help them.

It will be interesting to see whether it takes off and whether developers of these blocks encourage it? The danger is that it might increase social segregation by making such electronically "gated communities" even more cohesive and less connected with surrounding poorer communities.

I would therefore love to see a local council kit out one of its own housing blocks with home computers and encourage people to join a local block social network - a sort of "e-tenants association". Could such a network go some way to tackle the generally lower levels of trust in poorer communities and perhaps enhance community cohesion?

You tube becomes "Viewtube"!

Youtube has brought all the UK Political Party Youtube sites into one portal to make them easier to find.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown launched the site appropriately through a Youtube Video!

This should be a useful resource to all citizens or "netizens" in the coming years and is likely to receive a lot of hits at the next General Election. It should reach out to groups such as young people, who are hard to reach through other campaign techniques.

It will be interesting to see whether unofficial videos made by individuals rather than political parties are also placed there?

TCC uses web 2.0 systems such as Youtube and wiki sites for community engagement where the public can add their own content on websites. We believe this has a lot of potential for social marketing and community cohesion work as well as more general campaigning.

As online video becomes easier and cheaper to upload, we could see entire debates conducted through video blogging (Vlogs) and through sites as Youtube. This has potential to revolutionise how the public express their views and could make politicians much more accountable to the public they serve.

The Death of Communities?

The Independent on Sunday has coverage of a study by the Prince's Trust about community decline. The report claims that a third of people are predicting the death of their communities as traditional social networks decline in the face of rapid change in the composition of communities.

The report claims that:

"Most people believe the days of face-to-face contact are numbered, with 65 per cent saying that people in the future will have more contact through the internet than in person. Almost one in 10 Britons, nine per cent, admits to failing to meet other people socially on a weekly basis. And 15 per cent go a week without speaking to any of their neighbours."

More significantly from a community cohesion perspective the report claims that:

"Poorer communities are the least confident about the future of their community and the least satisfied with life in general. More than one in five people here said they had not spoken to a neighbour for at least a week, while eight per cent have not spoken to a neighbour for at least a month."

The Independent also reports on laudable actions by government and the voluntary and private sector to support those poorer communities. Whilst one can always argue for more resources, a more important issue is how we use existing resources better. Two things come to mind:

• Investing in community assets so they draw in a wider community of people to increase social interactions and strengthen social networks.
• Supporting people in the community to act as local champions and advocates - perhaps through a relaxing of some inflexible benefits rules to enable them to be better supported in the work they could do talking to a range of local people.

TCC, working with the New Deal for Communities (NDC) Network as well as with local authorities on community cohesion, has come to the view that it is investment in some of those smaller changes that can make a bigger change in the long-run.

If we are to either sustain or rebuild social networks and community cohesion, it can only be through engaging with the people in a community and helping them to identify the shared challenges that face them and their neighbours. Only when you identify those challenges can you create a potential for dialogue across other cultural and social barriers.

Shameless Marketing

The Chatsworth estate is heading for its second election (remember shopowner Kash was elected to Chatsworth Council at the end of series 3) and this time, if I've viewed the preview clips correctly, this gritty Mancunian housing estate will be electing their own Young Mayor.

As a programme, that I'm a great fan of, which has taken social commentary to, occassionally unbelieveable, dramatic heights I can't help wondering what might be in store for our candidates and what the writers have decided should be the moral tale told with this next election.

Previews of story lines for the episode (5) suggest that 'Debbie spots a chance to provide free egg and chips to everyone on the estate' (courtesy of the Radio Times) - could it be a bribe to help her chosen candidate get elected? Well, like me, you'll just have to wait and see whether the writers have decided that participation in elections should be equated with spoils politics - even if the spoils, in true Shameless style, is free egg and chips.

On a more serious note though, well done to the Shameless team for a piece of Shameless marketing for youth empowerment and participation. With any luck there'll be new young mayors or young leaders springing up in local politics all over the country - joining those already in post in places like Lewisham and Newham. And, as its the biggest focus in the UK for all those politicos this year, we can only hope that the candidates for this years London Mayor and Assembly elections are tuning in and thinking of new ways to involve young people, not yet able to legally vote, in the decision making that affects their lives.

Private Optimism, Public Despair - What can we do?

It has been long known that there is a general perception gap between what people might think of their local hospital and what they think of the NHS in general.

Matthew Taylor, Chief Executive of the RSA, writing in the New Statesman has talked about these difficulties but goes much further with an important and insightful article which looks to the future. He says:

"This perception gap is not restricted to public services, as a recent BBC poll on families confirms. Some 93 per cent of respondents described themselves as optimistic about their own family life, up 4 per cent from the previous time the survey was conducted, 40 years ago. Yet more people - 70 per cent, across race, class and gender - believe families are becoming less successful overall."

He also adds to the point by Polly Toynbee, that we have blogged, on the lack of advocates to tell good news in the public services when it happens:

"In the burgeoning industry of reputation management, it is generally argued that people are much more likely to tell others about bad experiences of services than good ones (5:1 is the usual ratio)."

He argues that trends such as the rise of individualism and the decline of some forms of collectivism combined with the rise of pretty much self-organising global capitalism moving at a rapid pace have created this private optimism and public despair, adding that:

"Globalisation is the gravity of modern society: an unstoppable force that will knock us over if we try to defy it."

Since the collapse of the cold war two systems in 1989 no single person or authority is in control even if some parts of the world are more powerful than others.

He points out that people still see the same broad problems as they did 100 years but now see rapid change as a challenge and seek greater comfort in those close to them.

However, he strikes an optimistic note saying that people are more affluent and healthy and yet there is a danger of some missing out on the celebration:

"Progressives want the world to be a better place. We bemoan its current inequities and oppression - yet if we fail to celebrate the progress that human beings have made, and if we sound as though the future is a fearful place, we belie our own philosophy. Instead, we need to address a deficit in social optimism that threatens the credibility of our core narrative."

Addressing social optimism is clearly a project for everyone. We have previously blogged about Richard Layard's case for increasing overall happiness and David Cameron has talked about the government having a mission to improve people's general wellbeing.

Matthew Taylor makes the case for a New Collectivism to tackle what he describes as the social optimism deficit:

"It is in working with others on a shared project of social advance that we can be reconnected to the sense of collective agency so missing from modern political discourse. It is the attitude of the spectator that induces pessimism, the experience of the participant that brings hope. The problem is not that change brings fear and disorientation (there's nothing new in this), it is that we lack the spaces and places where people can renew hope and develop solutions."

It was challenges like this that brought TCC into being and where we try to assist organisations. He then refers to the sort of change making we should all be attempting together:

"The institutions of the new collectivism must be devolved, pluralistic, egalitarian and, most of all, self-actualising."

This is the sort of approach that this blog argued for and it good to see the arguments so well set out here. He gives a number of examples of where this happening:

"Today, there are signs of a yearning for new ways of working together. There is the growing interest in social and co-operative enterprise and the emergence of new forms of online collaboration. Gordon Brown's citizens' juries are a tentative step in the right direction, albeit without much fun or risk-taking..."

and

"Tackling climate change offers a fascinating opportunity to interweave stories of action at the individual, community, national and international levels."

TCC is working in places like EC1 in London on increasing recycling whilst linking it firmly to the whole issue of climate change through initiatives that engage with young people.

He concludes by making a call for people to build the institutions of the new collectivism:

"Despite the huge impersonal forces of the modern world, people are prepared not only to believe in a better future, but to work together to build it......This potential will be fulfilled only when we provide spaces for collective decision-making and action that speak to the same vision of collaboration, creativity and human fulfilment that progressives claim to be our destiny."

Many of these new institutions of this new collectivism already exist: NHS Foundation Trusts, New Deal for the Communities (NDC's) aspiring to run community assets, social networking sites like Ning, Facebook and Myspace. These are a different set of institutions to perhaps those of the 1945 welfare settlement, but they are a potentially strong mixed economy of institutions nevertheless, and they and other new institutions need support to build a collaborative new collectivism for the future.

In addition there is also challenge for long established institutions, such as local government, to respond to this agenda and to ensure they can relate more effectively to the places where people are optimistic such as within the family unit, whatever size or shape it now comes in. That also means they have to make themselves more accommodating to the places that people are optimistic so they can engage within that space.

Institutions, in whatever form they come and new or old are the arguably finest piece of (social) technology we have created. The Saturn 5 may have put men on the moon, but it was the institutions of the state and their agencies and contractors that put that immense machine together, and educated and trained the men for that mission. Institutions or whatever age encourage collaborative and collective action so as Matthew Taylor has stated the more we strengthen them through peoples involvement in them the more likely we are to rebuild trust and social optimism.

Spieling about health

A fascinating article in today's Times ''Spiel at the wheel?'' discusses how taxi drivers are being harnessed as word of mouth marketeers, with an interesting example about one cabbie promoting the delights of a holiday in Bangkok following a 5 days all expenses trip to Thailand! And - as people become more and more overwhelmed by traditional forms of advertising confronting them in every aspect of their day to day lives - new and different approaches such as 'word of mouth' marketing are having increasing appeal.

This is absolutely our experience at The Campaign Company. In our work with NHS organisations - particularly foundation trusts - we have done considerable work helping Trusts build their membership communities. (Working with over 50 Trusts we've recruited over 160,000 public members - about 1 in 5 of the current public membership) We've found that traditional forms of advertising - the leaflet, the poster, the join on-line form have limited impact. People are much more responsive to a direct ask - particularly one-to-one. And we take this a step further by encouraging 'member get member' recruitment and the development of 'Membership Champions'. Someone who has already joined will be be a powerful advocate to their friends, family and those in groups and organisations they belong to. They'll know how and when to get attention and be able to hone the message to the person they are talking to - because they know them well. And they will be listened to - because they are trusted and known to them - the 'word of mouth' approach in the FT context!

And in their foundation trust members, NHS Trusts have a fantastic resource at their disposal - these people are so well placed to become the 'word of mouth' advocates not just about membership but about the Trust itself - health marketeers! And as 'Patient Choice' becomes more of a reality - Trusts must embrace their FT members as a key element of their marketing mix. These are the people out there in the community; they are the people in the pubs, clubs, workplace, playgroups, bus queues, school gates. Of course - not every member is a 'word of mouth' marketeer - the trick for the Trust is to learn more about it's members - segment and stratify - and find those who are. Then it's about building the relationship - giving them the information and then sinply 'getting them talking'!

And taking this a step further - these people are just so well placed to pass messages back - let the Trust know about the things going well - but more importantly provide quick feedback about things not going so well.  Bad news always spreads so much faster than good news - so Trusts need as many mechanisms as possible to get that valuable 'early warning'! 

Making Disempowerment History?

Quite a significant speech today from Nick Clegg, the new Leader of the Liberal Democrats, on reform of the public services.

Whilst most coverage will focus on his comments on schools, hospital and taxes, a significant theme of the speech was his comments on community empowerment. The Lib Dems have generally been strong promoters of devolution to local government and local Councillors, but Clegg went further saying:

"This also means embracing a wider understanding of empowerment: not just of local authorities and politicians, desirable though that is, but of pupils, patients and parents too.

Individual power must be an everyday thing, not just reserved for the moment a vote is cast in the ballot box."

This again strengthens the consensus in this area, thus making it easier for the government to move forward with wide public support.

The strengthening of Local Strategic Partnerships to increase joined up public services locally is one important aspect of public sector reform, but this must be combined with empowering local communities to take control of their local institutions and work together with such Partnerships to solve local problems. Not just hospitals and schools, but also smaller community assets. TCC has worked with residents in New Deal for Communities (NDC) areas, young people and with Hospitals developing their membership to make the aspirations of politicians for "pupils, patients and parents" to exercise their "individual power" as an "everyday thing", a reality.

Do the Green Thing!

This is worth checking out, a good example of using social networking and pretty simple software tools to affect behavior change.

You become a member of 'the green thing' which then gives you ideas for how to save carbon (such as taking the stairs not the lift). When you do these things you can then log them on the site and the calculate and track how much carbon you've saved, 0.5kg for taking the stairs for example.

Then the social factor comes into play, you can make friends with other people, compare and compete on how much carbon you've saved... watch little videos people have made about being green etc etc...

Basically adding some fun into doing the right thing...

I reckon this could be improved even more by linking it in to Nike/Ipod social networking site which tracks running... although I supposed running only counts as saving carbon if it replaces a journey by car, bus or train....

Was it turnout not tears wot won it?

As people digest the results of the New Hampshire Democratic primary, it is is clear that Hillary Clinton benefited from the higher turnout of women voters over the age of 40 as well as a squeeze on John Edwards who was expected to poll over 20% and instead got 17%.

The combination of both does not necessarily indicate that tears made the difference, but it certainly implies that good polling day organisation did.

The impressive volunteer automatic telephone dial up system that she employed, requiring just a phone and no computer, which enabled her supporters from across the country to contact New Hampshire voters, was evidence of the strong organisation of the Clinton campaign.

Obama may have made a stronger emotional pitch to voters, but the strong organising by the Clinton machine made a crucial difference on the day.

The Comeback Kid 3 - Morning in America?

Whilst the big story today will be about the comeback of Hillary Clinton, arguably the bigger comeback was by Republican John McCain.

A few months ago he was perceived as dead in the water and was laying off staff.

Whilst New Hampshire has helped Hillary Clinton's campaign it has saved John McCain's.

Most importantly it showed his judgment of skipping Iowa was correct and voters may start to notice this narrative. Now the pressure will be on Rudy Guiliani and his judgment to skip the first two nomination tests and wait until the Florida primary.

If the election now boils down to McCain v Clinton will he later style himself as a reassuring figure like Reagan in 1984 and appeal to the centrist voters inspired by Obama's campaign?

The Comeback Kid 2 - The Babyboomers Strike Back!

She did it! Was it the appeal to emotion or was it the effective Get Out The Vote operation? As yet it is hard to tell. However Hillary Clinton's victory in New Hampshire pulled out the traditional Democrat coalition of women, older voters and the less well off.

Whilst the story today will be her comeback, the danger for all the Democrats is to avoid the narrative becoming that of Mondale v Hart in 1984, where the more experienced candidate beats the challenger, but then fails to reach out beyond the core vote and loses to an older reassuring candidate?

If Hillary Clinton now wins, she faces the first big decision that will define her and possibly her presidency. Received wisdom dictates she should appoint a southerner like John Edwards as her Vice President. However like Hart, Obama draws support from many centrist voters nowadays tired of the division in Washington.

Obama's gracious congratulation of Clinton's victory will require some recognition later, but will she take the risk of making him her Vice Presidential candidate?

Or is the combination of a woman President and a black Vice President a step too far, just as Geraldine Ferraro's candidacy was in 1984?

Power to the People - but do they really want it?

The world of participation and engagement is awash with industry terminology and catchy phrases but experienced practitioners will know that realising progress in empowerment and in devolving any kind of real power to the people is still an uphill struggle regardless of the language you use.

American colleagues wax lyrical about their state proposition system where the man and woman in the street get the final say, through referenda, on policy issues of the day. Don’t misunderstand me I’m not an advocate for referenda. I am however an advocate for people who are affected by policy decisions being given an opportunity to have a greater say in their design and delivery. I’m not suggesting revolution just evolution.

I detect a willingness in Whitehall to embrace the devolutionary and empowerment agendas – pilots in participatory budgeting; the new duty to involve in the local government and health sectors in England and Wales - but would ask whether a majority of the great Britsih public are actually willing to take the opportunities and responsibilities that these agendas offer the man and woman in the street.

The British psyche is a paradox between the desire for strong leadership and the longing to be listened to. We are never more vocal than when telling decision-makers what they’ve done wrong but rarely want to be those decision-makers who are so often the target of mistrust, abuse and, on occasion, outright loathing. It’s a vicious cycle and one that is a challenge to break as the very people who shout loud when things go wrong are the same people who need to be encouraged to be, in their own eyes, at the other end of the abuse that people like themselves dole out.

There are encouraging signs on the horizon - the levels of participation by young people as candidates and as electors in the Young Mayor elections in the London boroughs of Newham and Lewisham and the numbers of signed up members of Foundation Trusts in the Health Sector - but more innovative thought and approaches are required by public sector organisations on how they can encourage the man and woman in the street to be party to the decisions rather than just party to the criticism of them.

Go negative in 2008?

The American primaries have begun. It is around that time that some UK political commentators will start to pontificate over the Americans for their negative approach to campaigning. Many politicians in this country abhor negative campaigning and that is why it doesn't happen here to the same degree. Not because it doesn't work – it does.

 

However perhaps the language to define it is wrong?

Every politician I worked for stood for election because they have a vision about how their community, society and country should be. However in order to realise those aspirations first you must get into power and to do that you need to define your opponents, hold the executive/opposition to account and have dividing lines

 

Doing all this has been classified “negative”. It should probably be termed “effective”.

 

There are 3 myths about negative campaigning that need to be debunked

 

1) “I don't like negative campaigning and neither do the voters"

No body does - neither do I. We don't base our campaign around enjoyment otherwise we will have a joke box in every leaflet, dress up in clown suits and play our favourite tunes on a loud speaker. Everyone will like us but no one will vote for us! Everyone likes small babies and fluffy kittens but you wouldn't put them into public office. You don't campaign for your own enjoyment. If you do, get a hobby! You don't campaign for the voters pleasure, they get by just fine without it! You sound like a small child saying “I don't like baths”

 

2) "If we are more positive than the opposition people will choose us"

No, no, no! People in many cases base their most important decisions on negative reasons. "I won't leave my job because I have nothing better to go to." " I will not move home because the housing market in unstable". You need to understand what motivates them and talk in a language they understand.

 

3) "If we are more positive people will believe our message"

You are a politician. People do not believe you when you promise the world. But ensure the record of other politicians is held to account and people will believe that because they also regard you in low esteem.

Many people who get into politics do so for negative reasons - to stop something they don't like. Think about your own motivations. Then get on with it.

Hospitals need advocates!

Interesting statistic referred to by Polly Toynbee in the Guardian last week:

"Research shows patients tell at least 10 people about a bad treatment but only one or two about a good experience. Bad anecdotes ricochet around for years, yet polls show 80% of hospital patients report good treatment."

This illustrates the problem a local hospital might face in promoting the good work it does for the community. One problem can obscure the masses of good work we all know they do.

TCC has worked with many hospitals to recruit members as they become Foundation Trusts. However we believe members role should not just be passive. Foundation Trust members have the potential to sing the praises of their local hospital to everyone they know as well as expressing their general support for the NHS as an institution.

The research that Polly Toynbee refers to shows the need for Foundation Trust members to be engaged and, along with staff and patients, act as a strong advocate for the good experiences that hospitals deliver day in, day out.

Do something good with your Xmas cards!

As the company that proudly devised the Recycling for Real method of consultation, we were pleased to read about the Woodland Trust's Christmas Card Recycling scheme launched last week by Anna Ryder Richardson (she of lovely houses and jungle fame).

The target this year is to collect 100 million cards, which will enable 24,000 trees to be planted and save 2,600 tonnes of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases - the same as taking over 800 cars off the road for a year!

Special collection bins will be available throughout January at mainland WHSmith High street stores, Tesco stores, any TK Maxx stores and M&S stores.

So now that it's twelfth night and your decorations are down, get yourself down to one of those places now, do your bit and feel extremely good in the process!

Are Americans still looking for a place called Hope?

The results of the Iowa Caucuses at the start of the American Presidential Election process seem to have shown a desire for change.

Barack Obama's victory in the Democrat caucus have led to many newspaper headlines speculating not only of a Democrat victory but of the election of the first black president.

In an earlier Blog I referred to the book The Political Brain which talks about the need for political candidates to reach out to people's emotions through engaging narratives. Whilst the books refers to politics the idea can also be equally applicable to public, private and voluntary organisations and the relationship they have with the people they serve. Indeed this Blog is a way for TCC to express its view and create a narrative to the work we do and the environment and context we work in.

The Political Brain was written as a critique of Democrat Party politics, so what are the core narratives of the principle candidates in the Democrat primaries?

Barack Obama: There are no red states, no blue states, just the United States! It is time to unite this country and rekindle the hope that will make it the great country we know it is.

Hillary Clinton: This country needs change and a candidate with the experience to make that change from day one.

John Edwards: We need a little more backbone to take on corporate interests and give this country back to the forgotten middle class.

So far the message of "change we can believe in" expressed by Barack Obama seems to have caught the American imagination, but were Iowans sending a general message to all the main candidates at this stage or was this a specific rejection of certain candidates? Commentators have pointed out that Obama appeals to the emotions whilst Clinton appeals to peoples logic. According to the Political Brain Obama should do well against her. Thus the primary process will become a practical test of its theory over the coming months.

The Political Brain was also written in response to the failure of the Democrats to establish a compelling alternative reframing of the Republican narrative that they had established since 1980 on cultural and economic issues and since 2001 on security issues. Could it be that the whole public narrative has shifted on to terrain more favourable to the Democrats?

The Democrat turnout was twice that of the Republicans in a state which in the last 15 years has been a Democrat/Republican marginal. It was also double the number who took part in 2004. This seems to indicate the motivation of the Democrats and the fact they are drawing in support from those who class themselves as Independents and even some 2004 Republicans.

Republican Iowa winner Mike Huckabee comes from the same town of Hope in Arkansas as Bill Clinton comes from. He not only appeals to his supporters on religious grounds but also has an appeal to them over their economic security similar in some ways to John Edwards. Like Obama, commentators have also referred to his emotional hold on his supporters. Whilst in Iowa he was supported mainly people from the religious right, he is now trying to reach out to a wider group of Americans. It is possible the Iowa result was a partial rejection on the political right of Mitt Romney due to uncertainty over whether to support a candidate of the Mormon faith. Iowa showed was more of an internal debate for the Republicans whilst the Democrat's seemed to reach out to a wider group of voters. Whilst Huckabee is likely to not do so well in Hew Hampshire, people will be looking to see whether he gets some kind of bounce in his result there as a result of Iowa. In some ways the pressure will be on John McCain who polled 49% there in 2000 with the support of Independents who may now lean to Obama and is currently polling around 31% with a narrow lead over Mitt Romney.

Barack Obama did better than predicted by the polls overwhelmingly winning amongst young voters and beating Hillary Clinton amongst women voters who comprised 60% of those voting in the Democrat caucus. It was interesting to watch his Iowa victory speech. If anything his attempt to define a big tent reminded me of Tony Blair when he was seeking the UK premiership in 1994-97. His strong showing will now find him coming under stronger scrutiny from the media. This will be the test of him and his campaign in the coming weeks.

John Edwards poured most of his resources into Iowa and beat Hillary Clinton into third place to keep his campaign on the road. What the media have not mentioned is that he polled nearly 2% lower than in 2004 when he was a very clear second to John Kerry following the self-destruction of the Howard Dean campaign. He polled 12% in New Hampshire in the 2004 primary and is currently averaging about 19% in the latest batch of polls there. However if he falters he has reached out to many in the Democrat core vote and is probably in a strong position to be a vice presidential candidate, with high name recognition (similar to Al Gore in 1992) to either Obama or Clinton.

Hillary Clinton did worse than expected. Did she make an error in fighting Iowa and should she followed the same tactics as Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani in waiting for the larger states where her organisation and resources would be strongest? Only time will tell. The danger for her was that in Iowa those initially supporting minority Democrat candidates either went for Obama or Edwards under the 15% rule for each caucus. If the selection is just between her and Obama, will Edwards supporters switch to Obama?

Is she suffering from a public rejection of the continuation of the Bush/Clinton duopoly (or as one blogger acidly put it: "the Bush/Clinton spin cycle") that has run the country since 1988 and has in the last 15 years actually created the current concept of the red and blues states? Is Obama's rise a reaction to that perceived division? What can she do in the coming weeks to respond to that, because if that becomes the public narrative she will then lose as part of the wider rejection of George Bush? Is she therefore in the position George Bush senior was in during 1992 as the candidate of experience, with Obama in the Bill Clinton role as the man expressing a yearning for change and hope?

In 1992 Bill Clinton used a good runner-up spot in New Hampshire to save his faltering campaign and become the "Comeback Kid". Will Hillary Clinton secure a result there that puts her back on track for the nomination?

What are the implications for the UK?

Firstly I think there are differences. The 2004 presidential election was before the disillusion over Iraq. In the UK the 2005 General Election was the Iraq election. Michael Howard was too much a throwback to the past to be electable, so we instead saw an increase in the vote of the Lib Dems and others who opposed the war. Gordon Brown has signalled enough of a shift in foreign policy for that to be less of an issue now than it is in the US.

It is possible that David Cameron will attempt to position himself to be the voice of change and hope. He has already attempted to make overtures to the Lib Dems and other smaller parties. Whether he can pull that off is something we will watch with interest over the coming year. In the Observer today former Labour adviser and practising therapist Derek Draper suggests Brown should show more of his quirks to create a narrative around that. That may prove difficult for someone who has traditionally been reticent to do this.

With less cultural issues than the US, the similarities between the UK and US will be over issues of the economy, economic security and immigration. They are probably the areas to watch in both countries over the coming year.

In a few days we will know the results of the New Hampshire primaries and we could of course see a move back to more establishment candidates from both parties. In the meantime the momentum is with the outsiders!

A Bright Idea?

Just seen an advert for London's first Light Bulb Amnesty on January 11-13. where you can trade in up to two traditional light bulbs for two free energy efficient light bulbs.

It is being promoted by the Mayor of London Ken Livingstone, who says that changing one light bulb can save up to 110kg of CO2. If every Londoner used energy efficient light bulbs, London could save 575,000 tonnes of CO2 and £139 million a year.

This "Amnesty" concept can be used to promote other environmental positives. Indeed TCC has worked with London Borough of Newham on environmental events where residents can trade a bag of recyclable rubbish for a bag of recycled goods.

We've heard of gun and knife amnesties and now we have a light bulb amnesty, but I am also sure that there are other potential "amnesties". They could for example promote healthy eating and smoking reduction where you can trade something unhealthy for something healthier. TCC is currently working on social marketing projects to promote specific behavioural goals for a social good. Amnesties could be one of the ideas amongst many that could be applied to promote positive social change.

The 120 Days of Christmas!!

Heading back to the office in the cold wind today, it struck me that why do we have such an excellent mid-winter festival and then make our January and February's look so dreary?

A simple solution that struck me was that people and organisations should keep up their Christmas lights until the end of February. Indeed I think Christmas lights should be on from the beginning of November so the 4 darkest months are lit up!

Now I know that some might argue that in an era of climate change we should not be so wasteful, but the costs to the economy of sickness and mental illness in January and February should make us see the bigger picture. In any case we are rapidly moving to low energy lightbulbs so I think the level of energy usage should not increase for the extra time lights are on.

Richard Layard has written extensively about the science of happiness and has been successful in campaigning for extra government support for Talking Therapies. I don't necessarily agree with him that you can substantially increase overall happiness for everyone in a competitive market economy where change and innovation will always make some people unhappy at any given point. However I do agree with Layard's case that we can make things better for those who may suffer depressive illness. It is also well known that the middle of January is the worst time of the year for this.

Little things such as lighting up the dark days of winter with a continuing display of lights should make everyone feel a little better as they head back from the office in the 8 weeks after the Christmas holidays!

In 2008 who will use their Brain?

Over the next few weeks there will be a lot of coverage of the American Presidential Primaries. To set the scene for what will be a fascinating contest I would recommend you read what was arguably the most interesting political book of 2007 - The Political Brain.

Whilst it is about American politics and written by a Democrat strategist in response to the two presidential election victories by George Bush, it has many insights relevant not just to the UK but for any democracy.

Its an investigation into the role of emotion in determining election results and rejects the dispassionate assumptions of how voters cast their vote held by cognitive psychologists, political scientists, economists and campaign strategists.

It argues that people simply don't vote through simple self interest or weighing up the issues - when reason and emotion collide, emotion invariably wins.

Before looking at the implications for UK politics, it is only proper to look at where the UK differs to the United States.

Much of the book is specifically applicable to the culture wars in the US: abortion, gay rights, church state separation, guns etc which has less salience in the UK. It could be argued that the UK (and the rest of the European Union and Canada) is predominantly "Blue State"  and the political debate is in many ways carried out within blue state norms. The nearest approximation to "Red States" we do have in the UK are perhaps some of the views argued by some who support The Countryside Alliance, however this is nowhere is as strong as the 60 million plus in the US rural areas which due to the large number of small mid-western states are disproportionately over represented in the US electoral college. In addition the US religious right comprises perhaps 20% of voters and there is no similar-sized equivalent in the UK.

However that is not to say there are not culture wars in the UK. It could be argued that a political view based around opposition to: political correctness, migration, impositions on motorists, any tax on inheritance etc is the UK cultural equivalent. Nevertheless it is clear that they are a broadly secular set of issues compared to the values held by many on the right in the US.

The book is unforgiving at the inability of the Democrats to put across a credible alternative narrative and pays tribute to the coordinated effort the Republicans have put into this.

I think the Democrats suffer from the fact that unlike the Labour Party in the UK they did not have the equivalents of Labour's 1994 Clause 4 moment. Labour were fortunate in being able, during a period of serious Conservative Party weakness, to clearly set out where they stood in terms of values and principles. Unlike the Democrats, Labour were able, through the entire 1994-2005 period, to consistently neutralise the tax, crime/security issues with tough policies and through being seen to reject the views of certain interest groups in these areas.

However there are now new challenges. The public, having previously supported extra investment in public services, are now less clear as to whether they get enough value for money for what they pay in taxes. Immigration is also a much stronger issue than before. It will be interesting to see whether a new narrative emerges that seeks to show how the public sector is changing to meet personal needs as well as making the case for the economic benefits of immigration whilst reassuring the emotions of those who feel threatened by it. TCC have worked with public sector bodies on community cohesion and recognise this is a sensitive and challenging area, however there are some emerging themes that are perhaps best covered in another blog posting in the future.

The Conservatives in the UK have over the last 13 years faced the sort of problems that Democrats have faced since 1980. Having lost their defining economic competence tag on Black Wednesday in 1992 they have not been able to reassert a new narrative which is why the UK public when asked still say they are not yet clear what the Conservatives stand for. That point was also made by Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer newspaper this week. Whilst Labour's 1994-2007 narrative of modernisation is perhaps weakened as a result of global trends, it still exists and the Tories have not come up with anything compelling to replace it.

What is fascinating is how for a period the Democrats got it right by stressing the need to modernise, to reform public services like welfare and to be seen on the side of hard working families. Clinton's victory in 1992 was looked at in awe by many political strategists in the UK who sought to learn the lessons. Who now remembers the debate over the Clintonisation of the Labour Party in early 1993? The irony is that Labour learned from Clinton in 1992 and still applies it whilst the Democrats under Gore and Kerry seemed to forget the lessons of 1992. Labour seemed to learn the skills so well it was able to sustain them through the shift to a post 9/11 security agenda. The Democrats did not build on the Clinton era and fell back - also showing what being in opposition does to you! Indeed Gore's campaign was perceived as ignoring or repudiating the administration he was a member of! It will be interesting to see what lessons Gordon Brown draws from Gore's 2000 campaign.

In the UK the centre ground consensus now seems to be much larger than it currently is in the US. UK political narrative development needs to create compelling stories that appeal to the conflicting mental networks that compete in that crowded centreground.

When I was first studying politics I was always told how much there was cross-party voting in the US congress and party allegiance were weak. Nowadays there seems to be more political consensus in the UK with the decline of debates over economic ownership. In the US a mix of culture wars as well as the interesting way US House of Representatives seat boundaries are apportioned seems to have reduced the centre ground. In addition our political news media is predominately "beltway" with a much broader secular and centrist economic and social liberal consensus compared to the situation in the US with its vast shock-jock Talk Radio network. These differences seem to have been to the Democrats disadvantage. I have no doubt a bigger centre ground consensus would probably benefit them as the New Deal consensus did from 1932-1980.

Martin Kettle wrote in the Guardian last week as to how American exceptionalism in its politics compared to Europe continues even so far as to be a reversal of previous perceptions.

Where the Political Brain is very relevant to the UK is over its general points about developing narratives - the book Don't think of an Elephant is also good for this - and specifics such as Tax and security (crime, terrorism, immigration) issues. It can also be applied to other issues not covered in so much detail in the book. A good starting point is to examine how the narrative in the UK has changed over the last 50 years over Inheritance Tax - from Death Duties to Death Tax! In some way its mirrors how the debate over right to buy rose up the political agenda in the 70's-80's. People's views over taxation may be changing and this could be the key challenge for politicians of all parties in the run-up to the likely 2009/10 General Election.