The Campaign Company Blog

Oil and Keeping Healthy in the United Arab Emirates..

The Campaign Company is to start working in Abu Dhabi on Public Health and social marketing campaigns. Nobody would have believed you 50 years ago if you had said that by 2008 the so called "diseases of affluence" would have become the major the health challenges facing the United Arab Emirates.With annual growth rates of 16%,it is now one of the richest countries in the world. And it's all down to oil,the wealth this has brought and the subsequent changes in lifestyle that have ensued for many sections of the population. The prevalence of Diabetes mellitus is probably the highest in the world-24% among locals and 17% among non local. Cardiovascular disease accounted for 22% of deaths in 2006 -Smoking,diet and obesity and lack of exercise, all play their part.The emphasis of health care must shift from the curative to the preventative.

But it's not just chronic disease that's killing the population. The second cause of preventable death in the UAE is road traffic accidents-1056 in 2007. Legislation and design of safer roads can help but essentially it comes down to changing behaviour. And this is where we can help.Along with a range of international partners we have formed a collaboration under the umbrella of the Emirates Institute for Health and Safety.We will be reporting on our campaigns on this blog.

Islam and Democracy

The elections set for 2008 in the Maldives could mark the beginning of a new democratic era. However it might also bring to an end the reform agenda that has been pursued by the government since 2003.

At stake is whether or not a traditional Islamic country can embrace modern democratic norms and practices, or whether the Maldives will be seen as part of the growing trend of retrenchment of authoritarian, conservative rulers and an example of the perceived conflict between Islam and Democracy. Last week I was in Washington speaking at a conference of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, about how building a strong civil society and in particular how political party development can be used promote the requirements of a robust democracy. Visit the Maldives Election Watch website where you can read our paper.

But if democracy is to flourish, the forthcoming presidential elections must be free and fair.

International pressure has played a crucial role in pushing a closed society to open up political space. That pressure must be sustained.And I'm not always convinced that the International community is strategic enough about such issues-we need to get some visible democratic 'wins' to encourage campaigners for democracy everywhere.

There is a real opportunity for religious conservatives and secular liberals to achieve a sustainable balance in a Muslim society.  But the political future is delicately poised and by no means certain.

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)

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?

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.

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!

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.

Americans are running while we stand

It is time to grow up about how we pick our candidates. In this country political parties seem to choose their candidates on the criteria that they won't embarrass us and they can read and write and that they have complied with the Party's check box criteria.

Nothing more is required as no one wants to offend many people by saying "you are not good enough." There are appeals and hassle. Easier to stick to them through. Easier but wrong!

What about being able to inspire, think on your feet, keep people interested, handle pressure and being able to break down complex information.

It's the important criteria that never seems to be applied.

In the US however a much wider audience selects the candidate.

In the UK, understanding the rules, knowing who the key influencers in a constituency party are and the ability to count votes. These are the skills necessary to win a nomination for a safe seat. Nothing that actually makes you a good politician.

In the US the primaries sorts the good from the bad much more quickly and involves more people.  I have a problem with the quantity of money expended in the US but the principle of testing your candidates in the real world rather than just by choice of the faithful is a correct one.

Start running!