Editor-At-Large: The internet is no place to fight a general election
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Has the level of political debate really come to this? The next prime minister will probably be elected on the basis of the biscuit he nibbles. Winning an election is about cleverly targeting undecided voters, and you can guess what group the spin doctors have in their sights this time. In 1992 the Tories wooed the "pebbledash people" who'd bought their own council houses under Maggie Thatcher. In 1997 Tony Blair's team was obsessed with middle-class voters they tagged Mondeo Man and Worcester Woman. This time around it's mums.
Blair had no trouble appealing to female voters – he was attractive, personable and user-friendly. Casual, with a hint of spirituality – a bit like those gorgeous chocs filled with little granules of mint. Gordon Brown, on the other hand, struggles with informality and emotion – that's why Sarah is being ruthlessly marketed as the acceptable face of No 10, as Labour desperately tries to re-engage with women. We now get regular updates on her wardrobe as if wearing a cheap hat from Accessorize to a state occasion will win a couple of votes at crunch time.
In previous elections, politicians used public meetings and door-stepping to get their message across. This time around, fatally, they've decided to get down with the trendies and go online, deciding that a general election must be treated like another episode of The X Factor. Instead of pamphlets, Twitter, chatrooms, texting and telly debates are the name of the game. It's all so hopelessly lightweight, so lacking in any analytical depth that you want to scream. They'll be enlisting Heat next, or sending David Miliband to Australia to pontificate about goings-on in the jungle. Anything to appear on-trend, and au fait with popular culture.
In the latest round, David Cameron followed Gordon and submitted himself to a grilling on Mumsnet. The website has more than 850,000 regular users, and must be a godsend to women stuck at home with screaming babies. But is an hour-long chat a good way to flesh out policies and aspirations in a meaningful way? Much was made of Gordon Brown's failure to answer the biscuit question– 12 attempts didn't get a response and it took another 24 hours before he owned up to chocolate HobNobs. This doesn't make him a lesser politician in my book, but someone with a slightly weightier agenda than some of the nappy-rash gang on Mumsnet. (Sample chat last Friday morning – "Is Adrian Chiles really attractive?" followed by "Is Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall really attractive?")
Brown didn't connect with his interrogators on an intimate level, but why should he be castigated for not being as touchy-feely as a mum with her new baby? Cameron is cleverer at the personal stuff – mixing insights about his time caring for his disabled son Ivan with little details about his home life, proudly telling Mumsnet his kids went to state schools. Gordon Brown also has a disabled child and his kids go to state schools; he just doesn't parade this in quite the same (pretty blatant) way. Mind you, he couldn't wait to tell This Morning that his family was backing Stacey Solomon to win The X Factor.
Cameron's critics claim he took too long to answer – well, nowt wrong with thinking before you articulate a response to a serious question. Sadly this is a relatively rare occurrence in chatrooms, and cyberspace has become a tidal wave of illiterate twaddle and knee-jerk reactions. Every time Cameron answered one mumsnetter, 10 more were trying to get through, so not surprisingly people were disgruntled. In the end, technology let him down and caused the delays. Reading through the debate, his answers are surprisingly coherent and direct. Sadly, going on Mumsnet is the modern equivalent of entering the gladiatorial arena – you're never going to win, and the crowd will just bay for your blood.
As a nation we've become disenchanted with politicians, but we don't allow them to explain themselves properly, and when they speak to us, we've already made up our minds. On Question Time we heckle and scream abuse, and that's pretty typical. We think we know more than they do. The trouble is, using the tactics employed by fluffy celebrity culture reduces serious policies to twittery soundbites. I want my country run by people who have depth – not a command of the keyboard.
Bottom gear: Change is slow when macho men drive it
The Ministry of Defence has finally admitted (following a freedom of information request) that military personnel have spent more than 140 days over the past five years taking part in stunts for the BBC's Top Gear programme. Helicopters have raced sports cars; tanks have competed against a Range Rover and army snipers have fired at high-performance cars driven by the three presenters. Other stunts have involved an aircraft carrier, amphibious landing craft and RAF fighter jets. This dubious use of public funds was justified by the MoD as a way of "raising public awareness" about what our armed forces do. With news of rising casualties in Afghanistan on television every night, I don't think any member of the public can be in the dark about that. More importantly, is the testosterone-filled world of Clarkson and co the right image for a modern army? If the MoD wants to recruit more women and minorities, this is a pretty rum way of going about it.
Dignity and romance in old age
Tom Morris has an impressive track record: he directed War Horse at the National Theatre and helped to develop Jerry Springer – The Opera. Both shows have been huge hits. His next project could be even more controversial: he's planning a new production of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet at the Bristol Old Vic next March, which is set in a care home where the lovers will be in their eighties.
If he's looking for an insight into the mentality of those running accommodation for the elderly, Morris might like to take a look at the Consensus Business Group, which manages retirement complexes housing 57,000 pensioners. Last week, Ian Rapley, a Consensus spokesman, was interviewed on BBC Breakfast about a website that has received 18,000 hits from disgruntled members of the public complaining about charges levied on residents in sheltered accommodation. After Mr Rapley used the unfortunate term "dribbling geriatrics", his bosses had to make a public apology.
Obafemi's grand nights out
So what's your budget for the weekend? It's good to hear that, just like the rest of us, footballers have trouble making the cash they draw out of the bank on a Friday last till Monday.
Obafemi Martins used to play for Newcastle United until this summer, for the princely sum of £75,000 a week. His former management company is suing Martins, who was transferred to a German club for £9m, claiming he owes them more than £300,000 in unpaid fees. According to NVA Management, Martins was constantly overdrawn, in spite of them negotiating a contract worth £2m for use of his image in merchandising. It claims the footballer would draw £40,000 out of the bank for the weekend, and have to withdraw another £25,000 on Monday morning to get through the week.
Apparently, he spent the cash on eating out and fast cars. Does a good dinner really cost that much in Newcastle?
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Hobson's, ron
For what it's worth, I don't think either of the two main parties can be trusted to run our affairs, they are too busy looking after their own.
libDems ?
The libDems are where they are, mainly I think, or at least partly, because some people, since it is obvious they will never win another General Election- even The Libs don't believe that- don't vote for them, but that should not stop them.
Every non Tory, non Labour MP, could be very valuable in the next parliament as a counterweight to the delusions of grandeur that the main parties suffer from, ron_
Fair enough, but I'd like to make two points ron- : 1) Not all the white working class see the BNP as an alternative. Even if they did, it would be no more than a row of beans at the minute.
2) Not all the BNP members and acolytes drag their knuckles. There are some seriously intelligent operators in their ranks, not least Nick Griffin. To underestimate them would be foolish, and dim really I think.
The blame for the resurgence of the far Right, is down to Labour's failed, even cynical multicultural policies and much else.
What really worries me more is that our elections may come to mirror the glorified karoke competition that is X-factor and similar "talent" show. As entertainment they are fine. But as a model for deciding who runs the country it is fatally flawed.
I come from a long liberal tradition that goes back four generations and my political position and comments, I hope, reflect that philosophy. But what do our political leaders actually stand for and what is their philosophy and driving force? Is it just the crude desire for power or something deeper? It is important to know.
And by the way, I don't often eat biscuits because I am trying to control my weight. And my dietary preferences have no influence on my politics. Next question?
I read somewhere that to run a democracy, 85% of voters need to be idiots, never a truer word spoken.
As for the armed forces spending time on Top Gear, at least they are doing something useful.
Politicians have for a considerable time known that what they say is likely to be recorded, written down and published. For that reason they have developed a careful strategy so that their true thoughts never come out and what does come out is something that's been thoroughly planned and prepared beforehand.
That's why Gordon Brown just couldn't come straight out and say what his favourite biscuit is, he couldn't even just think of any old biscuit name and come out with it off the cuff as someone like me would do when faced with the same question on or off line.
Not the Jamie Dodgers then ?
Especially since myself and some other Mum's were asked by her newspaper via the very same Mum sites she describes as the Nappy Rash gang for urgent help with an article (on pages 16/17 on Sunday) about the subject of Mums and the election.
We gave our time for free, and had half of the more important policy demands we mentioned cut. This is why she may have this attitude that we are a bunch of illiterate fluffies, as yet again the real grit was cut or ignored by the media. It now feels like a slap in the face that one minute, the paper wanted our help and views urgently, and saw us as important enough to do so, then the next we are demonised beyond belief.
To say I am disgusted that she could take our help then be so spectacularly rude about us within a few pages of the same newspaper is an understatement, and quite frankly we deserve an unreserved apology.
We do have valid viewpoints-after all, we are nurturing the future of this country, many of whom this newspaper will rely on for future revenue.
Claire Curran, 27, mother of two from Maidenhead (page 16, Independent on Sunday, 22/11/09)
http://20somethingmum.blogspot.com
I think it's great that some politicians think it's a good idea to use social media networks to communicate with the masses. It's how people stay in contact and keep in touch with the rest of society. It's how we try to stop ourselves from being isolated in an isolating social structure. It breaks down barriers for disabled and poor. You can talk to a politician in your pyjamas, in your wheelchair, from the library or on the train on your I-phone. It's just the way things are done these days. If you don't use the ways and means of communication that are the socially accepted norms of the day, then you are behind the eightball. (Deaf people really get a chance to have their opinions heard in this way too.)
I don't want to hear about what a politician's wife's going to wear to the races, but I do want to hear about their policies and plans for the future. If it gets to me via twitter, I'm more likely to hear about it because my twitter page is always open. THere's no point in doing a mail out about your opinion when most mail gets thrown away before you read it, espeacially if it's addressed to The Occupant of the House...