Style v Substance

There is little doubt, in this election, that celebrity is playing an important role. Until the first televised leaders debate, the Lib-Dems were very much the third party and no-one realistically expected a strong showing. But the debates have changed that. Here was a platform on which the Liberal Democrats were entirely equal to their opponents and here was a platform on which two young, charismatic men competed with an older, less attractive, and perhaps more typical, politician, for public affection. In a society that is increasingly driven by celebrity and media attention (Princess Diana, Jade Goody, Susan Boyle, Brangelina, Katie Price and Peter Andre, Heather Mills and Macca, etc, etc) Gordon Brown was perhaps always doomed to failure.

Of course, the outcome of the election hasn't yet been decided - we'll have to wait until Thursday for that - but this raises interesting questions about the influence of celebrity and media in modern politics. It is a concern for me that voters might be swayed either by the image a candidate projects in the media, the attention they get in the spotlight, or by the celebrities that support them, rather than by their policies. This set me thinking about another aspect of celebrity politics: Is it wrong for celebrities to endorse parties or candidates?

My head says, no (after all, celebrities are voters too and they have a right to support whomever they wish, just like the rest of us) but something in me finds this whole area of politics a little distasteful.

Early on in this election campaign Sir Michael Caine was seen doing the rounds with David Cameron
in support of Conservative proposals for a National Citizenship Service for 16 year olds. The Labour party have the support of comedian Eddie Izzard, who has been out on the campaign trail; and actor, David Tennant. Both have been seen in recent election broadcasts. The local Labour party has been at it too. They have the support of local artist and LS Lowry protege, Harold Riley, who, this year, signed the nomination papers for Hazel Blears. As for us, who have we managed to call out in support of the Lib Dems? We have presenter, Floella Benjamin; actor, Colin Firth; and Harry Potter (well, Daniel Radcliffe - sadly there will be no 'accio Lib-Dem Voters' for us). Even the BNP have tried to associate themselves with one of the most recognisable British Politicians ever, and wheeled out the corpse of Sir Winston Churchill for a controversial guest spot on the front of one of their leaflets. Bah!

Of course, as much as we'd like to think this is all part of some wider media furore surrounding this particular election, or perhaps a side effect of having live, televised leaders debates for the first time in UK history, having a celebrity or two stepping out in support of your politics is nothing new. There are few Scottish voters that will forget Sean Connery's stirring party political broadcasts in support of the SNP. And does anyone remember John Cleese's 1992 Lib-Dem broadcast? No, I thought not, but it did happen! This is nothing new. In fact, over the pond, the celebrity campaign has been used to great effect for quite some time. During Barack Obama's campaign, he had the support of high profile celebrities such as Madonna, Oprah Winfrey and Scarlett Johansson and USA Today traces celebrity endorsement as far back as...

"nearly a century ago. According to journalist Ronald Brownstein's account of the connection between Hollywood's glitter and Washington's power, the first formal endorsement of a presidential candidate by a major show-business figure came in 1920, when Al Jolson organized a group of Broadway celebrities on behalf of Republican Warren Harding's presidential campaign. Four years later, Jolson publicly backed Harding's successor, Calvin Coolidge. But it was not until the 1930s, when Franklin D. Roosevelt captured the loyalty of scores of actors and actresses — including a later president, Ronald Reagan — that endorsement of presidential candidates by performers became commonplace."

Mind you, in the same article USA Today also discusses how celebrity endorsements can sometimes backfire, as happened in the 2004 John Kerry campaign when Whoopi Goldberg made an inappropriate joke at George W Bush's expense.

"Candidates have often found out the hard way that stars are a bit like uranium: precious, but radioactive."

But I'm still not convinced that it's right. There's something about the parading of music, TV, movie or other cultural icons in politics that I find uncomfortable. The implication is something like, 'look, your favourite celebrity votes for us - so you should too'. It leaves a somewhat sour taste.

However, the attraction of the celebrity endorsement isn't only in the potential to draw votes, it's also in the draw of the media. Dragging out your highest profile celeb to shake some hands or make a statement at a press conference is a virtual guarantee of coverage in the media. In a society that hungers for star gossip, what a celebrity is up to at any given time sells papers and boosts ratings, so of course the media will sit up and pay attention. Perhaps the real impact at the end of the day is negligible compared with the potential positive benefits, because the difficulty for any candidate, whether in a local or parliamentary election, is getting your name and face out there, and the attention of the media is an exceptionally powerful tool that can be used to do just that. In truth, if we had a local celebrity willing to publicly back our parliamentary or local candidates in this election, I wouldn't hesitate to use him or her, if only to get us some extra media attention. I suspect I might not sleep very well, having done so, but I don't think I could pass-up the opportunity.

So perhaps celebrity and politics can happily sit together on the same park bench. Perhaps it is wrong of me to think that voters are so easily swayed or so shallow... or perhaps not? But spare a thought this bank holiday for the accidental celebrity in this election. I am, of course, speaking of Mrs Gillian Duffy, who found herself thrust into the media spotlight while out buying a loaf of bread. The 'bigoted woman', as Gordon Brown so unwittingly dubbed her, is now somewhat of a local heroine for confronting the Prime Minister on the campaign messages that were important to her. What a shame, however, that it wasn't her earnest and heartfelt challenge that earned her the attention of the TV camera's winking eye, but the far more sensational and far less inspiring gaff made by Gordon Brown - a weary man in a moment of weakness.

"Style over substance" is a phrase that has been used many times over the past few weeks and one which summarises this post most succinctly. If Mrs Duffy is anything to go by, perhaps substance is winning after all... although it's a disappointment that she has been so disillusioned by Gordon Brown's behaviour that she is saying that she will not vote for anyone. Ultimately, as long as most people vote for the candidate or party that most closely represents their views, no matter what role media and celebrity played in that decision, I'll be happy because democracy will be the outright winner.