The teacher unions are forming up for a fight over National Standards with the primary teachers union (NZEI) claiming that they are untested and the process has lacked consultation – see campaign site.

Against this backdrop, the Prime Minister came out swinging yesterday with a threat to sack boards and trustees who refuse to introduce the policy – see Stuff.

The government also announced a $200,000 information campaign on National Standards, apparently targeting parents.

I’ll leave the pros-and-cons of National Standards to others, but the question about the government’s communications plan is interesting.

Of course successive governments have used tax payer money to promote their programmes. Opposition parties, including National many times between 1999 and 2008, often accused the government of political propagandizing. Now Phil Goff is accusing this government of the same.

It is a nonsense to say that governments should not sensibly spend money on promoting government programmes, if it means that people gain an understanding of what the programmes are about. Equally, campaigns to assist people avoid injury or access services are useful, although there can be some debate about the extent of it in this country.

In this case the motive for the government seems different. Firstly, there has been a build up of fairly serious opposition to the government’s plan from many educational experts, parents, principals and teachers. Secondly, the government appears to have hastily cobbled together a campaign which simply looks like a reaction to the building opposition.

If the government had simply wished to inform everyone about the proposal, it would have been planned long ago as part of a process of consultation and implementation. Instead it’s a reactive response, expressly targeting parents with the obvious intension of winning the public debate.

Imagine if, on the other hand, the government had the buy-in and support of most teachers and education experts. That would provide a sound platform for communicating useful information about the programme where no one should quibble about spending a million dollars or more! As it stands however, they’re spending a mere $200,000 of tax payer money, which probably buys them a public relations consultant and a few leaflets!

But that’s what happens when you’re under attack and forced to respond.

Today’s Obama election victory is hailed as transformational and of course it is if we compare his likely presidency with the previous incumbent.

An immediate question in New Zealand will be how this might translate for the fortunes of the political parties in our own election? But let me start with a short analysis of some of the big communication’s lessons.

Barack Obama and John McCain showed that social media is no passing fad. Both candidates embraced blogs, social networks and web video. Obama’s campaign went much further and created its own social networks that raised money and secured crucial support.

It might also spell the end for the big formal political speeches so popular with our own politicians. Obama in particular showed how symbolism could be presented without embellishment to touch people where they were thinking and feeling. Of course much of Obama’s speech making sounds like high-flown rhetoric to us but there is no doubting his impact on the emotions of those ‘who wanted to believe in hope’.

Obama also showed that we should never be afraid to try something new and to take risks. This is certainly something lacking in our own leaders’ debates and contributes to the ‘turn-off’ factor experienced in much of the campaign generally.

Of course one important lesson is that it helps to have millions of dollars to spend on a campaign. Let’s not go down that track.

So what of the implications for our own election?

On face value one could say that it will assist National – their campaign seeks ‘change’ as Obama’s did so successfully. Added to this is the curiously symbolic impact of colour – blue is the Democrat’s colour and red is the Republicans.

But there are few other parallels. The Bush administration has become the most deeply unpopular in recent memory. That certainly hurt McCain and assisted Obama.  But Helen Clark is no George W Bush and her approval ratings have never fallen far behind John Key’s, even after nine years in office. And Obama and the Democrats represent the centre left of US politics, as New Zealand Labour do here.

It seems like an age back since the media and NBR recorded the National Party’s first open exposure of its ad campaign with a headline, National fires a first ad missile.

In the article the National Party’s ad man, Steven Joyce had this to say, “We have our own plans…that is that John (Key) wants to run a very positive campaign, which means making sure that we do our thing and do it well. The other folk will do what they do, but we don’t react too much to that. You never say never but that’s not the plan.”

Time will tell if Joyce remains true to his edict. But of more interest to me has been the media’s response to the billboards – almost universally critical of the mixed messages and complete lack of cut-through.

But I remind myself that in campaign communications, it is critcal to strive for a combination of getting the right message, to the right people, at the right time, by the right method. In politics, timing is often the most critical factor but most frequently overlooked. National has been quick to release their billboards proclaiming choice for a ‘brighter future’. But right now the media, and many voters, are asking ‘who should we trust as we face uncertain times?’ In other words the natural mood of the moment may have been on ‘time for a change’ but it is increasingly looking less optimistic as the economic crisis bites, and the mood shifts towards a need for security.

As the 2008 election campaign enters a new phase into week 2, the next 3 weeks could seem like an eternity as voters weigh the choices.

It is almost impossible to watch a political television debate without an in-built personal filter of bias, but I gave it a crack last night.

I think most would agree that John Key did pretty well, but that Helen Clark probably did as well as most people would expect. For her this was a debate for her to lose and one for Key to make some gains – least we forget that National are currently ahead in the polls!

Most commentators saw it this way as well but tended to give credit to Key on the simple basis that he wasn’t expected to foot it with Helen Clark – so it was a handicap race!

One interesting aspect was the fact that Key appeared to me to interrupt Helen the most and certainly did it first, yet much of the after commentary pinged her for that offence. Again, this observation seemed to occur because of some preconceived expectation that the Prime Minister was likely to bully John Key.

The so called after-match public poll suggested that more than twice as many viewers thought Key had won the debate. This will of course feed through into the media as a victory to John Key. But it has to be noted that this poll is hardly robust – viewers pay 99c to sent a text, which throws a ‘why would I bother’ filter on many viewers. And I know of at least one person who spent the evening getting people to send texts from different phones, even if they weren’t watching the debate. It all of course assumes that TVNZ had a filter on people sending multiple texts from the same phone.

Last week’s failure by the Warriors put me in mind of a subject a little closer to my own patch right now, the coming General Election.

If you don’t mind the pun, a Key factor in this campaign will be the leader of the opposition and his lack of political experience and how that will translate into doubt for voters. ‘Likable’ John seems to perform reasonably well when confined to his own comfort zone, which will not be his cocoon when the glare of the campaign itself swings into place.

John Key’s rise has been off the back of a prolonged honeymoon with the media and a chunk of the electorate looking for anything to replace a three-term government. A smile and minimal amount of specifics and substance has been Key’s strategy. But the campaign will test him in ways that he can only guess at right now – confronting the massive experience and ability of the Prime Minister, the need to debate issues and policy in some depth and nous to think on the hoof. These things cannot be dialled up in a minute-long briefing with Crosby Textor.

Why did the Warriors illustrate this? At one point in last week’s commentary, a Warrior’s try was butchered early in the game. The player received the ball in a position where a try looked elemental, if only he had dropped his shoulder and safely scored. But in the split second the player appeared to lose his presence of mind and spun in a tackle, losing the ball in the process. A little later the commentator suggested that the player in question might have more easily scored a week earlier at Mount Smart – “was he out of his comfort zone here”.

On the other side, Manly played with the confidence and composure of a team that had seen it all before. They weathered an early onslaught in the sure appreciation that they were a better team, especially when the going gets tough.

It just goes to prove that true champions know how to win when the big occasion hits. They also know how to operate when things get uncomfortable. Labour is well behind in the polls and the electorate’s attitude towards long term governments will be a big factor, but does anyone expect Helen Clark to panic? It will be a tough fight and she will know that the electorate’s mood provides a significant barrier to success, but confidence comes from her own ability and the experience of many past campaigns.

But right now I’d suggest that John Key may be feeling a little uncomfortable about the test match to come.