Storytelling with impact: Katy Gordon ppc in the Lib Dems' Real Women debate

As usual, I spent a fair bit of time in the hall at the Liberal Democrat conference. I enjoy policy debates. Also, I was looking out for examples of people using stories to support their arguments and policy ideas.

It was lean pickings I’m afraid, but one speech hit me right between the eyes: the speech by Katy Gordon, ppc for Glasgow North, in the debate on the Real Women policy paper. She was defending the paper’s most controversial proposal, to ban the use of digital retouching technology in advertisements aimed at under 16s and to work with industry professionals to ensure that legislation was appropriately worded to reflect these aims.

Take a look at what Katy Gordon said, almost at the beginning of her speech.

"I wanted to know if the proposals in this paper would be seen as more of the nanny state: those do-gooding Liberals getting worked up over trivia. So I took it along to a group of ordinary women in my constituency of Glasgow North, at the North West Women’s Centre in Maryhill. The group ranged from girls in their twenties to retired grandmothers, many of whom have faced real barriers in bringing up families. I asked them what they thought of media images of female beauty and whether there was any role for government on this issue.

"What struck me was that all of them independently came up with the proposals in this paper! From Gail, a retail manager, who asked whether we could put something in magazine pictures to say they are airbrushed to Denise, a caretaker, who suggested showing before and after photos so everyone could see the difference.

"What really struck home though was Trisha, who told me about her daughter, Mary-Ann. Mary-Ann is 20 and all the women agreed she is pretty but she is tall and she thinks of herself as fat. She is always comparing herself to the images in magazines and gets terribly depressed. In fact, Trisha is worried that she is secretly taking laxatives, in a desperate attempt to lose weight.

"Now the women were very clear that they had a responsibility to give their daughters the confidence to reject these unrealistic portrayals of female beauty. As Stacey said, you need to start young to get them to be confident in their bodies. Trisha tells Mary-Ann regularly that ‘she is a real woman and that beauty comes from the inside’, but however good a parent you are, you are up against the might of the media and the beauty industry."

Katy Gordon used stories, with real characters, a beginning and an end, to help build her case. Taken together, the stories pass the Anecdote test for what makes a story have impact. They are clear, believable and have strike an emotional chord. There’s an element of surprise: the “ordinary” women were, in effect, already calling for the same proposals as the party.

Katy Gordon told what Annette Simmons(1) calls an “I-know-what-you-are thinking story”:

"A trust-building surprise for you to share the audience’s secret suspicions that first validates and then dispels these objections without sounding defensive."

She acknowledged the objections held silently by many in the audience: that the policy paper that this was more “nanny state”, “do gooding” liberal “trivia” and then met them head on. “Nanny state”? “Do gooders”? “Trivia”? Yep, you’ve got it. Katy Gordon took the other side’s frames and broke them open with powerful stories.

Her stories were followed by some explanation and statistics, reinforcing the reasons for the proposed reforms.

At the very end of the speech came the “happy ending” that the proposals could bring.

"As Nick Clegg is stressing this week, if we want things to be different, we should choose something different.

"We need to think about Mary-Ann crying herself to sleep because she can’t attain the ideal body image, of Trisha worrying herself sick over how to cope."

And in very specific ways, Katy Gordon’s stories reinforced the values that her audience wanted to hear – that the Liberal Democrats are “different” - more “radical”, readier to take risks.

Why can’t more Liberal Democrat politicians use stories this effectively?

(1) Annette Simmonds, Whoever Tells the Best Story Wins (Amacom, 2007)

Tackling climate change and building a green economy with clean energy. How would the Lib Dems do it?

Liberal Democrats talk about tackling climate change, investing in clean renewable energy and investing in green economic growth and green infrastructure. But how would we do it?

The scientific consensus is clear - the world must keep the rise in global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius above pre industrial levels, or we will face an apocalyptic situation where climate change is out of our control.

The science is becoming more pessimistic. Last year, for instance, climate scientists from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research found that cumulative CO2 emissions, along with carbon cycle feedbacks and the omission of emissions from international transport, mean that action to reduce emissions is needed much more urgently that previously thought. Global greenhouse gas emissions need to start falling by 2015. Their analysis also suggests that the UK needs to aim at the upper end of the IPCC’s recommendations, for industrialised countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions between 25 and 40 per cent from a 1990 baseline; in part to encourage other countries to aim for a stronger deal at Copenhagen. [click here].

The independent Committee on Climate Change favours strong domestic action, with little or no dependence on offsets purchased from abroad to achieve its suggested emissions reduction targets.

So the Liberal Democrats are correct to commit to cutting UK emissions by 40 percent by 2020; and to supporting an international agreement to do the same.(1)

We have also adopted targets for 40% clean electricity -- wind, hydroelectric, tidal, biomass, wave and tidal, solar power -- by 2020; and for making a major improvement in our energy efficiency -- the most cost-effective way of cutting carbon emissions. This is the key to reducing our carbon emissions. Research by the Carbon Trust and Imperial College proves it.

Liberal Democrats want to take carbon out of the electricity we use, the heat we need, the vehicles we use to get around by 2050. We want to create a new, green economy.

Let’s be clear. This is a transformation the like of which has never seen before. It will need the fastest acceleration of technological development and innovation in our history. And 40% clean electricity is eight times the UK’s current level.

The transformation to a zero carbon Britain will need investment in, for example: renewables generation; robust energy efficiency solutions; offshore wind power grids; electricity transmission and gas distribution grid reinforcement and interconnectors; and smart meters.

Last year, the Renewables Advisory Board estimated that to reach the government’s existing energy targets the private sector will need to invest £100bn by 2020.

In July 2009, new work by Ernst and Young, covering investment needs for all the government’s energy policy goals, put the figure at £90 billion by 2015 (though that includes new nuclear generation).

But market failures mean that private sector involvement alone will not generate enough investment to fully commercialise some new green technologies quickly enough.

In some cases, the lead times are too long. Some supply chains are too weak – in onshore wind, for example, we have to compete in a global supply chain with Spain, Denmark. And in offshore wind there are very few turbine manufacturers.

The Liberal Democrats’ general election manifesto should set out a green industrial strategy, to make sure that the technologies where this country has an advantage can come to market. This includes:

• providing capital grants for clean energy sources;
• creating a Green Infrastructure Bank to act as the catalyst for private sector investment; with public finance acting in partnership to carry forward low carbon infrastructure investment; and
• using green bonds to raise new finance for green infrastructure and energy efficiency solutions; boosting confidence in low carbon markets without making the public debt worse.

Liberal Democrats talk about “using guaranteed prices to drive investment in renewable energy sources such as wind, wave and solar.” But so do Labour (now) and the Conservatives. We need to be committed to guaranteed prices that do the job – by being structured simply enough and set sufficiently high to promote investment in as many viable clean energy solutions as possible.

(1) Note that earlier this year, new research from the Tyndall Centre supported a 42 per cent UK emissions reduction target by 2020 (without using carbon offsets purchased from abroad.

[This is an edited version of the speech I would have given in the energy and climate change debate at the Liberal Democrat conference, had I been called.]

Zero Carbon Britain - Liberal Democrats should tell it straight

I am delighted that the Liberal Democrats have reaffirmed our commitment to creating a zero carbon Britain by the year 2050.

But we need to be much clearer than the Fresh Start pre-manifesto about how we would achieve it.

With every general election, we set out how much our policies would cost and how we would pay for them.

We should be just as open an honest about how we will cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Our next general election manifesto should set out an alternative carbon budget showing, for every major government department and every major policy area, how we will put the UK on a zero carbon path.

We need to show, with policies and figures, how every major department- for instance, energy and climate change, transport, communities, Treasury – will play its part.

[This a slightly edited version of my intervention in the debate on A Fresh Start for Britain at the Liberal Democrat conference, 22 September 2009]

New Zealand may ditch fair voting system

I came to the UK sixteen years ago, almost to the day. I remember how many people in the Liberal Democrats and a few beyond, were very interested to know about how and why New Zealanders had changed our voting system. People asked (and still ask) if there were any lessons from NZ that could be applied here. The answer is yes. But Kiwis may be about to make another change– to a voting system that is much less “proportional” and looks more like first past the post.

In a referendum held on the same day as the 1993 general election, Kiwis voted by 54 to 46 percent to scrap “first-past-the-post” and bring in the mixed member proportional (MMP) system. [For further details, click here and here]. General elections were held using MMP in 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005 and 2008. After last year’s vote, a coalition led by the (centre right) National Party took over. (The line-up is National/ACT/Maori Party/UnitedFuture NZ)

National promised to hold a binding referendum on MMP, to be held no later than 2011, when the next general election is due. This would:

“. . . give people a choice between retaining MMP without any further consideration, or having a further vote on MMP alongside another electoral system or systems.”

That seems fair enough. When the change to MMP was made, it was expected that Kiwis would one day have a chance to review their decision. Five elections on, they should be able to look afresh at the voting system.

But National’s election policy left open a lot of questions, such as the timing of the vote, how many referendums will be held and what the options will be.

It now looks as if the government plans a two-stage process. The first referendum, which would be held at the time of the 2011 election, would ask voters whether they thought there should be a change of electoral system. If change was favoured, a second referendum would be held before 2014 on the options. We still don’t know what the options will be: the cabinet is still working this one out.

Prime Minister John Key has said today that:

“New Zealanders have become accustomed to a proportional system, so I personally have been of the view it would be unlikely to go back to first past the post.”

He went on:

"Whether they might consider an alternative proportional system is something that's in their hands. I think it's a bit early to tell at this point."

Smelled a rat yet? Key personally favours the supplementary member (SM) system, in which the vast majority of MPs would be chosen from single member constituencies with a smaller number from party lists, to provide a limited “top up” for parties who had not won constituencies in proportion to their overall support.

SM is a “proportional” voting system only in the sense that a whitebait is a fish. It would advantage the two major parties over the smaller ones (apart from, possibly, the Maori Party). But it would almost certainly help National more than Labour. [There’s more on this point, here.]

And isn’t it funny how the anti-MMP campaigners, former Telecom chairman Peter Shirtcliffe (who led the pro-first-past-the-post campaign in 1993) and commentator Graeme Hunt are backing the supplementary member system?

UK electoral reformers should keep watch what the Kiwis do. Just as they used the NZ precedent as a model that can be followed, their opponents can do the same if Kiwis eventually get rid of MMP.

With an eye to any future UK vote on electoral reform, they should also watch the process and timetable used for the MMP referendum. For instance, the Greens’ co-leader Metiria Turei has called for an independent review, with full public consultation on how the system is working, before any referendum is held. These things are all about party advantage -- just like the debate on voting systems itself.

How do you make political ads that work?

This has been one of my main interests in politics for many years now.

A New Zealand academic has offered up some useful suggestions.

On his Liberation blog, Bryce Edwards has been summarizing and commenting on chapters from Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig of the University of Otago Politics department).

He says that “’Vote for Me’”, the chapter by Dr Claire Robinson on political advertising, is one of the most interesting in the book. Having read a lot of Dr Robinson’s material and had the benefit of her advice, I can well believe it.

Edwards says that Claire Robinson found most of the advertising lacklustre – there were no classics like the dancing cossacks this time. She is critical of Labour’s advertising, found National’s bland and uninspiring (but then they were the frontrunners) but is much more positive about the Greens’ adverts and believes that NZ First at least pushed their brand (although they finished up with no MPs).

Just as interesting are the principles we can draw from Claire Robinson’s reported observations. Here’s my take:

· political adverts need to engage with voters and be inclusive (for instance – show your party leader adverts interacting and listening to voters, address viewers directly);

· to help in projecting this sense of engagement and inclusion, you need to seem externally and not internally focused (for instance, avoid using the word “I” in your adverts, as much as possible);

· you should project the image of a diverse voter base, especially if you are the market leader or a major party;

· if you are following a niche targeting strategy (like the Greens), don’t be afraid to use the same types of images and symbols that business marketeers use to reach that niche (for example, children, well known scenes and symbols, high production values);

· if you are a third or fourth party your campaign images - if done well - can help you seem different and fresh, above “politics as usual” (but see below);

· negative messages about your opponents are not enough (ok, third term governments seeking a fourth term almost always resort to these, but if people aren’t listening to you or those messages, then this is not going to work); and

· to be successful, a political advertising campaign needs to be based on a positive storyline – optimistic, action-oriented and looking to the future.

It seems Claire Robinson was very impressed with the Greens’ adverts. So was I. Yet the party did not do as well as expected on polling day. According to Bryce Edwards, she puts this down this down to the Greens’ mid-campaign decision to declare their preferred coalition partner, effectively siding with the Labour Party. Such an announcement:

‘was out of keeping with their message about transcending politics, [and] effectively meant they were only communicating with their core supporters from that moment on, and could not expect to attract new supporters from the other side of the political spectrum’ (p.88).

Here’s one more lesson learned: you can have a great campaign narrative but you have to embody it as well.

Pollwatch: Lib Dems ranked third on the environment, gaining little traction in economic debate -- ICM

Yesterday’s Guardian summarised the main findings of the ICM political poll for August. ICM have now published the full results on their website, so we can see in a bit more detail what they mean for the Liberal Democrats.

The question that I always find most interesting is:

“Irrespective of how you yourself will vote at the next election, which political party do you think is putting forward the best policies on . . .”.

As usual, the Liberal Democrats’ best rating – 16 per cent – was on the environment. But we came third, behind the Conservatives and Labour. Allowing for margins of error, the three parties were level pegging, which is not much cause for comfort.

That’s not all: 18% said that “another party” (meaning the Greens, presumably) had the best environmental policies. That figure has doubled since February, the last time ICM asked who has the best policies on a range of areas. And more voters picked “another party” on the environment than on any of the issues surveyed.

This is not the first time the Lib Dems have failed to top the ICM poll on the “best for the environment” question. Yet we should be doing better than this on what is supposed to be our strongest issue with voters and where we have long claimed the moral and intellectual high ground. I will post about this more over the coming weeks, but the Lib Dems may well have become too complacent over the last few years about our leadership on green issues.

On "the economy generally", just 9 per cent said that the Lib Dems had the best economic policies, compared to 33 per cent for the Conservatives and 22 per cent for Labour.

As for which party had the best policies for “sorting out the economic crisis”, the Conservatives held a 9 point lead over Labour, up from 2 points in February. Just 9 per cent picked the Lib Dems.

On these scores, the Lib Dems fared little better or worse than we did six months ago.

The ICM figures show, once again, that Vince Cable’s well deserved reputation with the political literati has not sprinkled any star dust on the Liberal Democrats or our economic credibility. Maybe the public has cast us as the “caring party” that stands up for ordinary people and does not really see Lib Dems as hard-headed economic managers. But there’s no escaping the fact that, as the general election draws closer, the party needs to put across a clearer story on the issue that is uppermost in voters’ minds.

Lessons from Gordon Brown's narrative failure

Liberal Democrats regularly beat ourselves up for “not having a narrative”. As I have argued many times, we always have a narrative but it’s not necessarily the one we might want. Yet our problems on this front are as nothing compared to Gordon Brown’s.

In today’s Guardian, Tom Clark describes the philosophical and marketing swamp in which the PM is now mired. He lists the worst of Brown’s abortive attempts to define what his premiership is meant to be all about, from the moralising of two years ago to last autumn’s promises to get tough with the bankers.

In each case, there was a cycle of failure that repeated itself. Brown issued bold statements of intent that were, in many ways, in line with the public mood. But they did not amount to a vision for government. Nor did Brown tell a clear story about what had happened and what was coming next. Most importantly, nothing came of them. Politicians in office are judged over the long term by their actions and achievement as by well as their words; all this forms part of their brand narrative. They have to make things happen and when action is promised but not forthcoming, the public has nothing tangible to latch on to; disillusionment soon follows.

Hang on - Brown has held high office for more than twelve years. He was chancellor for more than ten years – with an unprecedented amount of power over domestic policy - and has been prime minister for two. We should be able to see and believe what he stands for, where he wants to take the country; even if the PM has to help us. Just as we understood “Thatcherism”, we should able to see “Brownism” is about. But like Margaret Thatcher, Gordon Brown needs to tell stories to make it real.

The “ism” may be there after all. Tom Clark suggests that from all the micro-measures and ad hoc experiments, especially when Brown was at Treasury, we can identify his core values and principles:

“ . . . attempt to run a market economy with ruthless efficiency; then funnel as much of the proceeds as feasible to the very poor . . . with [a] strategic conviction that the state is vital in both parts . . . "

That’s a good summary but Brown has plainly not been successful in these aims -- though, it must be said, the global financial crisis has not helped.

When it comes to communication though, there’s less much room for debate. Tom Clark identifies the harsh reality:

“Brownism . . . will never be intelligibly defined by the man himself.”

I agree with Tom Clark. But read those words again, slowly. They go to the heart of why Brown has failed as a leader.

Political leaders have to tell compelling stories if they are to succeed. Leaders base these stories on a clear understanding of the people they are speaking to – their hopes, their emotions, their fears. Nobody else can do it for them. The leaders who do not tell such stories crash and burn. Think Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair – and Paddy Ashdown. Or Michael Foot, Iain Duncan Smith – and Ming Campbell. Brown seems destined to join the second group. (True, this is a big ask for a leader who has been a long time in government. Yet Australia’s former PM Paul Keating managed it well enough to win the 1993 federal election.) Tom Clark wants Gordon Brown to change his ways but I think it is too late now.

But there’s more. In order to tell powerful stories, successful leaders also know their own minds, understand their own values and are clear about what they themselves believe in and their goals for the future. Michael Deaver once said that one of the biggest lessons he learned from working with Ronald Reagan was:

“You've got to know who you are before you can communicate it.”

Love them or hate them, Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher are two very good examples of leaders who knew who they were.

Maybe that’s the real problem with Brown’s premiership: he has still not really decided what Brownism is. And, perhaps, David Cameron and Nick Clegg have the same challenge.