What is a 'Family network'?

One item in Nick Clegg's acceptance speech a couple of weeks ago appears to have caused some anxiety in the Liberal Democrat blogosphere.

"That's why I will set up a network of families, who have nothing to do with party politics, in every region of this country so they can tell me what my priorities should be."

Jonathan Fryer agonises over the use of the word Family here, although James Graham appears to have already resolved his worries here, and Alix Mortimer adds further analysis here.

I'm also slightly troubled by the concept proposed, but not for the same reasons.

Agonising about the word 'family' is a bit odd in my view. While Jonathan is perfectly correct to point out that there are different concepts of family, that some people have different families or none, and that there may well be a tiny minority of eccentrics who find the term offensive... In general the word is about as controversial and hard to understand as 'friends'.

Communicators don't generally feel the need to apologise that they don't mean to offend the friendless, or those with alternative companionship choices, before saying that they think meaningful relationships are a good thing. You can become so fraught with the politics of minimum offence, and worse perceived offences that don't really exist, that you end up saying nothing worth listening to, or speak in a PC-babble worthy of inclusion in Private Eye.

So hooray for families!

I have a more technical concern with the family-network idea.

The point of the concept is to connect the Liberal Democrat Leader to a network of ordinary people with whom he can swap ideas, consult and generally test the wheezes of his political pointyheads before launching them on the media and public.

Good idea?

Well yes and no...

This is not an original idea, it's called market research. All political parties do it, as do most large organisations and government departments.

The issue is it's a questionable research technique. Why?

The problem is very simple. What team-Clegg is trying to achieve is a way of communicating with a people who are outside politics. Generally the way of doing that is through polls, focus groups, depth interviews etc. , by impartial research companies that select random samples on that basis and shield those being asked from those asking the questions. That way you are guaranteed fresh unbiased insight each time.

What has been proposed instead is a continuous group that, while they start outside politics, will not remain there, for one very simple reason, they will be in regular communication with the Leader of the Liberal Democrats. In the process it is highly like they will develop an interest in politics which while very welcome somewhat defeats the objective of the research.

Maintaining panels is also expensive and harder than it looks. So while a large panel would alleviate the 'professional respondent' problem by ensuring less frequent contact, it would require full-time management. At which point it's more cost-effective to use a research company's panel which they maintain, refresh and share with other clients... a good idea, but a different proposition.

On a related note Alix highlights with approval the difference between this proposal and 'focus groups'. "Discussions which take place within the ambit of an evolving relationship are always more meaningful than one-off contacts."

Well yes... however Nick Clegg would be better off simply e-mailing and responding to the party's extensive and evolving e-supporters list than building a panel for that purpose. It's entirely unclear what meaningful relationships with a small selected group that quickly become biased by the act of contact would tell us other than that people like to be contacted, consulted, and made to feel special. It's a good thing, but again a different proposition.

In short there's some interesting ideas here, but the proposition is confused. Either it's a nice enhancement to the way the party communicates with the public, or it's a good way of getting valuable insight into what ordinary people think about us and politics. It's hard to see how it can be both.