Skip to main content

The top 10 articles people are interested in

One thing about online systems is that it is possible to find out what articles are read by more people and which ones appear unimportant.

My campaign is mainly positive, but I am also highlighting issues where I believe it demonstrates that my opponent was not doing her job properly as an MP.

I have sorted the articles on this blog by the number of people who are interested in them. Here is the top ten list
  1. Millionaires and Politics
  2. Gender Issues Comparison of Candidates
  3. The Courts - particularly family courts
  4. Housing Benefit for 18-21 year olds
  5. Extra money for the NHS
  6. Why Marxism is Wrong
  7. The running of the parliamentary office
  8. The Labour Candidates Book Promotion tour and why it matters
  9. Labour Leaflet Analysis
  10. Bus Regulation and Bus Wars

What this demonstrates is that people are generally more interested when one candidate is raising issues in respect of another candidate than purely positive articles. Housing Benefit comes interestingly high in the top ten list. Housing Benefit is, of course, very important to lots of people. Extra Money for the NHS also demonstrates peoples interest in the NHS. It also demonstrates that buses matter to people. The other item which is mainly promoting me and does not contain criticism of the Labour candidate is about the judicial system and particularly the family courts. 6 of the 10 ten items, however, involve at least some negative campaigning. I think this justifies the claim that people are interested in negative campaigning. Almost all the responses I get from Labour activists are to posts which make criticisms of the Labour candidate.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England. The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity. The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back. This is an issue that needs further work. In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.