Which party’s winning on the web?

PR Week has a piece comparing the online strategies of the UK’s three main political parties. With a nod or two towards Obama’s use of social media, the article presents a report card on each party, compiled by their panel of experts.

Each party is examined on its approach, key players, leader and the involvement of MPs and grassroots.

The Conservatives are found to have “attracted the most plaudits so far,” while Labour’s “command and control mentality” is said to be hampering their efforts.

The verdict on the Liberal Democrats is that our “overall understanding of social media is impressive” but that grassroots efforts could be strengthened by better design/integration and more effective public engagement. Special mentions are given to Steve Webb and Lynne Featherstone, while it’s thought that more can be made of Nick Clegg and Vince Cable.

Although funding remains a critical issue, [Mark] Pack must be replaced. The decision to split his job into three is structurally sound but may result in less intellectual vision.

The party also has to pay more attention to the basics of functionality and design, and it needs to integrate its tools better. Meanwhile, a focus on local activism should not obscure a continuing requirement to engage with the general public better.

Simply put, the Lib Dems need to be more tenacious and adventurous online.

Is this a fair picture? Are we outward-looking enough with our social media efforts? What should our vision for the future be?

You can read the full PR Week article here.

Read more by or more about , , , , , , or .
This entry was posted in Online politics.
Advert

3 Comments

  • Well given the judging panel included a Tory blogger, a Labour blogger, a Tory supporting PR director, a Labour supporting PR director…(you can see where this is going)

    …it’s hardly surprising they think the utterly excreable Nadine Dorries is somehow influential and that Derek Draper (equally excreable btw) soemhow reinvigorated Labour’s online prescence.

    The article was superficial, partial and lazy (like most things in PR week). I’d therefore take anything it says with a big pinch of salt.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • Martin
    " As auntie appears to annoy politicos every stripe they must be doing something right." This is a lazy and dangerous line of argument: it merely enco...
  • David Evans
    I was sad to say that while the Thornhill report was tough in its findings and its conclusions, in all honesty it wasn't anything like tough enough, and its rec...
  • James Baillie
    I'm currently disinclined to support the proposals. I'm concerned about whether the "scrutiny committee" will have a meaningful enough role: we've seen with the...
  • Matt McLaren
    Thanks Callum, I agree that the Federal Board needs to be slimmed down and that the specific proposals coming to Spring Conference do very much provide for a de...
  • Paul Barker
    For me the crucial factor here is Size : large bodies are useless at making decisions. Conference needs to Vote for smaller bodies if we are serious. Clear dec...