Labour tries to emulate Obama

I saw this yesterday and was going to blog about it then but got caught up in other stuff last night so didn’t get round to it. Now other people have started to blog about it I thought I better get cracking – don’t want to be left behind.

Right. Labour have launched Labourspace - hot on the tail of Labourlist – another part of their attempt to do social networking and “be part of the conversation” (or whatever marketing bollocks their consultants told them).

And in true labour fashion it’s crap. I’m not going to go over the look and tone as Dave Briss has covered that off. My main problem is with the strategy. Essentially, what they’ve made is a popularity contest, a sort of X-factor for people who have a minor gripe and too much time on their hands.

This site will not reinvigorate the political process or encourage a whole new generation to engage in politics. It’s too simple and too narrow in scope – much like tfl’s attempt at a social network.

The new wave of political engagement is being driven by sites like CtrlAltShift – Christian Aid’s Youth network. Here there’s a blend of online and offline, content creation, participation and action. Most importantly, there’s a clear cause.

What most people seem to forget when discussing Obama’s campaign is that there was a clear cause with a specific goal over a definied time period. It was something that people could get behind because they could see measureable progress. From this, the engagement and the action naturally follow.

That’s what political engagement is lacking in Britain (and not just in the digital sphere) – a clear cause.

Can we get some Barack over here?

Labour have launched their attempts to engage people online with a blog called Labour List. There’s a good piece on it on Channel 4 news which featured former spin-doctor Derek Draper.

The question was put – can we have Obama-style fundraising in politics in the UK? It was the opinion of Tim Montgomery, editor of Conservative Home – the Tory blog – that it was the funding system that prevented this. Big donors (fat cats for Tories, Unions for Labour and who knows for the Lib Dems) mean that parties don’t have to fundraise on mass. For him it was a question of not enough push factors.

But I disagree. I think the UK context is different for a few reasons. Firstly, we’re a party-based system where as the US presidential race is a system based on personalities. The product is the individual – and during the election they need your help. If you believe in them then you need to help them. In the UK, to get the PM you also need to support the party and elect your local MP, which is a very different kettle of fish.

Secondly, you need the right product at the right time. Change was needed and Obama was the charismatic individual at the right time to take advantage of this. He was a person that people were willing to get behind. Can we say the same of UK politicians?

Thirdly, donations were only one of the ways that people could get involved. Most importantly engagement was key. Campaigning, rallies, blogging, member get member, all other activities were ranked and scored on mybarackobama.com. Also, money that your friends gave added to your rating. People were made into multipliers. It was this wholistic approach to engagement that made the fundraising campaign a success.

It’s too easy for journalists and commentators to ask why UK political parties aren’t emulating the success of Obama’s campaign and imply that UK parities are falling short. UK parities need to get to grips with the digital audience here on their own terms. There’s potential – they just need to tap it.