Thursday, April 24, 2008

A house divided

This is interesting (continuing the things aren't as bad as they seem for Labour theme)
Summary: The democrats may be fighting like cats and dogs, but the result is a huge turnout - so the 'fractious' downside is more than cancelled out by the 'wide awake' upside - and whichever Democrat candidate goes forward can expect their voters to turn out.
This raises an interesting question about the conventional wisdom on political unity. Voters, we are told, don't like divided parties. They want

But have voters expectations changed in recent years? In the same way that they have become more demanding consumers, expecting more by way of interaction and response from the suppliers that they choose, is it also the case that they are less likely to be the passive consumers of politics that conventional wisdom has cast them as?

Also, the past decade has seen a huge transformation in the way that advertising works. I've commented on this before: Advertising has to be much more subtle these days. The kind of media virus approach outlined by Douglas Rushkoff increasingly has seen corporate bodies abandon their adherence to the corporate message.

(OK - I'm not that much of an expert on the ad industry, so I'll stop there: But you get my drift?)

But all of this raises the question: Is Labour's disunity going to be an electoral disaster? Or is it the case that a public - disenchanted with the nuanced and opaque alternatives that they are being offered - could be seduced by a movement that offers a good old blood-and-guts argument?

In terms of 'Labour Hold' messages on election night, could the rising tide of public interest float more boats than the stormy waters sink?

No comments: