I sort of half-watched the now-legendary Dave the Chameleon party political broadast yesterday, and I have to say that I have mixed feelings about it.

I don't really think that negative campaigning on a personal level aimed at national figures is the way to go for local elections, but if you are going to do it then you might as well make it amusing. I could get to like the Dave the Chameleon character. Or is that not the point? Or is the point that you are supposed to like him but not trust him?

It is annoying anyway when you are coming up to elections for (in our case) a borough council and all the campaigning is about the national party or when issues like the Iraq war or the hospital are what voters are basing their opinions on, when these are things the local councillors have no involvement in at all.  I'm not sure whether campaigns like 'Dave' are just encouraging that tendancy to ignore all the issues which are relevent or are a sensible, pragmatic acknowledgement – a surrender even – to the fact that voters are going to vote on other matters whatever happens.

I haven't made any secret of my opinion that the Tories are an opportunistic, bandwagon-jumping party who will say whatever they think a particular audience wants to hear, and that David Cameron is the personification of that, but then aren't all politicians like that to a greater or lesser extent?

Despite popular opinion, nearly all politicians are human beings and its only human to want to be liked. As such they don't really engage with voters but flirt with them. Think about it. You are at a social event and see someone you are interested in and flirt a bit. On an unconscious level you start mimicking their body language. On a conscious level you feign or exeggerate a liking for something they say they like, and if you are lucky they do the same back. I have even seen a mate of mine ostentatiously order the vegetarian option at a restaurant because a girl in the group who he fancied was vegetarian, and he thought it might help him get into her knickers. (When she went to the ladies he was scrounging chicken and beef off the rest of us.)

At no point did he lie and tell her he was a vegetarian, he just made it easier for her to think that, and a lot of electioneering is like that, I think.

There are of course a few contrarians who actually relish saying things that they know will be disagreed with, but generally we are conditioned by the rules of etiquette to avoid confrontation. Even when confronted by blatant racism the other day, when asked if I "agreed with all the Pakis being here", I thought I was being robust in the answer "yes I do", but I realised afterwards that I really should have followed that up by objecting to the word 'Paki' at the very least.

As another example, when a voter on the doorstep told me he would not vote for Labour because they banned hunting with dogs, I didn't actually say that I fully agreed with the ban but just pointed out that it was not a council matter and went on to explain our policies in things which are council-related.  The question is, was that a party-motivated reflex to avoid antagonising a voter, or a personally-motivated reflex to have someone not dislike me? Or was it just a cop-out?

I think that the answer is to only have teenage politicians – they actually enjoy upsetting people and winding them up.

Back to the point though: at least the Dave the Chameleon broadcast was funny and watchable. Whether it turns out to be effective or counter-productive it was not boring.