07 May
2011

How we might better have framed ‘Yes to fairer votes’?

Let the post-mortems begin. Because we need to know how to do much better next time. The next referendum – on PR – may be as little as 5 years away… And we should be pressing immediately for PR for the upper house, which would be a historic accomplishment.

Let’s get some obvious and crucial points out of the way first:

  • Clegg was of course an albatross around the Yes side’s neck.
  • The right-wing-press decided that it wasn’t going to tolerate AV, and that made a huge impact.
  • The No side had more money (it hasn’t declared how much more – that’s exactly how we know that it had more, because otherwise it would certainly have declared otherwise), and money buys votes in a ‘democracy’.
  • The plain lies of the No campaign and of senior Tories, and the strategy of ‘Confuse the voters as much as possible’, seem to have paid off.
  • The official Electoral Commission document that everyone received didn’t help.

Read More

09 Jan
2011

On framing, re. the Giffords assassination attempt.

See my post on Palin’s responsibility here, over at Rupert’s Read: http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2011/01/palin-beyond-pale.html

Here is the shot Democratic Congresswoman last year noting that Palin pictured her in rifle crosshairs: http://tinyurl.com/34cstf4

And re. the Palin wink to those contemplating violence: Here is a real shocker: http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2011/1/8/13371/41091/21#c21

The real depth of this is in the frames that the Right, especially the Teabag scum, have been using around this issue. The frames that have ‘legitimised’ what happened here. See my @GreenRupertRead twitterfeed, and the excellent work of the Cognitive Policy institute, including the @CognitivePolicy twitterfeed.

 

07 Dec
2010

Reframing ‘protectionism’

It’s not about ‘free trade’ vs. ‘protectionism’:

The only question is, do you want to protect people, animals, jobs, workers’ rights, ecosystems, local and national independence, fairness OR do you want to protect the rights of multinational corporations, ‘the free market’, the profit motive…

Do you want to protect the local, globally: or do you want to protect the rich and powerful who hide behind the excuse of ‘free trade’?

01 Nov
2010

We need to reframe “goods”

The term ‘goods’ is a superb piece of framing. ‘Consumer goods’ – well, it is obvious that they are good (and by implication, that consumerism is too?) – the word ‘good’ tells us so!

But a lot of people nowadays, even so, are less convinced of this. Can more THINGS make us happy? And what about the damage being done to our planetary life-support system in the process?

Perhaps there is a way in which we can start to rethink ‘goods’ themselves that will put their obvious goodness into question.

Read More

02 Feb
2010

Reframing ‘immigration’

What if instead of thinking of immigration increases as a discrete nameable and soluble/containable problem, we thought of them as part of globalisation, as an inevitable and totally unsurprising consequence of virtually untrammelled economic globalisation?

What if we added that it is appalling that the WTO, big corporations and neo-liberal politicians do all they can to facilitate the free movement of goods, but are quite willing to clamp down viciously on the free movement of people? How dare our governments bar people a right that they insist on allowing to commodities?!

Read More

07 Oct
2009

What is ‘marketing’?

‘Marketing’ is one of the ubiquitous terms of our age. ‘The market’ is supposed to be our fundamental institution, the epoch-shaking events of the last 2 years not (supposedly) withstanding. ‘Marketing’ increasingly affects every aspect of our lives – a prime example being the comparatively recent phenomenon (it was entirely unknown before the Second World War, and the concept wasn’t invented until about the Sixties) of ‘political marketing’.

But what IS ‘marketing’?

Read More

11 Nov
2008

Save the Humans

The truth will not set you free.

The truth will not save the planet.

Far far more than truth is needed. Far far more than just the facts, ma’am. You need an effective way of communicating that truth, those facts. You need, that is to say, a way of moving people – you need to connect with what at the most fundamental level matters to them, their needs and values, and with what moves them – literally, with their emotions. If you connect with their feelings and emotions, and if you tap into their needs and values, then you stand a chance of being able to request an action of them (such as voting for you, or investing in a low energy light bulb, or even a solar hot water system, or even giving up flying, or sitting blockading a plane loaded with nuclear bombs) with success.

Read More