PES Manifesto

1. the internet is just a part by kim on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 14:39

I agree that socialist party's in Europe don't always used the internet in the right way.

We mush search for way the use te internet so that we reach every potentional voter. But the internet is just a part of the camapaign. I'm glad that party's in Europe don't only use the internet, but also use the more traditional campaign methodes. I like to campaign in the streets of my city. That way I have direct contact with the people, and the people get to know me in person.

So I think internet is importnat, but it must remain only a part of the campaign. I do agree that must learn to use it in the right way.  

 

2. On the one hand... by rikkeindenmark on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 10:57

I partly agree with you :-)

I share you opinion with regards to grassroot involvement. Succesfull online campaign are often grassroot initiatives - the popular YouTube video, the Facebook group with loads of supporters etc. It's very powerful to let the word spread to an online network of grassroots. And often these campaigns are more fun and creative than the less daring and - let's face it - more boring initiatives from established political parties.

However, I still think it's very, very important that political parties have professional web strategies; e.g. a visually appealing and user-friendly website, investment in online advertising, etc. This might not be a guarantee for winning the elections, but maybe more a precondition for being taken seriously as a political campaigner. Many people live their political lifes online, finding information about the elections and candidates via web sites.... so it's highly important to have a professional and appealing presence on the web.

3. I can only agree by kim on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 11:01

I completly agree. We need profesional webside strategies, for al the reason you said. It can only be a advantage, for the party, voters, memebers of the party, ...

A profesional web strategie give you a completly know way of reaching people.

4. Platforms for grassroot activities... by rikkeindenmark on Friday, August 29, 2008 at 00:51

Oh, and I forgot to add that political parties also need to provide online platforms for their grassroots to network and create campaigns. Just like the famous example of Barack Obama and his myBO!

5. Why do we "need" these sites...? by carl0s on Sunday, August 31, 2008 at 08:43

I'm not convinced that we need these professional sites in themselves. It would be easy to provide election materials from a basic site as a PDF download. My point is that there is no point in translating glossy leaflets onto the internet without keeping two results in mind - votes, and new members/activists. Other than this, what is achieved by an internet presence?

 

By the way, I exclude this site as it is more of a forum than anything else, and therefore serves an internal function. And internet advertising is another aspect - which deserves more attention later...

6. My thoughts... by rikkeindenmark on Sunday, August 31, 2008 at 10:08

Hi Carl0s, I think we definetely agree that (facilitating) grassroot activism online is a necessity in a (post-)modern campaign. But I still think there's a need for professional 'corporate sites' for the political parties. The homepages of political parties have many target groups: party members, potential voters, journalists, sponsors, prospective sponsors... I think it's essential that a political party has a professional and credible online presence where these stake-holders can find the information they need - also during campaigns.

If you look at Obama's campaign it also includes such a highly professional presence. It's not only grassroots 'doing their thing', but suppemented by professional, central web activities. The Obama website is a hub for grassroot activities, but also a 'corporate site' with information for the press, prospective voters, sponsors etc...

7. Ah, credibility... a difficult concept. by carl0s on Monday, September 1, 2008 at 21:47

Thanks for engaging with this issue with me - to some extent, I'm playing devil's advocate - I know that parties need websites.

My problem is that often these simply translate marketing/propaganda bumpf into an internet format without using the medium properly and without considering the actual aims. Everyone "has" to have a website. What's it for?

It's sad to say but I don't think prospective voters trawl party websites cherry-picking policies. That's why Obama's site is important - as it's all based around who he is and what  he represents. From a European political perspective this is hard to reproduce and I don't think we should even try.

Obama's a liberal. He doesn't believe in socially-provided healthcare. We aren't actually liberals, we're socialists (although we may be liberal socialists). The values we need to express need to be originally and clearly defined in a way that suits the medium we are using.

I think providing information for press and sponsors (who are they?) is fine. Very simple. In 2008, most socialist political parties have an internet presence which has attempted to move beyond this. But what have they moved towards? What's the point? I've tried to spell out what I think could be a route in a subsequent post.

On the issue of credibility - we can mean anything by this. In this context, does it mean favourable press coverage, a well-designed website or policies which subtly, cleverly and fundamentally contribute towards socialism? For an EU socialist party to have a viable future, we need bucketloads of all three.