As a Lib Dem working in online and multimedia communications, the concept of an ‘Internet election’ is something I have thought quite a lot about. In the build up to the election I expressed my concerns about the Lib Dems use of online tools on my own blog.
I am pleased to say that on a national level my fears were misplaced. Our online campaign was excellent, and by far the best of the three major parties. In particular the Labservative spoof campaign was innovative, eye catching, and added a new entry to the politco dictionary. It was exactly the way political parties should use the Internet.
In terms of social media, the now famous ‘We got Rage to #1…’ Facebook group certainly generated interest, and the #nickcleggsfault hash tag helped null a lot of online criticism. However, all the parties suffered from the classic Internet campaign problem of preaching to the converted too much.
At a local level only Lynne Featherstone MP seems to get it. Online doesn’t replace groundwork, it enhances it, and helps organise people. The London Mayoral, GLA, and local elections will provide an excellent opportunity for our party to use the Internet to engage people on a local level. It is also a great way to keep our distinct voice heard.
The same is true of the AV referendum. Setting out a strong online stall could make people realise what a change to a fairer voting system could mean for them. Democracy is all about engagement right?
As Mark Pack rightly points out, people have called elections from as far back as 1997 ‘the Internet election’, and it has never quite happened. There is a whole manner of possible reasons for this. Perhaps our politics simply doesn’t suit huge Internet campaigns. Perhaps the next generation of candidates, many of whom will be so called ‘Internet natives’, will be able to use these tools more naturally ,and therefore more effectively, than the current crop. Perhaps the TV debates are destined to overshadow any other aspect of a General Election campaign forever more.
The only thing we really know now is that while the Internet may have shaped the 2010 General Election, it certainly did not decide it.
Charlotte Henry is Vice Chair Communications, Liberal Youth
6 Comments
Hmmm
Lynne Featherstone as the ONLY…
My team were pleased with the viral success of this launched from one of our supportive residents
http://www.youtube.com/user/474towin#p/a/f/0/aaruPtx-eFM
ed f, really liked that. Simple and effective
Has anywhere had an internet election? For all Obama’s successful use of the internet, surely, the last presidential election was still mostly a TV election?
Yes George, thats partly my point. The Obama online campaign was fantastic, it fed in to what was happening on TV and on the ground. I think without it the result would have been different, but his debating skills and personal campaigning skills were as important.
Ed, I certainly wouldn’t want you to think I was disparaging any efforts. As someone that lives next to your constituency I was so disappointed you didn’t win. The efforts of your constituents are indeed excellent, but isn’t the problem that such things rely on the goodwill of people instead of being a co-ordinated, planned, campaigning strategy?
The Labservatives election broadcast on YouTube has 1,047 views, though, whereas Turn it Upside Down has 17,054, and believeinfairness (the one with the bird flying about) has 14,695. I don’t think you can beat goodwill.
I know there was a separate Labservative.com site, but YouTube is surely where most people see these?
Oh, but it was a genuine internet election, it just didn’t appear to be one to those who not to understand that the producer > consumer dynamic of the twentieth century no longer reigns king.
http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/uk-election-2010-wasnt-this-supposed-to-be-the-first-web-election/