Later this month I’m off to New York as part of the Chinwag Digital Mission to the Web 2.0 Expo. I’ll be in New York from November 15–20 and will have time to meet up with folks while I’m there, so drop me a Twitter direct message (just at me if I don’t already follow you) or email. There’s more information about the Digital Mission on the Wolfstar blog.

I’ll try to do at least a couple of blog posts while I’m there and will also be Twittering. The Digital Mission also has a Twitter account, @DigitalMission and a hash tag,#DigitalMission.

The idea of open primaries is very seductive, emotionally I think they are brilliant. The open primaries between Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton, not only gripped the USA, but they gripped the rest of the world, even people who wouldn’t normally be interested in politics. But the UK, isn’t the USA and there are lots of reasons and barriers as to why open primaries won’t work in the UK. The campaign strikes me as very naive and I’d question how much experience the contributors have of real life grass roots politics in the UK. The problem is that well-meaning people read and listen to the political news of mainstream media and take it as the truth. In fact journalists very rarely have any real insight into how political party selection processes work. And when they do have ‘sources’ it is nearly always selection candidates who have an axe to grind.I’ve personal experience of Labour Party selection processes having seen and helped run them as party worker, participated as a candidate and helped friends through the process. I’ve also got direct knowledge of how Conservative Party selections work.

One of the clues is that even Open Up’s basic assumptions are wrong. It says “That’s why we want the people, not the politicians, to select who stands for election.” That’s kind of what happens now. In none of the three main parties do politicians select candidates.The media might like to portray constituency selections in both the Conservatives and Labour being manipulated and controlled by senior politicians, but in actual fact this rarely happens and even if they do try then it’s still local members who make the final decision.

Just some of the reasons why open primaries can’t work in the UK include:

Cost to the taxpayer

An open primary means every voter in a constituency has an opportunity to vote. That means putting in place quite a complex system of either postal votes, ballot stations or both. The cost per constituency would be approximately £40,000 or almost £25m for the whole country. That’s for one party to do it. Even if the political parties ran their primaries simultaneously the cost would be higher than the £40,000. One of the drawbacks of running them simultaneously is that it would be intensely confusing for voters and make it extremely difficult for candidates to achieve any sort of real recognition or engagement. If the three main parties ran them separately the cost would escalate to £75m and then we’ve got the additional cost of all the minor parties.

No political party could sustain this level of cost and there is already enough controversy about how parties fundraise without forcing them into trying to raise even more. The only alternative that I can see is state funding and I can’t envisage any public enthusiasm for that. Even if the public was willing to accept state funding of political parties I’m not sure that spending that sort of money on primaries would be the best way to use it.

Cost to the candidates

Anyone who has been through a selection process will be able to tell you how expensive it is personally, both in time and real money. And that’s only to campaign and influence a few hundred local party members. If you open it up to an entire constituency then the cost and effort becomes phenomenal. How do the well meaning souls at Open Up propose that this is paid for? The fact is that most of them have never done it. It would give a massively unfair advantage to candidates who are wealthy enough to fund it themselves, which is hardly good for opening up politics. Even more disturbingly it would give lobbyists, pressure groups, trade unions etc enormous scope for ‘packing’ the Commons with their placemen and women. Candidates could be bribed into supporting or attacking specific policies, giving the ordinary voter even less influence.We will end up with a House of Commons that is less representative of the country as a whole.

Less engagement in politics

All political parties are suffering from falling memberships (not just in the UK, but in many countries). One of the most important decisions that most grassroots members can make is to vote in selecting who their parliamentary candidate will be. It’s a rare and precious right and is one of the reasons why members are willing to tramp the streets in all weathers delivering leaflets and knocking on doors. What open primaries do is to effectively disenfranchise the very people who do the most to improve grassroots public engagement in politics. Open primaries won’t lead to more engagement and interest in politics, it will to less.

Fixes a problem that doesn’t exist

Open primaries are an American idea that were designed to solve specific issues with the political process in the USA. In the US they don’t have the same organised political structures that exist and campaign all year round. Instead they come together around elections and focus on candidates rather than parties. That’s partially because of the clear division in the US constitution between the executive, legislature and judiciary. In the UK we don’t have a written constitution that makes that split. We vote for the party that will from the government. Open primaries in the US were also partially a response to the graft and corruption associated with Tammany Hall politics.

We don’t have the same issues in the UK, so the open primaries solution won’t fix it. Politics in the UK does have issues and does need help and solutions to make it work better, but open primaries aren’t it. Open Up could have been a great campaign if they’d put the same energy and resources into campaigning for improvements to the British political process that would make a real difference, instead of just jumping on the latest fashionable political bandwagon.

• JonClements: @TDefren #socialmedia It should be a team effort. It’s the jostling for position that will sabotage SM. #socialmedia
• carlainsf: @ckieff Agree that many depts help in execution, but 1 dept needs to hold the keys, drive process w/execs/co, be accountable. #socialmedia
• vedo: Absolutely! RT @BlakeGroup: SM works well w/ team approach. PR, sales, cust service, mrktg, etc. Cross-silo. #socialmedia

Absolutely agree that it should be a team effort, but that still means someone has to lead the team. Public relations or corporate communications are perfectly positioned to do this. It’s a media neutral discipline which uses the channels that work best for reputation management. It’s a two way discipline as much about listening, understanding and responding as it is talking. Social media also needs to include marketing communications, customer service, sales, human resources and legal, as well as to a lesser extent others, but PR is well positioned to lead and co-ordinate.

• DoctorDigital: @wordymouth Possibly, integrated agencies are common. But think PR & Ad guys need to keep an eye on dedicated ‘digi agencies’. #socialmedia
• DoctorDigital Nobody owns SM. And that’s why agencies from different sectors are competing against each other #socialmedia

It is a real threat is that public relations consultancies might lose business to digital agencies. But in reality digital just isn’t geared up to do it, they might win the business because they can do a slick online presentation with lots of metrics and exciting, cool looking things, but they can’t necessarily deliver. They don’t understand corporate communications strategy, so if they are to compete long term they have to recruit PR people that do. Public relations should be looking to own the strategy, some of the tactical delivery can be farmed out to digital agencies who are great at building and measuring.The challenge for public relations is getting our voice heard as other disciplines frequently have much bigger budgets and can therefore do things like diverting a percentage of it to ‘experiment’ with social media. PR budgets are much smaller and therefore a greater percentage needs to be diverted.

• ckieff: @ShannonPalmer excellent point- and a challenge for marketing b/c they’re used to absolute control. #SOCIALMEDIA
• Sue_Anne: More than ever PR folks need to realize that they don’t have "control" over the message or the medium. #socialmedia

Control, that hoary old chestnut. That’s one of the main concerns of marketing people, that they won’t have control. And they are absolutely right to be concerned, because they won’t have control. They just have to change and learn to live with it. For public relations people it’s just not a concern. PR people who ever thought they had control are fools – they didn’t. And nothing has changed in the new world, you can still manage, influence, interact and persuade

• ScottDeYager: @Tdefren SM is the catalyst that is driving the merge of PR and marketing. Needs to happen. #socialmedia
• btrandolph: RT @ckieff: @TDefren I think the new PR skills will cause PR and Mktg to merge into a single "outreach" discipline. #SOCIALMEDIA
• TDefren: @ScottDeYager In many cos, PR was always part of the Marketing group.#socialmedia

No, no, no and no again. Public relations is NOT part of marketing and NEVER should be (YES I’m SHOUTING!) You can and should use lots of public relations tactics as part of a marketing communications campaign, but it’s an entirely separate discipline. We also look after CSR, investor relations, internal communications and public affairs. Marcoms is just one small part of what we do. And that’s perhaps what best illustrates why public relations should lead on co-ordinating social media and planning strategy.

• DoctorDigital: #socialmedia Who are we to decide who should own it? Isn’t that the client’s decision?

Disagree with this one as well. If you’re a consultant it is your job to provide strategic counsel to your clients. That’s what they pay decent fees for. They aren’t going to pay high hourly rates for tactical implementation of monitoring, blogger outreach, media relations etc. So yes the client decides, but with your help. It’s also your role to help your clients create a social media strategy internally and help them to get all the different departments and disciplines around the table.

Thanks to Todd Defren for sparking the #socialmedia debate.

I’m looking forward to catching up with old friends (sometimes conference is the only time you see people one year to the next!). I’m really disappointed to have missed Peter Mandelson’s speech yesterday, but am looking forward to Gordon’s speech this afternoon. My hope is that he will put some fire into the belly of activists and set out a clear vision for a fourth term. Labour members already know what Labour has achieved, they are more than capable of articulating this on the doorsteps. What they can’t do at the moment is set out a clear, compelling vision of what Labour will achieve in its fourth term. That’s what I’m hoping to hear from Gordon this afternoon.

I don’t think it’s just a publicity stunt for the BBC. It’s not a question of if it is a good move, it was the only move if the BBC is to maintain its impartiality.

I’m at odds with many colleagues in the Labour Party in that I do think we should share a platform with the BBC. We have to recognise that the BNP’s spin and half-truths are being listened to on the doorsteps – that’s why two BNP MEPs and dozens of councillors have been elected. The BNP is winning votes from disillusioned none voters and disaffected working class Labour and Tory voters. Their messages have resonance and the only way to defeat them is by exposing them. Attempting to censor them actually gives them more power on the doorsteps as they can say “this is the truth ‘they’ don’t want you to hear.” The three main parties defeat this by not being afraid to debate with the BNP and expose them for what they are.

If you needed anymore evidence that all the BNP needs is the ‘oxygen of publicity’ to choke itself then this video posted by David Brain should help to convince you:

The Cabinet Office has responded with a detailed rebuttal of all of the inaccuracies. It’s a great riposte, but the media won’t be interested as all they do is publish their own version of political spin that fits their agenda.

The Cabinet Office has marshalled some interesting facts and statistics as part of it’s explanation of how essential the post is, by demonstrating how the internet has revolutionised the way the world works and communicates:

“Last year YouTube received 11 million unique users from the UK and more than 35 million Britons visited a blog. People are using digital channels to talk to each other and to the Government.   The Downing Street Twitter account is followed by more than 1.2 million people, more than the official White House Twitter and considerably more than the daily circulation on most national newspapers. It is vital that the Government understands the medium and uses it properly. If people want to engage with us online, we should be capable of engaging with them online.”

It’s a slightly different format at this year’s conference with just four keynote speakers and a small number of master classes that delegates can choose from. The other three keynotes are:

Yasmin Diamond, Director of Communication, Home Office

Heather McGregor, Columnist, Weekend Financial Times

John Nielson, Director of Group Media Relations, BAE Systems

Three of the master classes are on different aspects of online public relations. I’m delivering one of them and am convinced it’s the hardest of the three – Twitter – so much to say, so little to say! The other two online PR master classes are social media (that’s Rob Brown who gets the easy gig) and online evaluation (with Robin Wilson, who I’m know will make a seemingly dry subject stand up). The other master classes are creativity, social marketing, relationship management, budget PR and finally PR survival in the credit crunch by Paul Willis, director of the Centre for Public Relations Studies, Leeds Business School.

For those of you who may not be able to attend but wish to follow delegates comments on Twitter, we’ll be using the hashtag #CIPRNC.