Enjoy your top secret work, red fox.

“David Allen: Freedom, fairness and the future. Yes, all nice ideas once you’ve explained them in lengthy paragraphs, but if Chris Rennard had said “freedom, fairness and the future”, you might have rightly pointed out that every party could claim that (with their own different explanations for what they mean by each of those).”

Right, well we’d better explore the relationship between a one-line slogan and a fully-fledged USP, hadn’t we? Now, ML King had a great one-liner, with “I have a dream”. But had he stopped it there, we’d all have just told him he needed to take a cold shower!

So yes, “Freedom, fairness and the future” needs more explanation. So does Chris Rennard’s one-liner, so does James Graham’s.

The test is, can you provide the story that goes with the headline, and thereby create a USP? It has to appeal to voters, it has to convince them that it’s deliverable, and it has to be unique to us – meaning that we are the guys who will deliver it.

Rennard’s “reducing stress” one-liner passes on the “appeal” criterion (because everyone likes freebies). But it fails on “convince” (because nobody trusts freebies). And it fails on “we are the guys” (because everybody, except Gordon that is, wants to do it too). The line isn’t useless, but it sure doesn’t sum up the quintessence of what we are about!

By contrast, James Graham’s “broken politics” and James Schneider’s “freedom” are, I think, much more useful and rather similar concepts. We have to get away from the tyranny of the two big vested interest parties and give back power to people. Now that line is convincing, it’s unique to us (at least if you ignore smaller parties!), and has voter appeal e.g. in respect of ID cards and civil liberties. It’s least strong on voter appeal.

That’s why I also add “fairness” (to pick up the bread-and-butter issues most people care about), and “future” (which will inspire the idealists who will come out and work for us). There are three reasons there. So it’s got to be right!

1. I’m critiquing somebody who represents us. I don’t see a problem in doing that for its own sake, regardless of whether I offer a better solution or not.
2. I sort of have outlined something. http://schneiderhome.blogspot.com/2008/08/usp-rennard-and-other-managerialist.html

It is incomplete, which I’m very open about. I’ve also argued what the party narrative should be elsewhere as well.

If I gave the impression that I was needlessly carping and offering nothing in return then I apologise, but I don’t think I did.
I may, occasionally, get a little heated discussing party direction, like you did over our Lisbon policy, because we, as the third party, can make far fewer mistakes than the other two.

I’d be interested to see what you think about my mini proposal and also how you’d go about phrasing the “broken politics” USP.

Cheers,

james

But if you want us to be free to be more frank and take more risks with the elecorate, the simple fact is the electoral system will always get in the way and force us to focus our efforts on producing lowest common denominator messages aimed at swing voters in marginal constituencies.

Frankly, to pretend otherwise is a bit naive.

THAT is the party’s unique selling point, boys and girls.

I’m glad. Bugger the curfew. What utter balls.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the Liberal Democrats opposed the change in the law that allows the US to have extradited from the UK anyone of its choosing without having to present a prima facie case? Our spokespeople might even have warned of the likely consequences.

Well, here is an actual consequence. A British citizen is about to be handed over to the US “Justice” Department, which will consign him to a hellhole prison for the remainder of his life where, before and after a semi-secret show-trial, he will be physically and sexually abused on a routine basis. The prosecutors have said they intend he will “fry”.

Any comment, Mr Clegg?

PS: The Lib Dems have just come third in a town council byelection in Camborne. Pandering to youth-hating sentiment didn’t do the trick.

“Automatic System/Reflective System

Two systems used for thinking. The automatic involves gut reactions, or learnt behaviour; the reflective involves reasoning. We all use both, in different situations. (Thaler and Sunstein says voting normally involves the automatic system, which is bad news of politicians who try to win using complex arguments.)”

The above should be required reading for anyone in Cowley Street. We are all collectively too bound up in trying to win votes by policy-making.

No-one is listening …

- taxing wealth and waste, not work.

If only.

and hope nobody remembers Citizen Smith.

Yes, a suitably prissy Andrew Lansley stood in front of the cameras and commanded the British public to lose weight. Rather in the manner of a primary school headmistress.

We underlings have all been terribly naughty by eating too much and jolly well deserve our bottoms smacked (Nicholas Soames included, I guess).

Now comes the really scary bit. None of us is capable of exercising any kind of free choice in the matter. We are COMPELLED to be fat by that ghastly pseudo-sociological buzz term, “peer group pressure”.

And this from a party with an appalling record of supporting the tobacco industry, and a leader who smokes.

Oh, and before I forget it, two Tory PMs since the war, Winston Churchill and Ted Heath, have been, er, fat.

Why didn’t Nick Clegg knock this one for six?

Both (not so) “New” Labour and Cameron/Gove are busily dreaming up ever more outrageous ways of micro-managing our lives. The Liberal Democrats, by contrast, want to give power and chocies back to people.

How about that for a sloagan?

Yes, all nice ideas once you’ve explained them in lengthly paragraphs but if Chris Rennard had said “freedom, fairness and the future”, you might have rightly pointed out that every party could claim that (with their own different explanations for what they mean by each of those).

Freedom, fairness and the future.

Freedom – The issue that best defines our USP. Lab and Con are in the pockets of powerful vested interests and millionaires. Lib Dems treasure their independence and support ordinary people. So we’re totally different. We’ll get big bossy government off people’s backs. We’ll stop supermarkets dictating food policy, oil companies dictating energy policy, etc. Nobody else will.

Fairness – our opponents are two right-wing parties who have both increased social inequality. We will reverse that. (Pity we declared a 50% top tax rate and then scrapped it again, that wasn’t clever, but we do all agree on a more redistributive tax policy.) It’s also unfair of ConLab to play tough on crime just to win votes, while lumbering the poorest with bad policies that fail to cut crime. It’s unfair of ConLab to pretend to be tough on immigration, while quietly accepting high immigration and then failing to make the social provisions needed to adapt to it.

The future – NeoConLab haven’t learnt anything from Iraq and will make the same mistakes again, trying to impose colonial gunboat diplomacy on the non-western world. It’s immoral and it won’t work. ConLab have also ducked the challenge of global warming and are hiding behind a barrage of words. We will make massive changes in transport and energy etc painless, by taxing pollution and giving the money back to people. If you want your grandchildren to have a future, vote Lib Dem!