What you can do to influence the Lib Dem narrative
9 March 2011 8 Comments
A shocking result in Barnsley has brought out the stories of how the Lib Dems will split. The debate on the narrative of the Lib Dems in the public has been going on for a long time with some seeing an unjust negative narrative and others seeing it as justified. Neil Stockley has long argued that you don’t own your own political narrative echoing marketing professionals who say companies don’t own the narratives associated with their brand. However, research from Harvard may give us some hope of being able to influence the stories around the Lib Dems, even in these difficult times.
Research at Harvard University has shown that the informal networks that we belong to influence those we are connected to, even loosely. The research went even further to show that strangers can influence our decisions in who we date suggesting that in reality we’re paying close attention to what others in our social environment are thinking and doing. We have more influence than we may realise.
Companies use expensive marketing strategies to influence the target group around the image and narratives around their brand. They focus on opinion leaders to have greatest impact and searching for opinion leaders and organising a marketing strategy around it is expensive business. However, opinion leaders are not necessarily so rare and difficult to find.
Opinion leadership is essentially influence exercised through strong relationships between weakly equivalent people. This means opinion leaders are not necessarily leaders as much as brokers. They are brokers in that they influence between, rather than within groups and they create a transition between the two networks to make the opinion stick.
So opinion leaders are people in a network who transmit information across the social boundaries between status groups. They are not people at the top so much as the edge, not leaders within the group so much as brokers between groups. Which essentially means everyone is an opinion leader of sorts as everyone has many social groups that they are associated with. The difference is between those who speak/act up and those who don’t.
Companies have a product that is attractive to certain groups of people and they seek people to increase the attractiveness of these products. The opinion leaders are people prepared to spread the word not in their dominant groups but between their more loosely associated groups, and sometimes to people they don’t even know (e.g. wearing clothes can influence people who see them).
Politics is different in that the target group is a wider audience. But this means everyone can play a part in being opinion leaders for the party brand. By being confident in expressing support for the party, party stances on issues or policies we are being opinion leaders (brokers) to others. Dominic Carmen said that he struggled to speak to people about the party in Barnsley due to the hostility. This was similar to the Tories in the 90’s. The difference between the Tories in the 90’s and 10’s is not the policies as much as it is the public belief. People used to pretend not to vote tory but became more willing to public support them. This changes the public mood.
How many of us speak less of the Lib Dems these days or almost seem apologetic of what they are doing. What this means is that the support has been removed. The negative narrative is always there for all parties it is just whether it sticks. If those who support the party do not support the party in their more loosely associated groups then we are not using our influence on the party brand and party narrative. We may not own the narrative but we can influence it.
It is harder for Lib Dems as there are less of us, we have less media support, and we have less traditional support. All the more reason to increase the support for the party in all social groups we belong to. If you can influence who someone chooses as their romantic partner without even knowing them, you never know who you may influence to vote.
Hey Mathew,
You’ve given no argument as to why people should follow the course of action you suggest, it’s as if you’ve taken that as read. Some supporters are interested in a collapse in party support now, as they’d like to see Clegg/Cable gone, so many of the “opinion leaders” of which you speak that traditionally support Lib Dem are targeting the parliamentary party.
You suggest that we should positively influence others towards the party, but I can’t see how you justify such a position – surely there’s no more substance here than merely stating “you should vote Liberal Democrat, especially if you influence others”. Many feel that there’s no reason to support Lib Dem’s right now, even if they have done so all of your life – they might be right. What if the best course of action in this round is something other than the norm? Isn’t that what your approach suggests? That if something doesn’t work, you change your behaviour to find something that does? Yet here you’re arguing for people to maintain their old behaviour despite it not working (we have less MPs now). People have clearly done what you’re suggesting, but have stopped – maybe they have a reason for stopping.
You talk a lot about what we should do, and that infers that you know what “we” want. Deciding what unknowable agents want is a pretty wild position, for obvious reasons. Despite this, you’ve struck on some of the possibilities that people may want, for example, a split party. I’m not saying that’s something I favour, but it’s also not something I’ve given a lot of serious thought to and perhaps these possibilities are more interesting discussion than just saying “use your influence to support the party”. There are lots of ways to influence the narrative.
A lot of us signed up for concepts that we associate with – freedom, fairness, equality, democracy, education, social mobility, etc. If the system or party as it stands doesn’t give you what you want, then continuing down the same route seems counterintuitive. If the coalition, on balance at the end of the term, does not provide improvements in these areas, then the party as it’s presently formed is broken. If, on the other hand, there are measurable improvements, then there’s a strong case for persisting with its current form. You seem to of taken all of this as read and decided the outcome – I think the jury is out, and will be for a while.
The Clegg equation post was very funny, I enjoyed that – nice bit of pataphysics.
Hi Chris, you are right I have taken it for granted that people in the party want the party to succeed. I wonder how many people want a split party or for cable to go? what are your thoughts on this? I know clegg is in trouble so I will be interested to see what happens next. Coalition is testing the party but I hope those in the party still believe in liberalism and I can’t see a place for 2 liberal parties. What do you think?
I’m not saying that supporters wouldn’t want the party to succeed, but how and when that happens isn’t a given. There are a lot of centre-left supporters that are waiting for the perceived centre-right lurch to fall on its face, so they can resume pre-coalition politics. They may have a long wait, but the success of the party is largely dependent on the perceptions of these folk, and they may not vote LD again until things change.
During the election, locally, people from big houses found people from small houses to help get them elected. The campaign was based around the knowledge and help from the people from small houses – they basically understood how the nice lady from the big house could get elected, because they live around large numbers of electorate, and so have a good understanding of their motivations and desires. The people from the big houses were centre-right liberals, they had slightly differing views from the small house dwellers, who are naturally centre-left. Everyone worked together and completely ignored house sizes and left/right leaning until after the election, at which point those distinctions became sharp focussed, because the coalition appears to be a centre right entity. I know that a coalition with the Tories is destined to be so, but it doesn’t change the effect on the ground. This has caused a genuine problem in the local party, I’d imagine there are similar situations everywhere; the workforce has lost its connection to the politician. The other important observation in this scenario is that the big house people are all members, the small house people aren’t – they’re “supporters”, they deliver leaflets, stick up posters, etc, but don’t join the party. There are a lot more supporters than members, and there are discrepancies in beliefs between these 2 groups. Members are the vocal minority of supporters, so they’re easier to read/hear.
Clegg was in trouble from the outset of the coalition, but there is still the possibility of a change in fortunes. He needs a miracle right now, it seems unlikely but it’s difficult to determine direction when so much is in flux – I wouldn’t want to bet on GDP figures from the third/fourth quarter right now, and they’re probably the biggest indicator of Clegg & Cable’s fate. I think if they lead us into the next general election we’ll be slaughtered unless something fundamental changes (noticeable rises in living standards or economy). I’m not completely against the idea of 2 liberal parties now; prior to the election I still believed that the internal differences were small enough to not warrant it, but now I’m not so convinced. Certainly, looking at the parliamentary party now I get the distinct feeling that these are not the system designers I’m looking for.
An increasing number of LD supporters don’t want the coalition to succeed, or are wary enough of it to not contribute positively toward it. Others see it as a toxic brand, that they’re trying to avoid association with – they may privately support it, but as you’ve stated, they “speak less of the Lib Dems these days or almost seem apologetic of what they are doing”. Without something to pull these people back in to the heart of the party, it would seem to me that we’ll be playing in the rubble of the coalition for a long time to come. The strategy of many bloggers seems to be to deride these people as fairweather liberals, but, of course, we won’t get anywhere without them.
Hi Chris, interesting thoughts. I wondered if would be worth you writing for Lib Dem Voice on some of the issues?
Pingback: Liberal Democrat Voice » Blog Archive » Top of the Blogs: The Lib Dem Golden Dozen #212
I don’t think so; I don’t believe many will be interested for at least a few years yet. After that, probably after the next election, the stuff you’ve written about practical campaign strategies will suddenly seem really relevant. I think we’ll see a government with few Lib Dem representatives before the grassroots rebuild, so I think to some extent we’re both writing for another era. Never find it odd that you write thought provoking, practical articles and very few people comment? Then we look at other LD blogs that slag off the last Labour government and people want to chat ad infinitum about it. It tells you what they’re thinking…or not, as the case may be.
The folks in big houses haven’t worked out the meaning of the resentment the small house folks feel yet, these are sequential realisations – the next candidate for my constituency is in for a real shock when he/she starts to canvas and look for a team. The best hopes I have of this changing before the next election are Ed Miliband and rises in economy/living standards…neither are guaranteed to deliver by any means.
Thanks Chris, it is very kind of you to say I write thought provoking posts. I do try and I look forward to your responses. Some of the most read posts I have, have no comments so I am not sure what that means? I totally get your point that we are writing for a different era and I look forward to a time when thinks don’t seem so unstable for the party. I get tired of people Labour bashing as I don’t see how it will help the party, but others disagree, clearly.
Are you going to help out your local candidate?
I’ll help out the local candidate if I’m impressed with him/her; I’m through with doing it for the sake of it. There is every chance that we won’t bother this time round (my family have campaigned in every election for the “Liberals” since the early 70′s, this may be the first one we opt out from). My faith in the party as a whole has wavered a lot since the election of Clegg, who told me just prior to his election “I never realised how when you eat effects your energy levels”. That’s when I suspected we might be in trouble.