On the 2009 European election results

Another European election, another disappointment for the Liberal Democrats.

The party has the same number of MEPs as before. But our share of the vote was slightly down from 2004.

Let’s start with a bit of context. European elections are always shark-infested waters for the Lib Dems. Our vote in these contests is usually 5 to 7 points below where we are in the national polls. In the Euro-elections of June 2004, the Lib Dems gained just under 15 per cent of the vote. At the time, Populus had us on 22 per cent nationally. Last Thursday, we gained 13.7 per cent of the Euro-vote. The UKPR polling average puts the national Lib Dem vote at 19 per cent. As John Curtice acknowledges in today’s Independent, the party’s “relative Europhilia” does not go down well with most people who vote in European elections.

All elections are different and this one was really different. During the campaign, most talk about “Europe” got blown away by the parliamentary expenses scandal and general public fury with established politicians. Labour was, and is, in deep guano. The Tories have had big problems over parliamentary expenses too. This should have been a great opportunity for the Lib Dems.

But angry voters were more likely to stay at home or vote BNP or Green than turn to the Lib Dems – or any of the other parties, including UKIP. On Thursday, Labour’s support from all those qualified to vote (as opposed to those who voted) was down by 3.2 per cent. The Tories were down too, by 0.6 per cent. UKIP’s vote was also down, by 0.5 per cent. But so were the Lib Dems, by just under 1 per cent. The BNP vote was up (very slightly) and so was the Greens’, by 0.6 per cent. Meanwhile, the percentage of people not voting was up by 3.7 points.

There are, I believe, three main reasons why the party has been left feeling disappointed. The first concerns the “anti-politician” mood. In the wake of the parliamentary expenses scandals, the Lib Dems moved to respond to the public’s anger. On fixing politics, we are, after all, on much stronger ground than the others. With his “100 days” package, Nick Clegg set a robust, ambitious programme for reform. During the campaign, I was quite positive about Nick’s Change Politics for Good broadcast. [For my blog on this, click here]

In retrospect, the party may have been too slow to pick up on this theme. The figures above suggest that although we may (sometimes) see ourselves as political insurgents but the voters perceive us as being part of the establishment. And I fear that one of my “rules of politics” may have been borne out. When politicians try to sell voters lists of policies, and don’t tell stories, disappointment is just around the corner. The closer the list is to polling day, the worse the effect.

Second, the party’s European song – drowned out as it was – was a bit off-key. The Lib Dems were more positive on Europe than for some years – “stronger together, poorer apart” – and this brought endorsements from The Observer and The Independent. Yet the party too often sounded as if it was trying to sell to voters the concept of “working together in Europe”, as opposed to setting out what difference Lib Dems would make, the specific benefits we would provide. . The manifesto sketched out our views on European economic recovery, mentioned our “green road out of recession” (though the European context was not fully developed) and cited our record on standing up for consumers. But the campaign offered few specifics and told few stories. [Click here] Voters did not receive a clear idea of what they would “get” in “return” for “buying” more Lib Dem MEPs

The third, over-arching reason is to do with the party’s campaigning culture. 2009 was an angry election, with UKIP and the BNP spinning simpler, more emotive stories. People could afford to lash out and a lot of them did. Two in five voters were cast for parties other than Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. The recent evidence, for example in Drew Westen’s book, The Political Brain, shows that voters’ decisions are driven more by emotions and values than policies and the facts and figures behind them. Yet, as so often happens, the Lib Dems tried to appeal almost entirely to peoples’ brains, their sense of reason.

So, where to next? The answer is not for the Lib Dems to ditch the entire Euro-manifesto and hurriedly throw together a patchwork quilt of “popular” European policies. None of this would be credible. Even if we can’t write the manifesto or the strategy for the next European election now, we can be sure that the main opposition party will invite people to cast a protest vote. Likewise, the minor parties will again appeal to public anger and disillusionment. So the party should base our next Euro campaign on how, in specific terms, voters will benefit from having more Lib Dem MEPs.

And let’s get behind Nick’s “take back power” campaign. It’s only just started, after all (!). The circumstances of the Euro elections won’t repeat themselves anytime soon. Above all, we need to tell people stories about the changes we offer, the bottom lines and not the process; telling stories that speak to hearts as well as heads.

Narrativewatch: Conversations with Nick Clegg

Here’s a frustrating paradox about the Liberal Democrats. One of the main difficulties we face in putting across a narrative of our own choosing is that other people – viz. the media – filter what we say. OK, all parties have to cope with filters and the media are more likely to ignore us altogether. That means election broadcasts are a golden opportunity for the Lib Dems to tell our story. Yet the party doesn’t always use these broadcasts –- or Nick Clegg's obvious talents as a communicator -- to best effect. We don’t use them to tell enough stories.

[Before going any further: if you don’t know why stories matter, click here, or here, or just remember the words of US Democrat political strategists James Carville and Paul Bagela:

"Facts tell, but stories sell . . . If you're not communicating in stories, you're not communicating.”]

Conservations with Nick Clegg, the Lib Dems’ two-part broadcast for the European elections has a lot of good points, especially Nick’s delivery and the production values -- though I claim no particular expertise in the latter. But the broadcast could have been so much better if it had told some stories.

Part 1 starts promisingly, as Nick introduces his town hall-style meetings and explains that, by getting out of Westminster and talking to people, he might go some way towards restoring peoples’ faith in politics. Soon after, Nick presents a more voter-friendly version of the narrative from his spring conference speech.

“Labour has completely lost its way . . . I don’t think people think that things would really be that different under the Conservatives – so I think it’s a great opportunity . . . there is a chance for change.”

Nick goes on to explain two specific policies: abolishing tuition fees; and cutting taxes for those on middle and low incomes. The stories are not fully developed, however, and, on taxes especially, the explanation has almost no human element or emotional impact.

Compare that answer to Part 2, when Nick is asked about how he would go about rehabilitating ex-offenders. He explains how Lib Dem councillors in Chard successfully used community justice panels to bring reoffending rates down. Nick combines a challenge plot with what Annette Simmons calls a “value in action” story. The latter are usually deployed to influence group or individual behaviours. No matter, his story from Chard illustrates clearly how he approaches the issues around crime and social exclusion. The Lib Dems are innovative and, where possible, prefer community-based solutions that prevent crime. The story is credible; the viewer can “see” it.

The other questioner asks how Nick he will convince people of the benefits of the EU. He replies that “we have to learn to act together” in Europe, to address a raft of problems, such as international crime, terrorism, the international economic crisis and environmental destruction. But there is no story to show how “acting together” is to Britain’s benefit. Much more to the point, this was an opportunity to invoke a challenge plot about how Lib Dem MEPs address these big issues.

By the end, the two broadcasts have not, in themselves, conveyed a story. There is a set up at the beginning of both parts. (“People have lost faith in politicians . . . they don’t trust them; this [town meetings] is just one attempt to cut through that . . .”) I may have missed it, but there does not appear to be any sort of resolution.

I hate to say this but, by way of comparison, David Cameron’s first broadcast for the 2009 elections is a story in itself. “Ordinary”, disillusioned voters are seen showing up at Cameron Direct events all over Britain (well, in key marginal seats) and saying what’s on their minds. The carefully edited footage shows the Tory leader listening and engaging with them on today’s big issues. At the end, at least some of the voters said that they were thinking of voting Conservative.

So why can’t the Lib Dems tell more stories of our own?

Found: A quick guide to successful storytelling - plus an invitation from Neil

If you’re looking for some quick guides on how to tell stories that inspire and persuade people or, perhaps, encourage people to vote for you, then check out the website of Anecdote. Anecdote is an Australian consultancy that “helps business leaders engage their people to be even better collaborators, leaders and change agents using the power of business narrative”. The ideas and principles that they espouse are often applied in politics.

Anecdote have just published a short “white paper” called “Why some leaders inspire action while others are mostly forgettable”. The paper explains how and why stories are so effective and necessary for effecting change. It also suggests ways that putative leaders (and politicians?) can find their own stories. These can be summarised as follows:

1. Develop an awareness of the stories that swirl around you every day.

2. Move your style of speaking away from being predominantly rational and argument-based to being a good mixture of stories and argument. BUT start with examples, that turn negative case studies into positive stories.

3. Where possible, ask for feedback about what people infer about you from your stories.

Last week, Anecdote ran a “story week” that invited people to rate on line five different stories - i.e., one story on each day. The most interesting part was the criteria used to judge the chosen stories. The criteria, which are explained in some more detail here, were:

· Clarity: Is the story simple and clear

· Emotional: Did the story connect with you, have impact?

· Believable: Does it sound like it could actually have happened?

· Transport: When you read the story, could you picture yourself there?

· Surprising: Were any aspects of the story unexpected?

· Relevant: How relevant is it to the issue of 'leadership'?

· Overall: How memorable was this story for you?

This checklist is as accurate and useful as any that I’ve seen. I am especially impressed with the way Anecdote emphasises the need for stories to build an emotional connection between a leader (or politician, or audience) and his/her audience. This crucial point has been developed by the sage of storytelling, Stephen Denning, and Drew Westen, author of The Political Brain (2008). Yet it has too often been ignored by the political party of which I am a member.

Similarly, Anecdote also pick up on the theme that stories are sensory experiences. In her book, Whoever Tells The Best Story Wins (2007), Annette Simmons argues that we need to smell, taste, hear, touch and see stories that we hear if they are to have any impact.

The point that seems to be the least well explained is “relevance . . . to the issue of leadership.” On this one, Howard Gardner has the most to offer, when he argues that when leaders tell stories, they must convincingly embody those stories, in order to make themselves seem authentic.

“The creator must in some way embody his story although he need not be saintly . . . The story may grow out of the leader’s personal experiences and may well have been embodied in his or her daily living before being expressed overtly”. [Leading Minds (1995)]

For my views on how Thatcher, Churchill, Blair and Obama embodied their narratives– as well as some suggestions as to how some Liberal Democrat politicians might do it - please click here.

Now, here’s an invitation. The European / local election campaign is now underway. When you see any of the above elements of a successful story, from any politician or party, please post the details below.

Political storyteller of the year 2008

This is the time of year when people look back at the year, compile lists and make awards. So I’ve got an award of my own: which politician from any party, political persuasion or country, was the best story-teller of 2008?

It’s lean pickings from the Liberal Democrats, I’m afraid.

New leader Nick Clegg worked all year to tell a story: that Labour have had their day and can’t create a fairer Britain; the Conservatives won’t but the Liberal Democrats will make it happen. It was old third party wine in twenty first century bottles, but showed promise all the same. After the banks went bang, the media meta-narrative took a new turn: the government’s response to the recession and the “Brown bounce”. Nick's story was squashed flat. Ever since, the party has struggled to tell a story about the economy, as distinct from Vince Cable’s razor-sharp commentaries.

Ros Scott told a good story and thrashed MP Lembit Opik in the contest for party president. But it was an internal election, for an ill-defined job. Most of the previous incumbents have checked into the obscurity hotel.

And let’s not even talk about the Lib Dems’ campaign for the London mayor and assembly.

The Conservatives should have had an easier time of it. Telling their story – “it’s time for a change; Labour must go” – looks straightforward enough. But David Cameron has also been overwhelmed by the economic crisis. He has not told a convincing story about the crisis and, as the year closed, Cameron was losing the economic argument to Gordon Brown.

The Conservative politician who did the best job of telling a “time for a change” story was London’s new mayor, Boris Johnson. He doesn’t get first prize because, after six months, Johnson still hasn’t fashioned a “governing narrative” that helps Londoners to understand what he is trying to do. So far, in his honeymoon phase, that hasn’t mattered too much. It will in 2009, as a deep recession really hits a city that is well used to good times. If the mayor can tell a story and leads Londoners through the crisis, he will well on the way towards re-election.

Labour at last found someone who can tell a story: Gordon Brown! This must be one of the most ironic plot twists that British politics has seen in a long time. That’s partly because Brown’s failure to provide his government with a narrative has deeply frustrated Labour supporters.

There’s an even bigger irony: Brown had a narrative, that from his decade as chancellor: thanks to him, Britain’s economy was strong and stable and the years of “boom and bust” were over. The onset of recession and the reversals of financial economic policy should have finished him, for Brown no longer embodied his narrative. Yet telling stories has saved him, so far.

The Observer’s Andrew Rawnsley said it very well on Sunday:

As the banks crashed, Brown bounced. This is partly because he has been brilliant at spinning the blame for the crisis away from himself. The international institutions failed. So said the man who had chaired the reform committee of the IMF for many years. The bubble economy in America was the culprit. So said the man who recommended an honorary knighthood for Alan Greenspan, the father of that bubble. It was down to the reckless gambling of the bankers. So said the man who indulged a lightly regulated City for a decade. The Tories howled, but largely to no avail. Polling suggests that most voters were, and still are, broadly prepared to buy the prime minister's account of the origins of the recession.

So far, the public also seems ready to buy his “active government, for the people” versus the “do-nothing Tories, for the bankers” story lines that have appeared over the last few weeks. Yes, you’ve got it: ‘the enemy over the water’, ‘the rot within’, even the strong community; the old ones are always the best ones.

Brown’s achievement is weird for another reason. As he saved the world the banks and showed other countries how to stave off disaster, he seemed authoritative, confident and in command. Above all, he looked more experienced than the “novice” Cameron. The PM embodied the rest his story: “I can fix what they have done; the other guy can’t”.

But he hasn’t brought it all together. In another inversion of the usual rules of politics, Brown embodies a narrative he hasn’t quite told. He is more actions than words.

The narrative can’t be judged a total success, because Brown hasn’t won an election, or even overtaken the Conservatives in the polls. The job losses expected in early 2009 may well blow the story away. So Gordon Brown is not the story-teller of the year either.

To find the best story-teller of 2008, we have to go over the ocean.

In the United States presidential election, a first term African-American senator with a lean CV and a liberal voting record defeated his own party’s “front runner” and then saw off the formidable Republican machine. The key to understanding those victories must be the story that Barack Obama told and the way he told it.

First, Barack Obama caught the attention of the Democratic Party, and then the nation (and not the world), with his personal charisma and his compelling life-story.

Second, Obama made the case for change, in a way that connected with peoples’ emotions. His campaign slogan, “change we can believe in” and the way he kept using words like “chance,” “hope,” and “dream” built up trust in a cynical electorate and stressed the potential for progress. [For the linguistics expert Noah Bubenhofer’s new study of Obama’s rhetoric, click here]. He struck powerful chords with the party’s desire for “liberation” from past disappointments and the public’s desire for a break from the past eight years of Republican rule (“McCain – Bush”) rule in the White House. The use of inclusive rhetoric - we,” “you” (plural) and “us” - created what Bubenhofer calls “a strong feeling of community and identification between [Obama] and his audience”.

Third, Obama backed up the case for change with emotional and rational arguments. The way he discussed, in specific ways, the daily challenges facing average Americans, such as rising energy costs, mortgage worries and healthcare premiums, enabled him to connect and empathise with voters.

The emotional appeals were fortified by solid policy details (stories): promoting innovation and upward social mobility; ensuring that more people can have access to healthcare; building a better “safety net” for poorer people; cutting taxes for low income senior citizens and repeal tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans; widening access to education and launching an Apollo project for clean energy and energy independence.

Obama embodied his narrative. We have learned how a black man born in Hawaii to an immigrant father – who himself was born and raised in a small village in Kenya and “went to school in a tin- roof shack” - and a white, single mother struggled with a multiracial background and a broken home gained a world-class education and went on to become the first black man to edit the Harvard Law Review. This is a uniquely American story of identity and hope: Obama embodied the notion that exciting new things - change – can happen in America.

The newcomer represented a generational shift, away from the baby boomers, the neo-cons and culture war politics and towards a new sense of optimism about America’s future.

And whatever was thrown at him, Obama held his nerve. In the general election campaign, his level headedness and sense of composure did a great deal to reassure floating voters that Obama could lead.

In all of these ways, Obama told brilliantly a story about how America could leave behind the divisions of the past and find a new direction as one nation, united behind a common purpose. An optimistic story, about the future. “Yes, we can” and yes, he did.

That’s why Barack Obama, who will soon become the 44th president of the United States, is my political storyteller of the year.

Boris's victory and the power of political storytelling

If you want to see how political narratives really work, look no further than Boris Johnson’s successful bid to become Mayor of London.

It gives me no pleasure to say this –- and I was appalled at the number of Lib Dems who voted for him as their first or second choice -- the Tory candidate’s campaign came straight from the copybook of political storytelling.

In The Secret Language Of Leadership (2007), Stephen Denning argues that telling the story is the way to make a personal and emotional connection with an audience. It needs more than rational argument. Denning argues that a speaker (or leader, or politician) must: (1) get peoples’ attention, (2) stimulate the desire for change and (3) reinforce it with rational argument. You must offer solutions that are plausible and involve a happy ending.

Boris Johnson’s campaign was successful in crafting such a narrative. First, Johnson got the public’s attention because he is a very well-known tv celebrity and comedian, an established print journalist and columnist. In this age of celebrity, he was able to seem interesting, novel and above party politics, despite having been a Conservative MP since 2001. And for London politics, he was a new and interesting face.

Second, Johnson stimulated a desire for change. That was easy because after eight years in office, the Labour incumbent Ken Livingstone had made himself unpopular. Yesterday, the polling firm Ipsos-MORI published their ‘inbox’ for the new mayor. Based on 41,000 interviews for the London boroughs' and seven years of tracking data in the London survey, it shows that Londoners are satisfied with their city as a place to live. But they are concerned about the cost of living, housing, overall crime levels and in particular violent crime, traffic congestion and congestion charging. When asked which issues would decide their votes, respondents gave crime and policing, transport overall and healthcare as their top three. 

The Ipsos-MORI survey also showed that Livingstone had polarised the public over congestion charging and that people disliked his style and attitude. They thought that he had grown out of touch. 

Apart from healthcare, these became the top subjects of Johnson’s mega-message: Ken Livingstone must go.

Third, Johnson followed up his powerful “time for a change” theme with rational arguments. Nobody would ever call Boris a policy wonk but he had enough solutions on the big issues that were plausible to his target voters. Doubling the number of police on the buses, especially in outer London. Action on gang crime. Phase out bendy buses. Reform the congestion charge. Build more affordable homes. Stand up for Londoners on healthcare.  No, I wasn’t taken in and it will be fascinating to watch him try to keep all his promises.  My point is, policies do matter but it’s how you frame them that counts!

OK, Johnson sometimes floundered under questioning but the mood for change had built up. The media narrative was written – Ken out, Boris in.  The Tory campaign rammed it home by selling their man as the only change for the better. (I’ve seen that one used to great effect in Australian election campaigns. Just fancy that!)

Johnson embodied his narrative by being younger, newer and more approachable than Livingstone.  He is also a big personality but with a very different style and background to the outgoing mayor.  But he became serious and measured to the point of being dull, so it became harder to pin the “Boris the clown” tag on him.  As a tv celebrity, he could be engaging and compelling and this enabled him to discuss the issues in a way that struck a chord with disenchanted voters’ emotions.  Like most Londoners, he was upbeat about the city and its future.  Boris – for people usually refer to him by his Christian name only - seemed to offer voters a safe, unrisky change. A happy ending.

Let me be clear: I am sure that the ending won’t be happy, especially for some of those who live in the less leafy parts of London. 

I was pleased to vote for Brian Paddick for my first preference.  I appreciate that he was always going to struggle against the huge financial and media juggernauts behind the Labour and Tory candidates.  Also, it seems that Lib Dem supporters didn’t understand the voting system, but more on that later. 

We can’t let ourselves off the hook though.  The Tory story worked and we need to understand why.  Once again, our campaign had a meaty list of good policies.  But I don’t think that we told people a good story about why they should vote Lib Dem, for the Mayor or the GLA.

They responded accordingly.

John McCain's Daniel Boone narrative

I was all set to do a posting about Republican frontrunner John McCain’s political narrative. But in today’s Guardian, feminist author Susan Faludi has explained most of it. She says:

"Well, let's assume McCain is the Republican candidate. His story is going to be the story of Daniel Boone - the guy who was taken captive by Indians or, in his case, the North Vietnamese, and withstood torture and came back. That's the drama that's going to be trotted out. Already they're talking about 'McCain the Warrior'. And then on the Democratic side, whoever the candidate is they'll be attacked because they don't fit into that rescue formula. Clinton will either be accused of being not manly enough to withstand the terrorist threat, or accused of being too cold and calculating to be a woman. Or both. And Obama will be this scrawny guy who doesn't seem macho enough to stand up to the enemy.”

Susan Faludi describes the archetype at work as “the rescue narrative”. She is talking about The Terror Dream, her new book on the American media reportage of 9/11 and its aftermath. She argues that American men felt that their masculinity was under attack and as a result, new, all-male heroes had to be found. Women were forced into the background.

America's media fell back in love with the manly man - an old-fashioned hero strong enough to defend his nation and rescue his womenfolk.

If he did not exist, he would have to be invented. So firemen had to be superheroes, widows had to be helpless, unmarried women had to be frantic to wed and working mums had to want to stay at home. Crucially, strong men had to protect weak women - a desire vividly dramatised by the Rambo-style rescue in Iraq of Private Jessica Lynch, who found herself reconfigured by the media from professional soldier to helpless damsel.

Faludi traces this "rescue narrative" right back to the original shame of America's frontiersmen, whose womenfolk were frequently kidnapped by Indians - and, more shaming still, did not always want to be rescued. "The 'unimaginable' assault on our home soil was, in fact, anything but unimaginable," she writes. "The anxieties it awakened reside deep in our cultural memory. And the myth we deployed to keep those anxieties buried is one we've been constructing for more than 300 years."

I would add the myth that McCain has created of a being an “American maverick”. This appeals to an archetypal hero that can be found throughout the military and cultural history of the US. General Douglas MacArthur is a leading example.

Also, when discussing the America media’s propensity to muddle up cultural fiction with reality, Susan Faludi makes another interesting observation.

"I think," she says bluntly, "it combines with a number of prevailing, longstanding dynamics in the American mindset. You know - the desire to be seen as innocent, that you can just hit the restart button. That tomorrow's a new day, one person can make a difference - all these apolitical, and even anti-political, or certainly anti-historical ways of looking at the world. That makes us more susceptible to Cinderella stories, and want to believe them. Americans have always wanted to believe in some dreamy notion that has nothing to do with the facts that are right before them. Americans are just so wedded to saying OK, let's just turn the page and everything's going to be fine."

More learning from Barack Obama

Barack Obama’s abilities as a storyteller and their relevance to business leaders are noted by John Gapper in today’s Financial Times.

Mr Gapper notes that business leaders must convince shareholders, managers and employees that their companies can and should change. He says that Mr Obama, of all the presidential candidates, is the one from whom chief executives can draw the clearest lessons about leadership.

Mr Gapper discusses a number of Senator Obama’s attributes and then says:

“. . . he is a wonderful storyteller. This sounds like a second-degree talent, something it might be nice to have but is not essential. But it has helped him to overcome the obvious weakness of his candidacy – lack of experience – by reframing it as a narrative about the US.

“While more wooden candidates – step forward, Mr Romney – have exploited their status as Washington ingenues by rattling off the usual schtick about being strangers to backroom deals, Mr Obama talks about himself embodying a rare, but quintessentially American, moment when the social fabric shifts and a newcomer emerges.

“Unlike oratorical perfect pitch, narrative is a craft that can be learned. It is also a very important one for business leaders. Many CEOs stand or fall by their ability to frame a story, not only for investors or analysts about how they are turning a company around but for employees to engage them in making it happen.”

Mike Huckabee - message vs. narrative (and symbols)

This article from the Wall Street Journal backgrounds the novel, “pro-faith and pro-government” platform that former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is running on and how if would represent a paradigm shift for the Republican Party.

But it confuses Huckabee’s message with his narrative – the stories and anecdotes about himself and his family that he is using, very effectively, to sell to explain what he stands for. These stories have been explained very well by Dan Balz of the Washington Post. Says Balz:

“Some were tender and touching . . . others reflected less positively on his family . . . but all of them conveyed an underlying message of morality and responsibility that underscored why Huckabee's rise has been fueled by a desire on the part of Republican voters for a candidate who is both socially conservative and personally authentic.”

I am not signing up to the religious Right (anyway, for various reasons, they wouldn’t have me), nor am I asking you to. I am putting these articles up as illustrations of how political narratives work.

Also – you just have to watch this campaign spot, which I can only describe as awesome (!), to see how Huckabee is using uniquely American symbols.

Learning from Barack Obama

Can we learn anything from Senator Barack Obama's victory in the Iowa caucuses?

The answer is: yes, quite a lot.

Whilst it is far too early to predict that he will win the Democratic nomination, Senator Obama has shown us how political narratives can work.

He understands that a political narrative is a story that generates particular emotions by tapping into familiar archetypes and genres and engaging both the heart and the head.

In her books, The Story Factor and Whoever Tells the Best Story Wins, Annette Simmons discusses three types of story: “Who am I?”, “Why am I here?” and “My vision”.

By telling these types of stories, Senator Obama did the best job of getting Iowa Democrats to have positive feelings about him.

In The Audacity of Hope and Dreams from My Father and his keynote speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention (that first brought him to national attention), Senator Obama set out his 'Who am I?' story.

We learn how a black man born in Hawaii to an immigrant father – who himself was born and raised in a small village in Kenya and “went to school in a tin- roof shack” - and a white, single mother struggled with a multiracial background and a broken home gained a world-class education and went on to become the first black man to edit the Harvard Law Review. This is a uniquely American story of identity and hope: Obama embodies the notion that new things - change – can happen in America.

Obama’s '”why am I here?” stories explain why and how he would: promote innovation and upward social mobility; protect workers against the consequences of globalisation; ensure that more people can have access to healthcare; build a better “safety net” for poorer people; cut taxes for low income senior citizens and repeal tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans; and crucially, widen access to education.

By telling these stories, Obama sets out his vision : “with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all”.

One archetype he taps into is a sense of possibilities – hope, aspiration and opportunity. Another, closely linked archetype is a transformation, a cleansing by rejecting the "old" and tarnished (in this case, politics) in favour of the “new”. (“There’s not a black America and a white America . . . a liberal America and a conservative America . . . there’s a United States of America”) Obama’s story is that he can end the bitter culture wars, as embodied by the Bushes and Clintons, and unite the nation around a common purpose.

Yes, politics in this country and in the US work differently. But both cultures rely on stories and archetypes.

So why do so many British politicians – and yes, I’m thinking here about Liberal Democrats - insist on giving us lists of policies instead of telling stories that would be so much more powerful?

Footnote: In this interesting piece, Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post says that "what was striking . . . was the pull of Obama's optimistic, inclusive message and the way his well-oiled field operation was able to translate that appeal into caucusgoers". She argues that Senator Obama and Mike Huckabee, victor in the Republican caucuses, both won because they talked about rising above partisanship to unite the country and solve its problems.