The post has just arrived and in it a very nice surprise, the discovery that Jacques Seguela, onetime

adviser to President Mitterrand, now close confidant of President and Madame Sarkozy
(indeed he intoduced them), and something of a legend in French political communications, has
dedicated his latest book to little old moi.
With apologies for the missing accents here and in the French bits of the long posting which
follows the dedication to Le Pouvoir dans la Peau (Power in the skin) reads A Alastair
Campbell, mon spin doctor prefere (three missing accents in one word mes excuses sinceres).
So what did I do for this honour, you are asking? Well, perhaps the fact that he asked me to read
his book, and write a postface assessment both of his writing and of the issues he covers, and
the fact that I said yes, has something to do with it. He says some blushmakingly kind things in
his preface to the postface, which I will have to leave to French readers of the whole thing
(published by Plon). But for the largely Anglophone visitors of this blog, I thought some of you
might like to read the said postface in English (apart from the bits where I quote direct from his
book). I hope all those students who write asking for help with dissertations will find something
quotable in it.
Meanwhile I am off to Norway for a conference and a meeting with the Norwegian Labour Party.
Im looking forward to being in the country with the highest human development index in the
world, and which showed such a mature response to the recent massacre of Oslo and Utoya.
Here is the postface to Le Pouvoir dans la Peau
Jacques Seguela writes about political campaigns and communications not merely as an expert
analyst, but as an experienced practitioner. Hence his latest book contains both insights worth
heeding, but also enlivening tales of his own experience. He is observer and participant; outsider
looking in, and insider looking out. There is much to look at, not least in France with a
Presidential election looming, and the outcome far from easy to predict.
We live in a world defined by the pace of change, and whilst the velocity of that change has not
always impacted upon our political institutions, many of which would remain recognisable to
figures of history, it most certainly has impacted upon political communications. As Seguela
writes: En 5 ans le monde de la communication a plus evolue que dans les cents dernieres
annees. Google, Youtube, Twitter, Facebook have quickly entered our language and changed
the way we communicate, live our private lives, do business, do politics. People do not believe
politicians as much as they once did. Nor do they believe the media. So who do we believe? We
believe each other. The power and the political potential of social networks flows from that
reality. Though fiercely modern in their application, social networks in some ways take us back
to the politics of the village square. They are an electronic word of mouth on a sometimes global
scale. This has changed the way people interact with each other and with their politicians.

My first campaign as spokesman and strategist for Tony Blair was in 1997, three years in the
planning after he had become leader of the Opposition Labour Party. Some of the principles of
strategy we applied back then would certainly apply to a modern day election. But their tactical
execution almost certainly would not. Politicians and their strategists have to adapt to change as
well as lead it. Seguela gives some interesting insights into those who have adapted well, and
those who have done less well. He clearly adores former President Lula of Brazil and you can
feel his yearning for a French leader who can somehow combine hard-headed strategy with
human empathy in the same way as a man who left office with satisfaction ratings of 87percent.
Seguela probably remains best known in political circles for his role advising Francois
Mitterrand. Yet wheras I am tribal Labour, and could not imagine supporting a Conservative
Party candidate in the UK, Seguela came out as a major supporter of Nicolas Sarkozy. I wonder
if one of the reasons was not a frustration that large parts of the left in France remain eternally
suspicious of modern communications techniques and styles which, frankly, no modern leader in
a modern democracy can ignore. How he or she adapts to, or uses, them is up to them. But you
cannot stand aside and imagine the world has not changed.
If Lula is a star of this book, so too is Barack Obama. American elections are of enormous
interest to all political campaign junkies, a category in which both Seguela and I would almost
certainly qualify. Much is made of Obamas use of the internet, a relatively new phenomenon in
historical terms and one the young Senator used brilliantly in his quest to become President. Yet
though it was an accurate expression of his modernity, underpinning its use were some very oldfashioned campaign principles. He used it to turn supporters into activists who both gave funds
and also took his campaign materials and ideas and ran their own campaigns for him. Somehow
he managed to make one of the most professional, most disciplined and best funded campaigns
in history look like an enormous act of democratic participation.
It was less command and control the model we certainly adopted in 1997 and 2001, Labours
two landslide victories, easing off a little for our third win in 2005 than inspire and empower.
Yes we can not yes I can. His supporters were more than supporters. They were an active part
of the campaign, and of the message. The key to this was something that had nothing to do with
politicians and everything to do with science, technology and the internet. Ask me who has had
the most influence on campaigns in recent times and I might be tempted to reply Tim BernersLee, the man credited with gifting the web to the world. Its implications have been far reaching
in virtually all aspects of our lives, politics and political campaigns foremost. The new household
brand names of the cyber era have not replaced good policy work, messaging and organisation.
But they have become essential components of the execution of them in the campaign.
Mainstream conventional media remains important and influential, not least because, bizarrely,
in most democracies the broadcasters continue to let the press set their agenda for them. But a
candidate who tries to stand against the tide of new media will be making a big mistake, and
missing big opportunities. If it has changed so much in the last five years, how much more will it
change in the next five years?

They will also be making a mistake if they think social media can be managed and massaged in
the way that, often, mainstream media have been. The key on this I agree totally with Seguela
is authenticity. And that should be good news for authentic political leaders and an authenticity
hungry public alike.
The public tend to get to the point of an election. Seguela has an interesting account of the last
UK election and in particular the first ever televised Leaders Debates. Though I had worked on
three campaigns for Tony Blair, I am sufficiently tribally Labour to have answered a call from his
successor, Gordon Brown, to go back to help him for his first election campaign as leader in
2011. One of the roles I ended up playing was that of David Cameron in Browns preparatory
sessions for the TV debates. These debates mattered, that much was sure. Election planning for
Blair, I had always been doubtful about the benefit of such debates in a Parliamentary democracy
where our leaders meet each other week in week out in the crucible of the House of Commons. I
was worried the media would make them all about themselves, and that the policy issues would
be drowned out. So it proved. Yet in a way the public did get to the point they wanted to. They
did not particularly want Labour back after 13 years in power. They did not particularly yearn for
David Cameron and a Conservative Party unsure about its direction. So the third party leader
emerged through the middle. Nick Clegg was judged the clear winner by the instant reactions of
public and media alike. For a few days he seemed impregnable. Yet come the vote, he did not
make a huge breakthrough. It was only because neither Labour nor the Tories could get over the
line that Clegg ended up as deputy Prime Minister in a coalition government. The country had
not been able to make its mind up, delivered a muddled result and asked the leaders to sort it out.
The leader who came first and the leader who came third did a deal to do so.
I think Seguela is too kind to Cameron. Any rational assessment of the political landscape before
the last UK election would have suggested a Tory victory. Labour in power a long time; the
economic crash; a Parliament dominated by a scandal involving MPs expenses; Iraq back in the
news because of the official Inquiry; Afghanistan not going well; the press even more strongly in
favour of a Tory win than they had been for a Labour win in 1997, and vicious about Brown.
Also the Tories had big money to spend on the campaign and Labour did not. Yet Cameron could
not secure a majority. Why not? There is no simple answer. The wonder of democracy lies in
millions of people having their own experiences, impressions and judgements before deciding
how to cast their vote. But the strategist in me says the simple answer is that Cameron lacked
real strategic clarity. I think Sequela would agree that for all the changes that technological and
mediatic change has forced upon political campaigns, strategy remains the key. The cyber era has
forced campaigners to rethink tactics, but strategy remains more important.
He and I are clearly in agreement that John McCains appointment of Sarah Palin as running
mate, for example, was a tactical masterstroke, but a strategic catastrophe. Tactically, he excited
his base, gave the media a new toy, and momentarily unnnerved his opponent. Strategically he
blew a hole through the two central planks of his campaign experience, and being different
from George Bush. In putting tactics before strategy, he broke one of the golden rules of
campaigning.

Strategists like rules. We like points of principle to act as anchors. I like the rules in Seguelas
Chapter 5.
On vote pour une idee. Pas pour une ideologie.
On vote pour soi. Pas pour son candidat.
On vote pour un homme. Pas pour un parti.
On vote pour le professionalisme. Pas pour lamateurisme.
On vote pour un projet pas pour le rejet.
On vote pour le coeur. Pas pour le rancoeur.
On vote pour le futur. Pas pour le passe.
On vote pour le bcbg. Pas pour le bling bling.
It is charmingly French that he illuminates the rule about voting for le couer pas pour le rancour
to a tale of love and sex. Si votre femme vous trompe, ce nest pas en couvrant dinsulte son
amant que vous le reconquerez. Mais en lui redonnant envie de vous. La mecanique electorale
est le meme, se faire elire cest se faire preferer. That may seem glib. But politics is a human
business. It is about feelings as well as policies, emotion as well as reason. People often talk
about their political leaders as though in a relationship with them. Hes not listening Why on
earth did he do that? Ive gone off him Oh, I still like him deep down. Political leaders
sometimes talk of the people in the same way. How many times did I sit in the back of a car with
Tony Blair, or fly over Britain in a plane and he would look down and say God, I wish I knew
what they were thinking Do they still like us? Back at the time of our first landslide, talk of
the country falling in love with Blair was widespread. Today, the biggest accusations of
betrayal against Blair will often come from those who fell in love most deeply at the outset of
his leadership. Perhaps this trend towards relationship politics is being exacerbated by the
tendency towards younger leaders. Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy, Merkel these are people who
came to power much younger than their counterparts down the centuries.
Seguela, a man of a certain age, remains fascinated by youth and its impact. The brand manager
in him can barely disguise his glee that Coca Cola, the drink of the young trendy, is 130 years
old. You can sense the excitement he felt on meeting the young Americans not born when
Seguela was advising Mitterrand who had developed Obamas digital strategy and so helped
deliver a mailing list of 13m people. The focus on youth also dominates his analysis of the
political consequences of the economic crash whose impact runs through these pages, and offers
some fascinating factoids half of all Europeans are over 50, whilst three quarters of Algerians
are under 25. There are as many people under 30 in China as in Russia, the US and Australia

combined, and in India twice as many as in China. That too is a powerful force of global change,
and will have its impact on Western politics of the future.
As to what it all means for the next French elections, I dont know. But this book provides part of
the backdrop, economic and political. It should make interesting reading for anyone involved in
that campaign. Whilst clearly still of the view Sarkozy was and is the right choice for France,
(though the polls at the time of writing indicate he is in a minority) he throws out ideas and
challenges for right and left alike. As traditional lines are drawn, careful reading might provoke
candidates and parties to see that they should always be looking to the next new ideas, not
merely repackaging the last new, let alone the old.
I was in Paris recently as a guest of the left think tank, Terra Nova, and met politicians, advisors,
militants, experts, journalists and bloggers. I came away with some strong impressions. Firstly,
virtually everyone told me that President Sarkozy was hugely unpopular, and his ratings as low
as it was possible to go. Yet many of the same people told me he could still win. They know he
relishes a campaign. They suspect he may have learned from some mistakes. Incumbency is a
powerful weapon. A comeback is a powerful narrative. And they worried that with the President
so unpopular, the economy sluggish, social issues raw, and the left in power in many parts of
France, the PS should have been doing far better in the polls (to which, incidentally, French
politicians and media pay far too much attention.)
Of course this was pre selection of a PS candidate. Many of the Socialists agreed with my
analysis that once they had chosen the candidate, they needed to unite behind that candidate,
resist their historic predilection for factionalism, run a campaign that was fresh, energetic and
based upon a programme totally focused on the future and one which addressed peoples
concerns. They agreed too that the PS could no longer look down its nose at communication, but
had to see it not just as an essential element of campaigning, but a democratic duty at a time
when people have so many pressures on their lives and living standards, and concerns about the
world around them. But though they agreed with the analysis, some worried about the Partys
capacity to deliver upon it. The fear of another defeat ought to be enough, surely, to deliver on
the first and essential part: unity. As someone on the progressive side of the political divide, I
continue to think the French lefts over intellectualisation of politics, its focus on never-ending
debate instead of agreement around big points and unity behind one accepted leader remains a
problem.
I added that I felt the way was wide open for someone to come along and set out, with total
honesty and clarity, the challenges ahead, the limitations of what one leader or one country can
do, but explain the world and begin to shape direction. In other words, what I sensed behind the
seeming confusion and rather disgruntled nature of French opinion was a real desire for
leadership of a strategic rather than a tactical nature. There too, there were concerns, not least
because of memories of the negative impact on Lionel Jospins campaign when he stated
truthfully that the State could not do everything.

I heard a lot about Marine Le Pen and certainly the polls tell a good story for the leader of the
Front National. She has certainly shown she can mount a campaign and get the media to accept a
sense of change. When even her enemies refer to as Marine, rather than the more toxic Le Pen,
that is something of a success. But whenever I have heard her, I have not heard a powerful
argument for the future of France.
So France enters a fascinating period, where not one single person I met predicted the outcome
of either first or second round without at least some doubt in their eyes. When things are so tight,
communications can make the difference. It is not a dirty word.
I dont agree with all of Seguelas analysis. I dont accept that only four US presidents radically
changed the country. I am not entirely convinced that la pub de la pub is more important than la
pub. I am not sure that David Camerons loss of a child had the political impact Seguela thinks it
did. I think Brits will be also be surprised at the dominant role he gives in the Tory campaign to
his colleague David Jones. I think he overstates how Sarkozy is seen in the world. I agree with
him that we need to be cautious about the potential abuse of the internet which has no global
governance or regulation to match, but Im not sure I agree this risks being en bras arme de
lanarchie. But it is a book full of understanding of some of the big themes and the small details
required for a successful campaigning mindset.
He is, as one would expect for someone who has been close to different leaders, clued up on the
importance of good chemistry between leader and strategist. He understands the importance of
body language as well as language. He knows the importance of emotion as well as reason. He
understands how the web is changing politics. One of my favourite phrases is that life is on the
record. He has a different way of putting it. Le off nexiste plus desormais. Tout ce que vous
direz pourra se retourner contre vous. It is why the whole droit detre oublie is emerging as a
debate. How many of the young men and women today filling the web with pictures and
confessions from their private lives may end up running for office one day, and regretting their
openness? On verra.
Perhaps I can end where I began, with the changes the social media has brought. At the last
election Labour did not do poster campaigns. This was a shame. In previous campaigns we had
had some brilliant posters. But under Gordon Brown, we had very little money for the campaign.
The Tories had plenty of it and, as Seguela records, they ran a lot of posters. One of their most
expensive billboard campaigns was of a giant photo of Cameron with an anti-Labour slogan we
cant go on like this. Someone noticed that the Tory leaders face had been airbrushed. This fact
became the source of thousands of tweets. Then someone set up a website mydavidcameron.com
where people could send their own, largely anti-Tory, versions of this poster. These were sent in
in their thousands, and many were much better, wittier and more politically devastating than the
original. Ill tell you when I knew they had wasted their money when the newspapers carried
photos of one giant poster site which had been defaced Camerons hair had been replaced
with a painted version of Elvis Presleys hair, and to the slogan we cant go on like this had
been added the words of one of Elvis most famous songs with suspicious minds. The

combination of the internet and wit had reduced the political impact of a hugely expensive
campaign to zero. That is my final thought as you begin to read Jacques Seguelas account. It is a
quote from a former colleague, Labour MP Hazel Blears Campaigning is like sex. If youre
not enjoying it, youre not doing it properly.