Sabb Elections 2009: The post "they" didn't like

The following generated quite a bit of controversy, which I don’t really understand. (Why go into politics if you can’t handle some constructive criticism?) Nevertheless, I’ve decided to exercise my right to freedom of expression and repost my analysis. Unfortunately, it is probably too late for the candidates to use my feedback to their advantage. 

My final point, is that even though Friday is the last day, turnout is still very low. That means there’s a whole load of Undecideds out there waiting to be converted. You should push really hard on the last day, believe me, it makes all the difference. 

P.S. Thanks to the commentator who said “Also, why not stand up for yourself? The original article had nothing wrong with it – apart from being quite boring (obviously). If any of the candidates complained about it then, frankly, they are pathetic. Are they men or mice, or what??!” anonymously. 

 

It’s election week at the University of Bath. The Studens’ Union is going through the annual process of electing the new Sabbatical Officers. As the campaign ends this Friday (20th March 2009), and there are no YouGov polls available, I’m going to analyse the campaigns to see how well an effective campaign affects voting intention, and hopefully offer some advice for future candidates.

I want to stress that I am not commenting on the candidates in any way, as I have no preferences or affiliation with any of them. It’s nothing personal; I am merely using my political experience to look at what makes a good professional campaign, regardless of who will or ‘should’ win. I’m not talking policy, I talking about how campaigns are run.

 Candidate One

I’d call this the “Ipod” campaign, or maybe David Cameron. Overall, it looks very sleek  and modern, but there may be a lack of substance.

Strengths:

• Very stylish, instead of a “Vote for me because I want to improve things” he has adopted more of a business advertisingcampaign. the “VOTE” with the logo in the middle of the O looks very 21st century.
• Run on the basis of “generally a nice guy” which appeals to everybody, particulalrly those who are easily swayed. You might call him the centrist candidate.
• His manifesto is based on being the centrist, he mentions he’s been involved in activities, but doesn’t say which ones exactly. (Sporty students are less likely to vote for someone who ran the chess society, for example).
• In the PPB, he’s the only candidate who is wearing his campaign-branded T-Shirt! Good being on message.

Weaknesses:

• The campaign might be a little mystic and ambiguous for students. The DOT logo is good, but there is nothing to back it up, no detail.
• The manifesto is generally unspectacular and commits only to maintaining positive things and trying to get rid of negative things. However, there is a good and new idea of a subscription service, which he should exploit to the maximum.
• Clearly a nice guy, but is that it?
• A great speculation-raising campaign for a product, but might not resonate on a political field.

Advice: Show them what you’re made of! You have the art nailed down perfectly, and a good image, you just need to convince the “reason focused” people.

Candidate Two
A very original and interesting campaign; humour is great, but you don’t want the campaign to become a joke. I’d probably call this a right-wing campaign*, but it’s strength is in it’s message.

Strengths:

• This campaign is very effective, but might be misdirected. It’s clear that he likes his pies, and he likes his beer. The most effective thing in this campaign that beats all the others no question is the fact that it has strategy. I know instantly that he is going to focus his presidency on getting better and cheaper bars and social facilities.
• His manifesto reflects this, which gives him a coherent campaign, which puts him far ahead of the rest.
• Good humour. It’s important to remember this isn’t an election for the President of the world. We don’t need anyone with megaphones yelling “Solidarity, comrades!”

Weaknesses:

• Clearly a candidate that appeals to the clubbing types. This populism, however, pigeon-holes him and restricts his electability to the base.
• It’s always good to be humourous about politics, but the campaign does risk becomeing a joke in itself. I remember hearing about a campaign based on the fact that the candidate was fat, he didn’t win, and was forever known as “the fat guy.”
• The campaign video was… risky… walking about from side to side, props and so on. I think the campaign needs some credibility, of which the manifesto has some.
• I suppose it’s very similar to the Sarah Palin campaign; clear, but focuses to much on “core voters”.

Advice: People need to be able to take you seriously. You need to show voters that you’re focused on the job, and that you’re going to be found in the office and not the bar! Don’t rely on the clubbers to sweep you to power, broaden your electorate.

Candidate Three
The “safe bet” candidate, since he spends a lot of his manfiesto (which sounds like a CV and Cover letter)  talking about his various activites, but it’s a bit of an uninspiring campaign that needs direction, but a good video.

Strengths:

• Uses his personal experience a lot, so voters know he’s a safe bet
• Decent website, though not advertised so much
• Comes across very well in the video, by a long way, shows he’s got some good policy ideas as well
• Straighforward logo with the coloured stripes. Echos American style banners.
• Goes above and beyond: I even received a leaflet through my letterbox in Oldfield Park.

Weakness:

• Maybe goes on a bit too much about committees
• No message or theme. Seems like a paper candidate because the campaign hasn’t distinguished him from the other candidates.
• Continuity: “I will increase good things and decrease bad things” like everyone else would.
• Uses bureaucratic words like “review, work with, liaise, consult” rather than actions.

Advice: Distinguish yourself! Clearly a good all-around candidate, but you’ve got to show that. The campaign is incoherent because there are too many ideas; Start with a gimmick, then build on it. I’ve seen you around, but I don’t know what you’re all about. Also, don’t be so sensitive to criticism.

Candidate Four
Probably the best professional campaign in my view. The extra-campaigning activities show that you really want the job and will take it seriously. I’d probably call it a Gordon Brown campaign.

Strengths:

• Impressive use of technology. Twitter and Facebook are fine, but the website really gives you some credibility and gets your message across.
• A good slogan that fits well with the campaign
• Smart use of banners, though need some tweaking “Running Late?” as buses arrive on campus is VERY GOOD because the message is tailored, but ” X can sort it out” might be better as “X can fix it.” or “Leave it to X.”

Weaknesses:

• Definitely got the issues identified, in a more original way than the others, in a well written manifesto, but what are the solutions?
• For someone so involved in media, I’d imagine campaign videos would be better rehearsed, but at least they’re there. (Double points if the cameras are borrowed from CTV!)
• Explain what you actually want to do, again, needs “one message”.
• Maybe a little bit too elitist? From the CV, I bet most people involved in the Union is on your side, but what of the silent majority?

Advice: Don’t get stuck in the Gordon Brown type of campaign. Experience is good, but change is a more powerful message. If you’re set on running with experience, you need to show how your going to use it, and not that you’re just going to keep things ticking as they are.

 That said, I wish all the candidates the best of luck, and hope they appreciated my feedback! (Though they didn’t ask for it!)  

*By “left” and “right” I’m not talking about party politics. It’s a different scale: On the Left you have candidates who like to run on their experience. On the Right you have the more “fun-loving” students. Nothing nasty intended.