With an ageing population undoubtedly comes a rising cost of government expenditure. In 2010, the Government estimated the impact older people had on the NHS. The average NHS expenditure for retired households was nearly double that from their non-retired counterparts. The Government’s belt-tightening that has led to a squeeze on adult social care budgets is only going to make things worse. Many community groups, from drop-in centres to arts and crafts groups, which often provide the only interaction some people have with others, are at risk of closing.

The UK might consider looking to Denmark for answers. Co-housing is an intentional community, created and managed by residents themselves. People have their own private accommodation but also have access to communal facilities. Originally built in Denmark by a group of families who were spurred on after reading an article by influential author Bodil Graae  titled “Every child should have 100 parents”, a group, Older Women’s Co-Housing (OWCH), is taking this idea and designing the first co-housing scheme in the UK for women over 50.

Co-housing communities recreate a neighbourly environment now lost in parts of today’s society. They combat alienation and isolation by providing a support network, so people can turn to their neighbours for help or simply meet to share interests and activities. Although not for everyone, these mutually supportive schemes, could transform people’s lives in their older age so they have a better quality of life but also reduce the dependence on social services.

What I was witnessing was the furthest ripples of a huge equal marriage movement in the US; one that occurred entirely on social media.

In response to the US Supreme Court meeting to debate the future of same-sex marriage, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organisation, asked its supporters to change their profile picture to show their support for equal marriage at 1pm EST on Tuesday 26^th March.

Typically the results of these campaigns can be hard to track but not this time. Facebook recorded how many people changed their profile pictures at that time and provided a whole host of further data. The figures are stark:

• 2.7 million more people changed their profile pictures on Tuesday 26^th March compared to the previous Tuesday.
• Those nearest 30 years of age were most likely to change their profile pictures.
• Women were slightly more likely to update their profile picture then men.

Like Kony 2012, there is a huge value in unpicking these results and identifying what can be learned and incorporated into future digital campaigns. There are three key lessons to take from this:

First is the importance of a strong visual identity:

• On Facebook, data shows that images are the most likely to be ‘liked’ and shared.
• Whether by accident or design, the sharp red is proven to draw in people’s attention. It is also worth noting that the pink ‘equals’ sign in the foreground swiftly became white. This increased the contrast and meant the image was even more engaging.

Second is the importance of allowing, indeed encouraging, the customisation of the image:

• By allowing people and organisations to develop their own takes on the image, the HRC encouraged others to invest themselves in the campaign beyond a simple profile picture update.
• People are more likely to get involved in a campaign if it speaks directly to them. People developed logos based around dogs, the Lion King, food and even Pokemon.
• It also allowed brands like Absolut Vodka and Smirnoff which aim at a younger, liberal audience to get involved and bring their own significant social media resources to bear.

Third is the importance of understanding the real impact of the campaign:

• Critics argue that such digital campaigns, regardless of the cause, don’t affect any real change in legislation. Research suggests they are missing the point.
• Such campaigns develop ‘social proof.’ If your Facebook feed is covered in these red and white symbols it gives the impression that the ‘social norm’ is for equal marriage.
• This blog post on the Scientific American explores this idea further, developing the contrasting techniques of descriptive norms and prescriptive norms and how they differ in effecting change.

Perhaps the greatest sign of the success of the HRC campaign is that it has apparently caused a direct response from the religious right in the USA. They have seemingly responded with a series of blue crosses that those who are anti-equal marriage can use as their own profile picture. Imitation is indeed the highest form of flattery.

But with every council seat in the constituency held by a Lib Dem, Eastleigh is an exceptional case. The General Election will increase voters’ focus on deciding on the next Prime Minister, so for the Lib Dem argument to hold across the country they will need to combine local strength with an improvement in national polling. Nevertheless, the morale boost for a party reliant on its grassroots should not be underestimated, particularly going into May’s local elections.

The other big winner was UKIP, which beat the Tories to second place. It was vindication for Nigel Farage, who picked in many ways the most impressive candidate and could have got closer to the top had the election run on a few more weeks. The UKIP vote is soft, however, with over 80 per cent suggesting they had done so to send a message to other parties. And though Farage is sure to enjoy his elevated platform, with that comes greater scrutiny. So while some in the Conservative party, like the Eurosceptic MEP Daniel Hannan, suggest they should start “having conversations” and “stop calling each other names”, it comes as no surprise to see the opposite from those close to Number 10.

For the Conservatives, recriminations have already begun. They should be careful what lessons they take from the result. Exit polls show immigration and the EU were important for UKIP voters, and around a fifth of the 2010 Conservative vote went to UKIP; but a similar number were drawn to UKIP from 2010 Lib Dems – as befits a repository for protest votes. The movement of votes from governing parties to others mid-term is not surprising. What is more significant is the failure of the main national opposition to draw any votes from the Coalition parties. This primarily benefited the Lib Dems, and was what probably won them the election. The local Lib Dem machine was vital in squeezing the Labour vote, but the Tory positioning and choice of candidate helped their centrist message get through.

These competing factors make any response tactically fraught for the Prime Minister. Tory high command will no doubt point to Cameron’s continuing lead over Miliband in ‘Best PM’ polls as evidence that when it comes to the final reckoning the electorate will come back to him. It’s a persuasive argument, but we’ve heard it for almost three years now, and after each setback the argument becomes slightly harder to make.

Finally, Labour, which by any measure had a poor showing. It is a blow to hopes of any significant revival in the South of England. In all likelihood, however, each Lib Dem victory in a LD-Tory marginal edges them closer to No. 10. It may not be very ‘One Nation’, but for a party with limited resources and 106 target seats to win, judging when to fight and when to stand aside might be the most sensible option.

At the last election many people I know voted Liberal Democrat for the first time but having made the inevitable compromises of power it is difficult to see how the same can happen again. Being the third party in the British political system has always been challenging and the last election was the first time it felt like a different kind of politics might actually be possible. The excitement of the leadership debates and Clegg’s impressive performance failed to translate at the ballot box.

The Eastleigh by-election is doing a great job of showing both parties in the worst possible light but the Lib Dems’ reputation for tireless campaigning and digging deep to win the unwinnable means they might pull it off if no more skeletons emerge from the closet in the coming days. The local party machine is what the Lib Dems do best and it is essential for them to replicate this across the country in 2015.

The bigger – and more significant – problem is the political strategy behind the speech. Reacting to its content in the Times, Dr Copsey from Aston University – who we worked with to ensure level-headed, rather than just ideological voices would get a fair hearing in this debate – pointed out that it was always driven by internal party politics. But in trying to quell backbench dissent Cameron has potentially caused long term damage to the country, alienating international allies, wasting diplomatic capital and risking economic uncertainty for years to come. Despite the fact Cameron has said he would vote to stay in Europe provided our relationship is revised, the UK now risks sleepwalking towards a disastrous exit from the EU. Historic indeed – just not in the way Cameron intended.

The Leveson Inquiry brought with it a number of surprising twists and turns. Other events were completely unforeseeable, such as the controversy that hit the BBC or the destruction caused by Hurricane Sandy. Others seemed thoroughly predictable.

Despite failing to predict Spain’s Euro 2012 win and Team GB exceeding expectations at the Olympic Games we were able to accurately predict the outcome of the US Presidential Election and Kate and Will’s not having a baby. Despite this average result, the Champollion team are back with more predictions. The office vote has revealed:

• The royal baby will be a boy.
• Britain will avoid a triple dip recession.
• Andy Murray will win the 2013 BBC Sports Personality of the Year.
• The Syrian rebels will overthrow Assad.
• No country will leave the euro.

Let us know if you agree and in the meantime, apocalypse pending, have a merry Christmas from everyone here at Champollion.

But it is possible, or at least more possible than previously thought, that change really is afoot. One of our longest-standing clients, The Russia Foundation has spent a number of years working to shine a light on Russia’s behaviour, its slide towards authoritarianism, and its at best patchy record on abiding by its international commitments.

Russia’s abuse of civil liberties, crackdown on dissent and the cynical manipulation of energy resources are widely acknowledged and nothing new. Indeed, this recognition seems to have had little impact on political stability in Russia or, crucially, on Putin’s popularity.

Or so it seemed. But there are substantial murmurs that all is not well within Russia’s tight ruling circle, and that a serious challenge to Putin may not be too far away. Last week, we hosted three prominent Russian activists who have played leading roles in the protest movement that sparked into life with the disputed Duma elections a year ago. While such individuals are rarely pessimistic – how can they afford to be!? – this time they seemed infused with a new spirit and a sense that we could be just one unpredictable event away from cataclysmic change.

The Russia Foundation was joined by Kseyina Sobchak, daughter of the late Anatoly Sobchak, the first democratically elected Mayor of St. Petersburg; Vladimir Ashurkov, Executive Director of the Foundation for Fighting Corruption and a close confidant of Alexei Navalny; Vladimir Kara-Murza, a member of the federal council of the democratic opposition movement Solidarity, as well as Dr. Marie Mendras, Associate fellow with the Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House.

It was a fabulous panel that gave us unprecedented insight into the efforts being made to instigate positive change in Russia. Yes, Putin remains popular. Yes, he maintains an iron grip on the military and the levers of power. And yes, he can still count on the support of much of Russia’s elite. But with energy prices far below what he needs to balance the Russian budget, and little extra money to buy off the agitating middle classes, the notion that he will remain unchallenged as President until at least 2024 is no longer tenable.

As Vladimir Kara-Murza pointed out, in the days building up to the fall of the Soviet Union, nobody genuinely believed that what was about to happen was within the realms of possibility. It remains likely that Putin will hold on to power for several years to come, but what seems increasingly clear is that his days are numbered. What happens next, however, is an altogether different question.

How can charities that have an important contribution to make to the public policy discourse remain non-partisan, while fulfilling a rightful ambition to further their charitable aims and objectives through campaigning?

There are two important principles that should help charities avoid accusations of bias. The first is ensuring that any claims made as part of the campaign are meticulously researched and backed by evidence. The second is pursuing cross-party engagement long before the campaign has been launched.

A perceived attack on government policy will never be popular with government MPs, but opening up a dialogue in advance can at least ensure they are not caught off guard by a campaign run solely through the media or with the backing of opposition MPs. Engaging with individuals and organisations from across the political spectrum in an attempt to build consensus is a more effective way of securing a policy change. It is also an important element of maintaining a strong relationship with opposition parties who will no doubt return to power at some future point.

By adopting this approach, charities will not just ensure they meet the letter of the law, but are also more likely to secure the public policy outcomes they desire.

There are some nice examples of organisations using Timeline innovatively, mostly around deploying the history of their group or issue (The US Army’s ‘status updates’ go back to Lexington Concord in 1775) or putting a narrative to their content (an Israeli campaign demonstrated ‘a year with & without drugs’) But Timeline on its own is mostly about better presenting your page to audiences already browsing it – for campaigners another change in the last year has been less publicised but more important.

Learn to stop worrying and love EdgeRank

Most campaigners look to social media to reach more people and stimulate more activity, whether debate, fundraising or campaign actions. To do that on Facebook, your page’s Timeline is less important than whether anyone will see you are talking about in their news-feed, and the system Facebook uses for deciding that – ‘EdgeRank’ – has changed drastically over the last year.

There are two things you need to know about how Facebook users see your content:

• Your ‘fans’ are less likely to see what you post: Have you noticed that some vague acquaintances who used to post endless updates have faded from your Newsfeed? That’s what is happening to your posts unless Facebook sees that your fan has interacted with you recently. This means that simply broadcasting updates will get less and less effective, and that organisations with large Facebook followings need to re-evaluate how many of those fans are actually still ‘keeping in touch’.
   
• More ‘effort taken’ on your post generally means a higher ranking: If someone likes your post, it has more chance of appearing in the newsfeeds of your fans and their friends, and the more involved the action is the more prominence it will have (shares and comments are even better). This makes the job of understanding what content will appeal to your audience and get your message across to them even more important. Making a variety of approaches with niche appeal that generates a conversation is better than trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator and so gradually disappearing from all of your supporters.

In this video, which was produced by Champollion Digital, I explain a bit a bit more about the issue of frozen pensions as the Chair of the campaign.

The success of Pension Justice to date is down to the way that individual ICBP supporters have been put at the centre of the campaign. By signing a government e-petition, submitting case studies to the website, and challenging MPs and ministers our members are driving it forward.

Since the Pension Justice website was launched last April a growing number of British pensioners from around the world have used it to get in touch with the ICBP and find out about frozen pensions in their country of residence. Traffic has tripled, and time spent on the site has doubled when compared to the ICBP’s previous website.

The next stage for the digital campaign is to make use of email campaigning to reach more supporters and deepen their involvement so that it can be targeted to work in conjunction with the media and public affairs work that Champollion undertakes for ICBP.

To have won a Europe-wide award for a digital campaign that is still in its early stages is very exciting, and I know that the team at Champollion Digital are looking forward to developing the campaign with the ICBP.

This is a guest blog by Tony Bockman, Chair of the International Consortium of British Pensioners