First Edinburgh Festival thoughts and BAC One on One festival

The Fringe programme launch is one of my most eagerly anticipated days of the year - although I'll be no clearer to actually knowing what to go and see.So far I've only had a chance to have a quick spin through the programmes of two of the main venues: Assembly, which is still close to my heart, and the Traverse.

Assembly present the usual safe mixture of mainstream dance/light entertainment fusion blockbusters, Guy Masterson productions and easy been-around-for-years-thus-bums-on-seats comics (Jason Byrne). It's a disappointingly familiar programme. Camille O'Sullivan, "downgraded" to the Assembly Rooms proper after a couple of years on the Mound, will be a highlight (I'm now a full-fat fan). Other big guns wheeled out by Assembly include the Soweto Gospel Choir - nearly as inevitable as William Burdett-Coutts using the press launch to call on the Fringe and International Festival to merge. Taking up residence on the Mound are the brilliant Pajama Men with their unique show, one of the funniest things I've seen in years. Other shows I'll be keeping my eye on include No Child, Tripod Versus The Dragon and Jack the Knife.

Assembly are going to have some sort of tent in Princes Street Gardens which, if WBC has chosen well, could be the highlight of the festival. A quick look at the programme, however, and I'm not so sure: the insistence on programming granny-friendly "fusion" acts such as the Bala Brothers (described as "the latest singing sensations from South Africa...soaring harmonies...infuse opera sounds with popular African music." In other words, business as usual for Assembly. A daytime Best of the Fest is a great idea, and The Crack is likely to create the most word of mouth. Meanwhile something called Guilty Pleasures is already showing up as sold out on the Assembly website for the first few days, which I find hard to believe. Burlesque singer Meow Meow, who I very nearly booked tickets for at the Soho Theatre a few weeks ago, is another one to watch. Will it be the new Spiegeltent? Who knows, but fair play to assembly for taking on the mantle as it was an obvious hole that needed plugging, and putting it in Princes Street is a novel idea, despite being slightly less part of "Festivalville" than George Square.

I can't think about Assembly comedy without remembering Daniel Kitson at Best of the Fest in about 2003, when his voice when he teased Adam Hills about playing is safe at the Assembly Rooms was laden with deep scorn. The intimation was clear: Assembly is a venue deeply committed to playing things safe. Yet they inevitably end up with an unexpected gem or two - I'm sure the same will happen this year.

The Traverse programme is more heavyweight than ever: productions from the likes of the Royal Court, citizens and Birmingham Rep. Like Assembly, the Traverse have their favourites - Daniel Kitson returns with It's Always Right Now, Until Later, Druid put on another Enda Walsh play (Penelope) while Ontroerend Goed will be a short price to take awards for Teenage Riot which will presumably be some sort of natural sequel to the brilliant One and for all... One of the most promising shows is a dance production, Ballet Work No 1020 by Martin Creed - it sounds like a minimalist ballet production. Ever dependable Grid Iron showcase their Fringe First winning Decky Does A Bronco. To be honest, I would see any show blind at the Traverse, but others which look especially promising to me are En Route, The Girl in the Yellow Dress and Apple.

The main problem with the Traverse is the cost of the shows. Weekend performances are now £19 - I'd like to see virtually everything that's being put on, but can't afford to spend hundreds on a few plays. For a Londoner like me, the temptation is to wait until they come down to London; many Traverse hits will filter through at some point in the year following the Festival, to off-West End venues like the Tricycle, BAC, or Lyric...where the tickets will be barely half the price. Holding out is a risky strategy, as theere's no guarantee that any of the shows will make its way down - but historically, many of them do and I may take my chances on seeing most of them in London, if only for financial reasons. While I don't have a problem with the Traverse charging relatively high prices, it's a shame that there's no discount for multiple purchases. There will be many people who would be prepared to book tickets for several shows at once and some sort of "loyalty card" scheme would be a nice touch.

I'll only be in Edinburgh for the last week of the Fringe - note to self: stay on top of the reviews, the blogs, the rumours, the gossip, and get those tickets booked early for the must-see shows. Otherwise you'll just spend the time getting pissed in the Princes Street tent or sitting in the Traverse cafe.

Rather more pressing is the need to get tickets for the One On One festival at the Battersea Arts Centre which brings a whole host of shows exploring intimate theatre and the on-on-one performer-audience experience. Ontroerend Goed are the standout highlight - their The smile off your face is extraordinary and I still haven't seen Internal which is supposed to be similarly mindblowing. The ticketing concept is intriguing - a ticket buys you admission to three shows (out of over twenty) but due to scheduling requirements you don't have much choice in what you see other than one show of your choice. I hadn't heard of many of the companies and artists but pretty much everything looks right up my street and well worth a look. For me, this is what real modern theatre is about and I'll be like a kid in a sweet shop. Have a look at the programme here. My problem is that I have no idea how to go about choosing...I want to see them all...

***Update*** Review here.

Film roundup

I'm not going to bother with lengthy film reviews on this blog (if you want great film reviews let me plug my mate Ben's blog which is excellent). However, as much for my own records as much as anything, I'll throw a list of micro-reviews on from time to time. Here are a few films I've watched recently:

Four Lions (Chris Morris, 2010) *****
Believe it or not, this film isn't particularly dark, or even particularly satirical. But it's definitely a Chris Morris film.  It's basically a farce - the humour is borderline slapstick at times - but with some daft ideas and trippy moments. And it's about terrorists. Killer lines include "The Jews invented spark plugs so they could control global traffic, blud.". Don't worry about it being offensive; it's not. It's just funny.

Spartan (David Mamet, 2004) ****
I'm a huge David Mamet fan. From Oleanna (one of my all time favourite plays - even thinking about it gets me enraged, such is the power of the script) to Glengarry Glen Ross, virtually everything written by Mamet is tighter than a gnat's arse. The dialogue, or course, is charged with testosterone in typical Mamet style and with few wasted lines, although, unusually, one or two Hollywood teethgrinders slip through the net. However, lines like"Honey, you got all the slack in the world until I leave this room. Then I'm gonna zero you out" make up for it. Val Kilmer is hard as nails, with a good supporting cast, although little is made of William H Macy's character, which is a minor disappointment. Overall, however, it's a tough thriller which is very well put together, despite its rather conventional storyline, and well worth a watch.

Slumdog Millionaire (Danny Boyle, 2008) ****
I had been expecting some weird "somehow-brilliant-schmaltz-fest". Far from it: think City of God rather than Dreamgirls. Danny Boyle strikes gold again as Slumdog shows up the best and the worst of both India and human nature. "Feelgood" yes, but mainly because you feel good that you haven't wasted your money on some overhyped film. Strong.

Vera Drake (Mike Leigh, 2005) *****
This was my third experience of a Mike Leigh film which I went into with some trepidation: whilst I enjoyed Secrets & Lies, Happy-go-lucky was one of the biggest cinematic turds I've ever sat through in my life. This was a "make-or-break" for me. As it happens, I needn't have worried - it's a superb film. Unusually for films which revolve around a Terrible Secret, where the tension is relieved once the Secret gets out, Vera Drake only really kicks into action once Vera's backstreet-abortionist sideline is revealed. Tensions between family and friends are unbearable at times thereafter thanks to brilliant directions and acting, and the transformation of Vera (Imelda Staunton) from local Pillar to pariah is extraordinary - the portrayal of a woman's demise is exceptional.

Millward Brown's Nigel Hollis - The Global Brand: a review

The majority of books I've ever read on branding are mostly vacuous bullshit. Top of the pile for guff to substance ratio is possibly Kevin Roberts' Lovemarks, crammed full of nebulous, sweeping soundbites, whereas the only meaningful point in the entire book was summed up beautifully in a single "love/respect axis" graph. Most other books on branding that I've come across are written in a similar vein.

It's refreshing, therefore, that The Global Brand, by research giant Nigel Hollis of Millward Brown, is completely different: a rigorous study of branding concepts, similarities and differences between consumer behaviours globally, and the business and marketing strategies required to take advantage of these, in order to expand brands internationally.

I should point out that I am definitely not the target audience of this book, not being in charge of global marketing strategy for a major international brand! The book provides a very specific "brand promise" of how to expand a successful brand into the global market, but in reality the book covers concepts that are pretty universal to branding and marketing, making it a cracking read for anyone interested in the way fluctuations in consumer behaviour affect the performance of a brand or product.

Hollis takes a methodical approach from first principles from the start: starting by making an empirical definition of a brand (concluding that a brand is a macroscopic collection of perceptions of a product). Key to his ideas are principles of neuroscience - the way that the brain stores information, breaking it down into knowledge, actions and feelings critical to the way marketers can set up their brands. Hollis shows that consumers' balanced understanding of a brand is crucial to its success: consumer reactions or heuristics to physical cues, functional benefits, an the emotions the brand invokes, are all important features, and a successful brand is likely to be positioned in such a way that all those features strike a bond with the consumer. It seems to me that this holistic approach fits in with the trend for "360" marketing. Hollis says that brands are "clusters of associations" - and a successful brand must work equally hard to enhance the perceptions of all the advantages that brand can derive.

Consumer/brand relationships are dealt with in depth - whether it's the split second heuristics which can sway a customer from purchasing one product over another, to more deeply rooted loyalty. The Millward Brown Brand Pyramid defines the relationship as a sort of journey consisting of heuristics from the superficial (is the product available? Can I afford it?) to the more profound (being unique, or safe, or "for people like me"). The strongest bonds are forged when the consumer feels that there are tangible advantages to choosing that brand which overcome any shortcomings or competitors. If the aspects of a brand which create the strongest bonds could be neatly scooped up and taken across international markets, then global domination would soon ensue. Alas, it's not quite so simple as that.

Hollis goes on to show that a brand's future performance can be predicted by using two measures - existing brand presence, and a Millward Brown metric called Voltage 2.0, calculated using quantitative research, which is basically an indication of how strong the brand's perceived advantages are (I imagine a brand with high Voltage 2.0 would be very similar to Kevin Roberts' definition of a Lovemark). Combined, the two figures give a reasonably good forecast of the brand's likely future prospects; good brand equity is a good sign, but startup brands find it tough going as you might expect.

So far so good, and I found these early chapters amongst the most interesting of all. But the objective of the book is to explore how brands across multiple countries, and here Hollis states his core point, which is repeated throughout like an idee fixe: that successful global brands achieve a fine balancing act between adapting products and marketing strategies specifically to local markets, vs global economies of scale arising from centralising resources. Those that get the balance right, will become the great global brands which "transcend cultural origins" to strike affinity with consumers across countries. But it's a tricky balance to achieve. In developing markets, a western brand may or may not have associations of quality, which consumers may or may not be willing (or able) to pay a premium for. Yet in general consumers will feel more attached to brands which are perceived as local, even if their origins are the other side of the world.

Hollis stresses to brand owners the importance of considering how their brand can create a feeling of authenticity, of resonating with local values, and of integrating with local culture. Much of this, he argues, stems from management technique: indeed management is a microcosm of the book's theories as a whole - as a global company tussles with the advantages of centralising resources, with the local knowledge and motivation that comes with localising functions (I must confess I ploughed through this section full of visions f American films with the FBI telling the local sheriff "We'll take it from here.")

Hollis cites the example of Efes lager, which has such a strong local identity in its homeland (Turkey) that no other brands can get a look in. This, in turn, is due to the company being involved in external projects, CSR if you like, to become a strong part of local culture. Then there is the example of American car manufacturer Buick, which despite being a rather tired brand in the States, was careful to adjust to local tastes when launching in the Chinese market - with highly successful results. These are but two of the case studies which bring the concepts to life bring the theories to life. I wasn't aware of Red Bull's origins as a Thai drink "discovered" and "reinvented" by an Austrian businessman - whose positioning of the brand has barely been changed since. The brand stuck to their principles, hardly amending their product or target market - and also marketing - even when they spread geographically.

My favourite chapter isn't actually penned by Hollis at all. How strong global brands create lasting value is contributed by Joanna Seddon of Millward Brown Optimor and is perhaps the densest chapter of all. The first diagram is pretty clear though: if the share prices of brands are normalised as of 1995 and then traced over time, dividing brands up as "strong" or "weak" according to global MB "BrandZ" data (another metric, this time based on surveys inviting respondents to directly evaluate brands). The strong brands outperform the weak ones by 20%, by virtue of a larger customer base, commanding price premiums and holding a stronger position in the business market; this, in itself, should give the willies to any board or directors who underestimate the importance of their brand strength. Seddon argues that a tangible value can be put on a consumer brand as opposed to its parent company, by a combination of splitting up the company's assets by brand, working out to what extent the brand's equity strength fuels the financial value of those assets (in other words, how important are those heuristics to the brand's value?) and applying a calculation to predict future performance (called, naturally enough, "brand momentum"). Everyone loves a "top 20" and indeed there it is (for the greedy, the appendix has the top 100) and all the usual suspects are there, but what is striking is that FMCGs are relatively low in number in the top echelons. This equating of an intangible asset like a brand, with some sort of strict financial value, is a bold one; the case is made compellingly.

Opponents of globalisation should stay right away from The Global Brand. It is unashamedly a manual for those wanting to sell western brands to consumers in developing countries. Although the importance of not riding slipshod over local cultures is touched upon, there is nothing at all on the ethics of globalisation itself - neither social nor environmental implications, which I thought was a shame, as it is otherwise a pretty comprehensive one-stop-shop for companies wanting to extend the distribution of their brand. Very occasionally Hollis comes across as slightly patronising, but in his defence, everything is steeped in facts gleaned from research, which may conform to stereotype in some cases. This also excuses the fact that the explanations of Millward Brown metrics can occasionally make it feel like a sales brochure - the fact that he uses his own examples for case studies and insight really manifests itself. It's real primary insight, and after all you might as well stick to what you know.

Hollis' clear enthusiasm for the subject matter, combined with his skills for bringing statistics to life, mean that this book, which is grounded in research-based insights, is a gripping read. The chapter on consumer behaviour in Africa, written by two local researchers, is not as eloquently written as Hollis' own work, but still conveys enthusiasm and includes some of the most interesting insights: from the concept of price - budgeting is something that is done day-to-day rather than month-to-month - to status of certain objects. I loved the anecdote of the Malawian who buys washing powder - which conveys greater social status - to place proudly on top of the washing machine; yet she also buys laundry bars, which she considers to work twice as well!

If I had any criticism it would be that the writing loses its sparkle when Hollis moves away from his core territory of insight and branding strategies and onto marketing tactics - it's clear that Hollis isn't a marketeer; the last few chapters of the book drag on a bit, and tend to repeat much of what was said earlier in the book. His principles are clear enough and enlivened by so many case studies that there's really no need to set out step by step instructions for what to do - Part Three is almost redundant.

Ultimately The Global Brand should have universal appeal - while it contains specific, practical instructions on how to evaluate the sustainability of a brand for global expansion, more generally it consists of convincing arguments for how to (and not to) extend the range of a campaign or business into new areas.

Take Back Parliament: why such a militant-sounding name?

First things first - I'm getting sick of writing about nothing but politics on here recently, but it is an exciting time at the moment so I make no apology for another post, although I will start writing about some other things very soon. Today I wandered down to a political demonstration for the first time since 2003 - when I sank a bottle of port with a mate at the huge anti-war march. Good times. Today's was on a much smaller scale, and the only political issue that really gets my goat these days - electoral reform. About 500 people pitched up to a "Fair Votes Now" protest outside Parliament. But in truth, I have to say I found it a little limp.

Rallies and demonstrations are like peas in a pod. The samba band - check; the interminable list of speakers, consisting of eager twenty-somethings, unseated ex-MPs, and reform lobbyists - check; people trying to flog copies of Socialist Worker - check; rude anti-Tory placards - check; shrill whistles, exuberent teenage girls, bemused tourists and growling anti-politics passers-by - check, check and checkmate. The chants of "What do we want? When do we want it?" are ubiquitous to the point of being meaningless now. It doesn't matter what these rallies are about - they all tend to have a pretty vague message of "let's take over the world, starting here" and have a militant, anti-society, rebellious feel to them. Today was no exception, although the issue at hand was rather geekier than normal.

The core message was pretty clear - we need to keep pushing for a real proportional system although a Yes vote in any AV referendum is also desirable. The placards seemed to be pushing a different agenda - mostly complaining about the coalition. I was tempted to bring along one saying "STV is not an STD" but decided against it. Evan Harris, Ken Ritchie and the ubiquitous George Monbiot (does he do anything apart from the  rally circuit these days?) were among the speakers, with a young compere who whipped the crowd up nicely. at one point he managed to get a genuinely hilarious call-and-response of

"What do we want?"
"Electoral reform!"
"When do we want it?"
"Subject to a referendum!"

which sounded very slick indeed. Kudos. The afternoon concluded with a trip to Downing Street to drop off a petition.

Just a final word on nomenclature. I seem to be getting roped into more and more mailing lists besides my membership of the Electoral Reform Society: as well as the ERS, this event was run by, among others, Power2010, Take Back Parliament and Vote for a Change. All four groups seem to be campaigning for exactly the same things. Why the need to fragment things all over the place? Vote for a Change was a disastrous name to begin with, sounding identical to the Conservative election slogan, while Take Back Parliament sounds like a militant anarchist group. Someone banged on about putting purple ribbons on every street in the land. People need to get a grip; electoral reform isn't something you're going to get millions of people campaigning for - it's an issue that needs to be dealt with slowly and steadily. You can't explain the need for PR with a "Fair Votes Now" chant or bits of ribbon. Most people are interested in the best way to improve their health and education facilities. They need to be educated in the reasons why their vote is not currently going as far as it should, why a proportional system would ensure that they have their say in a meaningful way, and how that could affect those front-line services. None of the speakers dwelt on the reasons why or how electoral reform could affect voters, and why it is a Good Thing. The stomping of feet and chanting of slogans will be forgotten tomorrow. Will the 500 people who turned up all try to educate and convince a dozen people about the need for real reform tomorrow? Because if they do, it'll be much more valuable than the feeling of today's rally being another pea in another pod.

Living in a marginal (4) - my final take on Hampstead & Kilburn

What a weird and wonderful week this has been. I still don't know what to make of the election results and nor, I think, do many far more seasoned experts. I sat up through Thursday night transfixed by what was going on but unable to make head nor tail of why the electorate had behaved the way they did.

The simplest thing to say is that it was a catastrophic night for the Liberal Democrats. The polling companies, who have supposedly perfected their "shy Tories" phenomena and other minutiae of their methodologies, got this one spectacularly wrong. Commentators who said that Twitter and the TV debates were having a massive effect on the voting may or may not have got things wrong. I think it'll take some pretty hefty studies to analyse exactly what the effects were. But ultimately, a lot of people claimed that they'd be voting Lib Dem on Thursday, and didn't. Maybe they thought they would at the time. Maybe they intended to and didn't bother. Maybe they just lied. Who knows. As for the Conservatives, the result is pretty much what they'd been heading for for weeks according to the polls, so they can hardly be too disappointed; that said, their biggest upset will come from not taking nearly as many seats from Labour as they would have liked. For Labour, this election represents relief. Dozens of seats which might have fallen didn't; and they managed to poach one or two back from the Liberals. We saw huge majorities for Lembit Opik and Peter Robinson - who both strike me as very decent people - toppled, while Julia Goldsworth lost her seat. At least Jacqui Smith is also gone, although it would have been nice to see the end of Ed Balls.

Hampstead and Kilburn was like a microcosm of the whole country. Labour hanging on grimly with Lib Dems and Tories breathing down their necks. The live twitter commentary from @whampstead was a joy, although by the time the result was announced I was on the tube in to work the next day. I've absolutely no idea what happened, so in a nutshell, a few brief points:

• On a swing predicted by national opinion polls, Ed Fordham would likely have won comfortably - close for second between Glenda Jackson and Chris Philp
• In terms of sheer volume of campaigning on the ground at local level, it would be neck and neck between Fordham and Philp, with Jackson miles behind
• Glenda Jackson hardly has a reputation as a strong local MP. She could havrdly be described as having waves of local popular support
• Putting those points together, a logical conclusion would be to assume that Fordham would take the constituency quite comfortably, with Philp in second and Jackson third
• The bookies confirmed this, with PaddyPower giving odds of 2/5 Fordham, 5/2 Philp, 7/2 Jackson on the day of the election

 Quite simply, when I heard that Glenda Jackson had held on, I was flabbergasted. Despite occasional comments to the contrary, both Philp and Fordham fought relatively clean campaigns (anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't been to many tight by-election fights). Labour simply didn't compete in the seat; I received one local communication from them in the entire campaign, there was an absence of social media activity, a dearth of advertising, and we got no "big guns" until the final week when we got Brown and Darling.

Yet somehow the Lib Dems failed to find the notional 474 votes to win that they required, and the Tories also failed to capitalise. What went wrong?

At a local level, I can only suggest that the "Lib Dems can't win here/Tories can't win here" material backfired spectacularly, and voters decided that voting Labour was the safest option. I suspect this, in particular, cost Philp, whose communications warning that it was "us or Labour" may have made voters think twice about voting Lib Dem in case the TORY got in. It's difficult to tell though.

Rather I reckon that H&K is simply an anomaly typical of what happened nationally on Thursday night: Labour managed to hold off some ferocious challenges and hang on to some seemingly impossible seats while haemorrhaging others. But I am very, very surprised that it happened here, given the effort put in by the other parties.

Good luck to both Ed and Chris in the future - both seem ambitious, personable chaps and are both young enough that they can do other things for another few years before trying again. And congratulations to Glenda who replaces Sarah Teather as my MP. I hope that the reputation which precedes her as lazy and uncaring of her constituency isn't the reality - my impressions of her at the hustings were very positive and if she can walk the wakl as well as she talks the talk, then she'll be terrific. I will make sure that I hold her to account - starting with her putting her money where her mouth is on full blown electoral reform before tackling her on localised issues.

Brown falls - who next?

What a few days these have been. This is high-drama politics at its finest (and I fully expect a stage/screen/TV version of what's happened in the last few days to emerge some time soon, as well as numerous books). The Conservatives have clearly given Nick Clegg and his advisory team of Alexander, Huhne and Stunnell some serious food for thought, but at the psychologically optimal moment, Gordon Brown has fallen on his sword.

This smacks of Mandelson, but it is the right thing to do. I personally like Gordon Brown, but as far as the press and most of the electorate are concerned, anything he touches turns to mud and he brings down the Labour party and anything that goes along with it (for example, a coalition with the Lib Dems). Word is that Clegg now wants to speak further with Labour. This isn't over yet.

So we prepare for a leadership election. Who would I like to see?

Ed Milliband ***** a serious intellect, a decent man, seems well liked within the party and not too divisive. I would have Milliband the Younger ahead of anyone else.

Alan Johnson **** I'm pretty indifferent to cockney cheeky chappy Johnson, but the one thing in his favour is his wholehearted support for full blooded electoral reform. I suspect many of the the Liberal Democrat hierarchy think likewise.

Alistair Darling *** I like Darling, but he's deeply unsexy as a politician and unlikely to win votes for them in this age of the TV debate (that said, you could say the same thing about Clegg). I'd be happy enough, but he's too close to Brown and it won't happen.

Peter Mandelson *** I wouldn't mind. He's the most brilliant political operator I've ever seen and who knows what would happen. I'm hypnotised by him already; could he hypnotise the entire country?

David Milliband ** the more I see of him, the less I like. Blair-Cameron-Clegg clone: slick suits and desperate to project being Earnest, Worthy and Humble.

Harriet Harman ** there's something about female Labour ministers that makes me want to squirm. Every single one of them has been a disaster. Jowell, Hewitt, Harman, Beckett, Smith, Blears, Kelly. All as awful as each other. I don't want to appear sexist, but come on - they have all been dreadful.

Ed Balls * vile, vile, vile creature. If this man comes anywhere near the premiership I will emigrate. Promise? Promise.

Living in a marginal (3): Hampstead & Kilburn - the final showdown

So, this is it. In 24 hours time, there will be little that any of the pretenders to the various thrones up for grabs across the country can do any more. Even now, much of the campaigning being done is too little, too late - there simply isn't enough time for any important messages to filter down to the mainstream electorate any more. Instead, the only effective tactics now must be micromanaged local efforts to get out the core vote, make last minute efforts to firm up any "soft" voters and perhaps tempt a few stray leaves in the wind to land on the right side. At this stage, that will depend almost entirely on having quality, comprehensive local canvass data and a well managed logistical plan for addresses to target, a plan for lifts to polling stations, and other things that may seem insignificant but could play a vital role in the overall election result.

Well, here in Hampstead and Kilburn, one of the tightest three-way marginals in the country and focus of not only a great deal of media attention but also visits from many political heavyweights, nobody will knock on my door to tempt me out to vote, because nobody has bothered to canvass my vote. Do I take it personally? Only a little, but it seems that I'm not the only person who hasn't had a knock. It strikes me that candidates' priorities have been slightly amiss in this constituency. I've had debates with people about these issues on other blogs, but I maintain that there has been an over-emphasis on social media with a limited audience (Youtube videos are all very well, but with only a few dozen views, are they worth it?), too much focus on West Hampstead, and a shortage of canvassing (admittedly, my only evidence for this is extremely limited and anecdotal!) Especially since the TV debates, there are suddenly hundreds, perhaps thousands, of potential voters sitting at home who would otherwise have abstained but are now prepared to vote, have maybe made up their mind, but are a very soft vote indeed. My feeling is that the candidates should have redoubled their efforts on actually speaking to these people face-to-face, and perhaps enticing people who otherwise wouldn't have voted - or registered - to do so, and to do it in that candidate's favour.

A quick further word on the social media aspect of things. As Paul Waugh of the Evening Standard correctly predicted at the Lewis PR Social Media Summit (where I came closest to meeting any of the candidates as I chatted to one of Tamsin Omond's team), this hasn't turned out to be the election where it was social media wot won it as I wondered in January, but locally I've really enjoyed keeping up with things via the active blogs and Twitter people locally. Special mention in particular to  Jonathan's West Hampstead Life blog or Dan's Kilburn-based NW6 blog, by the way, both of which are excellent and have provided me with much of my keeping up to date from an "outsider's" point of view (ie independent of any party). Both of those pulled off nice coups with interviews with the main characters, and provided a lot more since. In addition, there has been full-blooded banter on Twitter, some fairly robust debate on Jewish issues on the OyVaGoy blog, live Twitter commentary on hustings from the Ham & High, and some cracking Youtube work from Nathan Williams debunking the myths from ALL the parties about who can and can't win the seat (something that has enraged quite a few people, not least me). All put together, it's enriched the whole experience and so thanks to everyone who's argued and worried over the local issues, whatever side of the lines you fall on. And while  do feel that the candidates themselves might have spent their time more productively, I've certainly enjoyed having little Twitter tussles now and again with Ed Fordham, Tamsin Omond and Chris Philp.

What of the candidates themselves? I've been saying since the beginning that we're fortunate enough to have three individual candidates who are very strong in their own way and on a local level, I won't be unhappy to see any of them as my MP.

Chris Philp has run a straightforward campaign. It seems that with Chris, what you see is what you get - he has his core message and sticks to it. He comes across as strong, personable and dedicated. He also seems very committed to the Tory message; I have a strong hunch that he'll go far in the party - whether as MP for Hampstead & Kilburn from 2010, or somewhere else somewhere in the future, but my feeling is that he can really go places. It's been a campaign built on local issues, and his straight-talking approach will, I think, have impressed people on the doorsteps, especially the floating voters.

Ed Fordham's campaign has been more touchy-feely. He comes across as a sensitive individual, not afraid to explore a question when he's asked it and doesn't know the answer at first! He comes across as adaptable and flexible, and perhaps most importantly, the most natural and human of the three main candidates. His campaign has gathered momentum as time has gone on, gaining flattering reactions from both local media and, by the sounds of it, local voters. Chris Philp apparently thinks that local Lib Dems have rigged the bookies' odds by placing massive bets on their man in order to shorten his odds; I wouldn't go as far as that, although I would say that 2/5 is far too short a price and if you're into betting, there's better value to be had putting money on Philp, although I still expect Fordham to squeak home.

Glenda Jackson is an enigma. Derided as "London's laziest MP" and with no campaigning whatsoever, I knew nothing about her until my first hustings, where she came across as by far the most profound and thoughtful of the camdidates. I was really impressed. Her voting record (or lack thereof) and absence of local presence count against her, which is a shame, as her values seem spot on to me. I have no idea what the local party have been playing at; three days before the election itself I received my very first hand delivered Labout leaflet, which sems too little too late, as do the last-gasp visits from Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown to the constituency (joining the illustrious ranks of heavyweights to visit the area: Osborne, Johnson, Clegg, Cable). Labour's resources have, understandably, been stretched with so many seats to contend, but these visits seem an afterthought and I'd be very surprised if Labour didn't finish in third in H&K, which would be a shame for Jackson, whose values and dedication to democracy impressed me greatly at the hustings and since.

Last word must be dedicated to the unexpected star of this area - Tamsin Omond. I must admit, when I first heard that she was standing, I agreed with an article describing it as "an act of epic narcissism" but have been proved wrong many times over. Reading her Twitter feed and occasional blog posts, you get a real sense of her joys and pains, the rush of jousting with opponents mixed with the depression faced after having a string of doors slammed in her face, exhaustion mingling with adrenaline. Her campaign has been unerringly positive, and, refreshingly, she holds no beef with any of her opponents. I hope that, after a break, she'll decide it's been worth the effort. I also hope that she'll carry on with politics in the future, but would urge her that while someone of her talents can clearly make big waves, she won't do it all on her own and while starting a new political party may have seemed like a fun idea at the time, she may be better, as she gets older, deciding to make compromises on her beliefs and join a larger, more mainstream group in order to try and change things "from within". Sharing her journey, albeit online, has been a pleasure though, bringing laughs aplenty and close to tears on other occasions. Good luck to her for the future.

As for my own vote. Well, I've tried, as much as possible, to give objective thoughts throughout, although I've known all along who will get my vote and it won't be hard to read between the lines to work out which box my cross will appear in. This election is the most exciting in my lifetime and it's going to be on issues different to the last elections. 2001 and 2005 were public services with a little bit of Iraq thrown in. In 2010, suddenly the goalposts have shifted. We have a clued up electorate who actually have opinions on taxation and public service cuts, in this era of financial uncertainty. This election won't just be about the economy though - since the TV debates, the polls at one point indicated that we could end up in the bizarre situation of the Liberal Democrats winning the popular vote, with Labour in third...yet translated into seats Labour would win the largest share with the Liberals miles behind in third.

Suddenly, decades overdue, the electoral reform bandwagon began to roll. Along with climate change, electoral reform is one of the few issues that won't just affect us, but will have a lasting impact in fifty years time. A fair voting system is something I've believed in since I was a kid, although I only became fully clued up since I became a paid-up member of the Electoral Reform Society at the start of the year. The ERS have been at the forefront of the calls for change and I applaud the work they've done, although "helpfully" pointing people to vote for a hung parliament at the expense of considering other local factors was a mistake. Even so, when we live in a country which is so hypocritical to invade Iraq in the name of promoting democracy while having an electoral system that is so blatantly and cripplingly unfair, then it's time to take a bold stand against the archaic system and move onto something fairer and more positive. For me, this is an absolute dealbreaker.  I can't think of any other issues that is so important to our country at this time. We'll ride out the economic storm - this may be our only chance to save the voting system. That is why, for me, only a party that can deliver electoral reform will get my vote.

The Labour Party is a funny old beast. It's by far the hardest to pin down. There are hoary old socialists, vile Blairites, some truly dire individual MPs and a core of fundamentally decent people who believe in the right thing for society. I believe that small group includes Gordon Brown. He's had a rough time since he came to office, has made some appalling decisions, and has terrible mannerisms which make him unsuited to this new era of TV soundbite politics. But of all the party leaders, he comes across as the most heavyweight. His economic pedigree, while not untarnished, is still strong and along with the brilliant Peter Mandelson (you can hate him, but anyone must respect that Mandelson the most glitteringly talented politician of our generation by miles) is one of Labour's best assets. He has the execrable Ed Balls, Harriet Harman and the not-much-better David Milliband around him, so his team stinks, but if Labour get a whipping, I hope Brown doesn't take all the blame (although he will).

The Conservatives are always a party who I think have some terrific local MPs, but the further up the party one goes the more rotten it becomes. The old schoolers - Ancram, Rifkind, Hague - are superb, and I am a fan of Michael Gove (although he has become unbearable recently; probably a consequence of shadowing Ed Balls). But for every Rifkind there is a Fox and for every Gove there is a Pickles. Their "Big Society" concept is admirable, even if it does feel like a panicking afterthought, and they have some nice touches on pensions and education. But their environmental record is woeful, their commitment to inheritance tax cuts for the wealthy are worrying and opposition to any sort of electoral reform most backward of all.

The Liberal Democrats are finally hitting the mainstream. Nick Clegg has ousted Vince Cable as the politician du jour and Ed Davey's star has risen significantly. Their economic policies are bold, they have consistently superior environmental policies and their pro-Europe stance appeals to me. Only blanket standing up for civil liberties, no matter what the cost, and the rather unworkable regional immigration scheme, seem suspect. Their lasting contribution to this election will surely be electoral reform and a fairer voting system, assuming the Tories fail to gain an overall majority. Once again Nathan Williams sums it up best, with this brilliant little video.

Can't wait for Thursday. I think I'll go for BBC TV coverage, with half an eye on a list of swing seats and another half eye on my favourite blogs (UK Polling Report, Iain Dale, Mark Reckons, Guido, and probably Left Foot Forward and Lib Dem Voice) and Twitter. And hope I don't fall asleep at the crucial 4am moment. I don't think I will.

old polling methodologies out of the window?

Just a brief post this time. Polling companies must be sweating - results are suddenly much more volatile and from chugging along nicely a week ago when all the pollsters had a hung parliament with the Tories 10-40 seats short, we're now all over the place with predictions.

I'd be interested to know which pollsters are asking respondents:

• if they watched last Thursday's debate
• if they are registered to vote (the last date to register has now passed)
• if undecided, a few more probing questions about style vs substance

Either way, the volatility means that there may only be some polling winners, with some big losers. Will we have a better idea of which companies are the most reliable until after the event?

ComRes poll will fundamentally change election tactics

A poll this morning from ComRes, just hours after the first leaders’ debate, has the following:

Con 36 (-3)

Lib Dem 35 (+14)

Lab 24 (-3)

Others 5 (-8)

This sounds absolutely sensational, no matter how you look at it, however there is one caveat. The sample was only viewers of the programme. So don’t get too excited about Cleggomania just yet. I hear cries of "meaningless", but I wouldn't go that far - the population in question was 10 million, of an electorate of less than 50 million, and it's fairly safe to assume that turnout will be higher in the portion of the electorate that watched the debate than of the portion that didn't.

 Either way, it’s pretty dramatic stuff. From this, it doesn’t take a genius to draw a few basic conclusions:

1. I’m not sure what questions the ComRes poll asked or their methodology, as their website is down, but assuming it’s a standard voting intention poll, then that’s categorical evidence that the debates will affect the election result. As such, they now take on a doubly important role. What’s more, it’s pretty much guaranteed that they’re here to stay.
2. All party leaders need to make the remaining debates their absolute priorities. If viewing figures go up, and you’d expect the BBC figures to be significantly higher and Sky, I would say, to be about the same as ITV, then you’re looking at potentially millions of people voting. Brown, Cameron and Clegg alike, all need to rethink what they spend their time doing. Visits to marginal seats can be held off in favour of gemming up knowledge, studying last night’s debate, looking for potential holes to attack, presentation skills, and so on. This goes equally for all three candidates.
3. The Lib Dems, quite simply, need a quick strategy to maximise viewing figures for the remaining debates. They also urgently need to maximise viral viewing of highlights of last night on YouTube. All parties will want to viralise the best bits but the Lib Dems have most to gain; casual interest will mostly make its way to the Lib dems from people who didn’t watch the debate – they’ll be asking “what did this Clegg guy say that was so great?”
4. Both Labour and the Tories need to downplay last night’s results, downplay the upcoming debates, and rethink being so friendly to Clegg. Marginal seats are at stake here.

It’s yet more great news for Clegg and co, though, and virtually guarantees favourable headline billing, once again, on tonight’s news programmes. The bandwagon is well oiled at the moment.

***Update*** Just to confirm, the raw figures above are being widely quoted as national figures. The weighted results, (ie for the whole electorate) are:

Con 35 (nc)
Lab 28 (-1)
Lib Dem 24 (+3)

This merely backs up my arguements above, especially the one that it's imperative for the Liberals to somehow maximise viewing figures.The debates do clearly affect anyone who watches them (comparing the unweighted data to the weighted data is insightful). All my points above are doubly valid.

Living in a marginal (2): Kilburn hustings the aperitif for leaders' debate

The thing that struck me most about tonight's Hampstead & Kilburn hustings in St Mary's church, Abbey Road was how pointless the whole exercise was. It was woefully publicised, for a start; I consider myself fairly clued up, and I was asking around on Twitter only this afternoon to find out if it was on in the first place. For anyone not following the H&K battle moderately obsessively, or who happened to walk or drive past the large banner on the church, then they wouldn't have heard about it. As a result, there were maybe seventy people in the audience - the vast majority being party activists and stooges. Were there any floating voters at all? It seemed to me that the candidates would have had a much more productive hour knocking on fifty doors apiece.

Still, it was my first encounter with any of the candidates in the flesh - and my first ever hustings - so I was glad of the opportunity. A drink on arrival was a lovely touch, and a chilly St Mary's a great venue for the action. We were treated to Ed Fordham, Chris Philp, Glenda Jackson and Beatrix Campbell; I was rather disappointed that Magnus Nielsen wasn't on the panel, as by all accounts his shouty exploits livened up the previous hustings a fortnight ago. Luckily, he was in the audience, and asked a sonerous and predictable question about Europe late on.

Early questions focussed on the larger picture: what the individual candidates would bring to the table, how politicians could reengage with voters and dispel their disillusionment, and their views on the economy.

Of the performances, I was actually most impressed with Glenda Jackson in the early stages. There was, appropriately, an air of Lady Macbeth about her, but her pride in representing her constituents and belief in a strong, fair parliamentary system were both evident. I must confess she made a compelling impression on me in the early stages. She underwent an astonishing transformation halfway through as she suddenly seemed to lose interest - fidgeting, leaning back in her chair and making increasingly frantic hand gestures alongside disconnected answers. I don't know what got into her.

We touched on everything from "simple" issues like Europe, hunting and "Graylingate", most of which allowed the candidates to give swift answers. Chris Philp tied himself in knots over hunting, but it's a tricky one to defend when (1) you're in an urban constituency and (2) all the other panel members had given decisive responses against hunting in advance of him.

I had expected Philp to be a strong performer and I was slightly disappointed with his delivery. He is a strong, confident speaker, giving taut responses, but as my girlfriend whispered "he comes across as an arrogant City wideboy". Indeed there was something slightly cocky about him - perhaps it was a slight lack of contemplation before giving his answers. As for his content, of all the candidates he was keenest to push his party's manifesto and apply it to local circumstances. As a result he came across well, but the lines came out rather glibly, and there was the feeling that he was trotting out lines he had used many times before on doorsteps. In his defence, when he was heckled (as he was - frequently), he dealt with things very well.

I mention local circumstances. Philp and Fordham were especially keen to talk about Kilburn; clearly this had been billed as the "Kilburn hustings". I bet there wasn't anyone in the room from Kilburn - it had a decidedly West Hampstead feel to it. The less said about Ed Fordham's Kilburn jokes the better. Relevance in general was a bit of an issue; at the start Philp launched straight into his party's plans for apprenticeships for 16-24 year olds. There wasn't a single person in the room falling within that bracket.

Things hotted up when we hit the economy, with Philp branding taxation of the rich "an easy shot" - before using the equally easy line that the wealthy would all move abroad. Electoral reform was spoken of - with Fordham making succinct points and Jackson, once again, eloquently putting the case.

Succinct would be the word I would use to describe Ed Fordham more generally. He quietly made the point that two things spoken of by Jackson and Philp (electoral reform from Jackson, memory escapes what the Philp point was) as good ideas were already in the Lib Dem manifesto. He came across as balanced and earnest. Perhaps a little too earnest; compared to Glenda and Chris, Ed is neither a natural orator or debater and while the quality of his answers was excellent and kept him going, a little more debating aggression probably wouldn't have gone amiss. And less bad jokes. Beatrix Campbell, also, came across as credible and mature.

The two things I would have asked about were both argued over. The first was electoral reform, over which the candidates gave very satisfactory answers; the second was when Glenda Jackson said "this seat is between Labour and the Conservatives." This provoked an uproar among the many Lib Dems in the room. As I wasn't able to make the appeal in the room, I will make it here.

In this constituency we are (un)lucky enough that our votes actually count for something, so as a result we are thigh-deep in election literature. As a voter, I am slightly insulted and hugely irritated about both the Lib Dem and Tory literature claiming "Tories can't win here" and "Lib Dems can't win here" respectively. Why am I insulted and irritated? Because I am clued up enough to know what's actually going on here and know the state of play - while many people will be confused. It's a complex situation and easy to be confused. Both parties' literature not only takes advantage of voters' ignorance, but, worse, hopes that those voters will stay in the dark about the real situation.

Here us the reality. The Lib Dems claim that the Tories have no chance in this seat. Better tell that to the 35 Tory MPs (presumably all from safe seats; our crippled electoral system strikes again) who famously descended on Hampstead & Kilburn recently to do some campaigning. Here's why the Lib Dems are wrong.

1. The Conservatives would never have put the efforts they are putting in, if they had no chance of winning. Those mammoth efforts will inevitably lead them to a greater share of the vote
2. The Tories are nominally in second place in the "old" wards of the H&K (formerly Hampstead & Highgate) seat. They have a strong presence.
3. The more affluent wards may more naturally gravitate towards the Conservatives than the Liberals.
4. There is a strong national swing from Labour to the Tories, and the Conservatives will, rightly, feel that very few seats are "off limits" to them.
5. The Teather vote will not necessarily translate from Brent East to H&K (although the yellow boards in that area are pretty prominent already).

Meanwhile the Tories (with Glenda Jackson backing them up tonight) claim that the "474 votes to win" claim of the Lib Dems is a nonsense, and that the Lib Dems are nowhere. He also claims that the figures used by the Lib Dems are obsolete. This, too, is rubbish because:

1. Those results refer to real election data. These people actually did vote for those parties last time around. Therefore they are liable to again, potentially.
2. BBC, UK Polling Report (which tells me that even in the old seat, the Liberals were only just behind in third), and Sky News (which explicitly describe the Lib Dems as being in "a close second") all use the Thrasher & Rallings data. The Evening Standard had an article the other day which mentioned the Lib Dems as challenging hard in second.
3. As with the Tories, there has been a lot of hard on-the-ground campaigning by the Lib Dems. They're not stupid either...
4. Tonight's election debate. It's all too easy to think it's just the local candidates themselves and their local campaigning that will determine the results of this seat; on the contrary, there will be plenty of people who are swung mainly by the national issues. Many people barely register that there's an election on; I spoke to one tonight (she lives round the corner from St Mary's, and a Lib Dem campaigner on her way to the hustings had knocked on her door. My friend felt flattered that somebody had bothered to speak to her, and may actually vote for Fordham as a result). For many floating voters, especially towards the apathetic end of the scale (they all count!), these debates could be all they need to decide. Nick Clegg's staggeringly good impression with the public tonight, with 61% declaring him the winner in one poll, could be enough to tip the percentage in his favour in key swing seats like these. Perhaps it would be a better idea for Clegg to return for another visit to the constiuency now that people know who he is?!

Ultimately, the bookies have it spot on, I reckon: Ed Fordham is the odds-on favourite (10/11), with Chris Philp 2/1 and Glenda Jackson 3/1. In other words, unless both the news sites and the bookies are entirely stupid, then the politicians' campaigns are trying to take us all for fools.

What I had wanted to say to both men was this:

Both of you know that what your election material says is complete rubbish, and I know that you know this, because you are not complete muppets. You are both clearly intelligent men. You know the situation. I defy you to look me in the eye and tell me that you truly believe that the other party is not a threat in this election. I know that you cannot. I urge you both to ditch the cynical exploitation of confused voters, and concentrate on convincing us that you are the best candidate to be our local MP because of your personal qualities and beliefs, and that your party is the most fit to govern. You are as bad as each other on this.


I maintain that we have a set of three extremely strong main candidates, and backed up by the eloquence of Beatrix Campbell for the Greens, the shoutiness of Magnus Nielsen for UKIP, and the wonderfully naive enthusiasm of Tamsin Omond for The Commons, it remains a fabulous race. Game well and truly on.


Update: another write-up here. That reminds me, I forgot to write about Sir Peter Stothard, who was utterly hopeless as chair. No control, waffled, no sense of timing, put Chris Philp first three times in a row (Philp, quite rightly, sounded nettled at this). He was awful.

Flirting with quantum mechanics: why there's Uncertainty over hotties

I’m often asked to explain the principle of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and the associated paradox of Schrödinger’s Cat.  (this is a lie). Anyhow, a while back it came up in a pub conversation (don’t ask) and I was put on the spot. This, ladies and gents, is quantum mechanics in a nutshell – and the way I’ve interpreted it since I was at school:

Imagine you’re walking along the road and you spot a hottie walking towards you. You really hope she’s checking you out (replace “she” with “he” if you like). Here’s the paradox: if you look at her, she will definitely look away, and you won’t know if she’s checking you out or not. Therefore she will only check you out if you don’t know that she’s doing it. As soon as you make the measurement, she’ll be looking the other way. Although at least this will mean you can ogle to your heart’s content.

This is the observer principle, closely related to the Uncertainty Principle, a basic principle of quantum mechanics, – that every measurement you make affects the result of the quantity being measured. The measurement here is whether the fit bird is looking at you; you make the measurement by looking; as soon as you make that measurement, the value itself is affected. If you hadn’t looked, then she might have been eyeing you up, but if you look at her, she’ll look away.

This is similar to Schrödinger’s Cat – that is, she’s in a superpositional state of both checking you out AND not checking you out, as long as you don’t look at her, in the same way that the cat is both alive and dead until you open the box.

As for me – my hunch is that I don’t need quantum mechanics to tell me that hot girls don’t give me the time of day, so I give them a good ogle and move on, as they stare at their toes, consoling myself that according to the laws of physics, she wouldn’t be looking at me even if I was Jude Law.

Living in a marginal (1): under starter's orders in Hampstead & Kilburn

Just a brief one tonight. We're truly off this time, and it's official, not that much will change in Hampstead & Kilburn where the election race is nearer its conclusion than the start.

Yesterday Nick Clegg was in town. I switched on BBC News 24 and saw Ed Fordham nodding earnestly as Clegg answered various questions on...I wasn't listening, actually. The yellow battlebus was in the background. Pretty standard fare.

At least he was on the constituency. I caught a glimpse of Chris Philp on Newsnight this evening; he had clearly decided not to bother campaigning in H&K today, preferring instead to try and grab a posing opportunity with David Cameron somewhere on the South Bank. Is being on the ground that important? Not really, I must be honest, I was looking for a cheap dig.

The Liberals have definitely got the edge when it comes to leafleting though. It's close between them and the Tories, but I got a glossy this morning (the most positive Fordham communication in ages, rather than anti-Philp) as well as an envelope of Sarah Teather related gear (I find her pretty ghastly myself). Why the material banged on about Dawn Butler I don't know - surely that just muddies the waters further? I spotted a large yellow diamond board on Brondesbury Park (junction with Sidmouth Road), too. H&K was also mentioned in today's Standard as a Lib Dem target seat.

Hard to tell, then, how things are going here but it clearly remains a close fight with both Labour and Tories pouring resources in - clearly it's there for the taking. On a personal note, I see that the referendum on alternative vote won't be taking place but Labour have pledged to push on with it if they win the election. This is a desperate shame that it's fallen through but hardly surprising. It's prettymuch a deal-breaker for me - the most critical issue of all at the election - and I'll be interested to see what the individual candidates' views are on the issue at the next hustings. Hopefully none of them will feel too constrained by party policy.