The Great Downing Street PR Blunder
Discussion
We've spoken on here in recent weeks about the sheer level of presentation incompetence being shown by the Government. I opined recently that if Cameron has a media strategist he should be sacked instantly and it's interesting to learn that Cameron has done away with several policy advisors and is actually proud of how small his policy team is. It seems Downing Street is run by clueless civil servants who lack commercial nouse and I feel its costing the Government any chances of a majority in 2015.
Tony Blair's Government included expert spin men such as Alastair Campbell, one might reasonably argue Blair's Government had far too much spin but I feel it had a large influence over his two subsequent election victories whether you like it or not. The Blair/Brown years had plenty of actual crisis but not as many political ones until Blair left, then Labour's Pravda machine fell apart. The 10p tax rate debacle was an awful day for Labour and James Purnell has recently admitted it was entirely avoidable.
The alarming fact is that this Government seems to have political crisis of the 10p tax rate proportion every single week! Even a junior PR executive - or even the teaboy - could've told them cutting the 50p tax rate in the same budget as the pension changes was not going to play well. When the 'pasty tax' story was hi-jacked into a Class War between Tories and Labour, a media strategist worth his pay would've told Cameron to keep his mouth shut rather than tell a story about how much he loves Pasties and bought one in a non-existant place, his failure to shut his mouth lengthened the 'pasty tax' news cycle and its still going on when it shouldnt be.
Lets be honest, things like this are incredibly small potatoes and Downing Street seems to have no ability to cope with the well oiled media spin machine which faces them every day. So my question for PH is simple, will this cost them dearly in 2015?
Tony Blair's Government included expert spin men such as Alastair Campbell, one might reasonably argue Blair's Government had far too much spin but I feel it had a large influence over his two subsequent election victories whether you like it or not. The Blair/Brown years had plenty of actual crisis but not as many political ones until Blair left, then Labour's Pravda machine fell apart. The 10p tax rate debacle was an awful day for Labour and James Purnell has recently admitted it was entirely avoidable.
The alarming fact is that this Government seems to have political crisis of the 10p tax rate proportion every single week! Even a junior PR executive - or even the teaboy - could've told them cutting the 50p tax rate in the same budget as the pension changes was not going to play well. When the 'pasty tax' story was hi-jacked into a Class War between Tories and Labour, a media strategist worth his pay would've told Cameron to keep his mouth shut rather than tell a story about how much he loves Pasties and bought one in a non-existant place, his failure to shut his mouth lengthened the 'pasty tax' news cycle and its still going on when it shouldnt be.
Lets be honest, things like this are incredibly small potatoes and Downing Street seems to have no ability to cope with the well oiled media spin machine which faces them every day. So my question for PH is simple, will this cost them dearly in 2015?
Gaz. said:
Most on here assumed that 2010 would be a one term government as the decisions of who-ever won would be so unpalatable to a deciding proportion of the electorate that they would be voted out at the next contest.
I agree it was always going to be a bad election to win BUT this lot have just compounded the difficult things that had to be done by dropping clanger after clanger. I'm struggling to see anything good about Cameron, at this point in the cycle it's difficult to see how he will get a majority next time. Will be seeing the first of the rolling blackouts then because if so they are well and truly shafted.
Du1point8 said:
Of course it had nothing to do with GB changing the boundaries meaning it was just about impossible for CMD to win by a majority.
That excuse is brought out on PH quite often but what exactly do you mean by it? Its Gordon Brown's fault that David Cameron couldnt convince enough people to vote for his party? Cameron would have a majority if he got the votes. He didn't get the votes. If the Conservative's cannot win with the current boundaries then why? rumple said:
Always said, if Cameron and his clowns were any good they would have got in by a landslide, they were up against Gordon Brown for christsake
One could argue the PR machine's failure goes back to the 2010 election. Cameron had plenty of ammunition with which to attack Labour and Brown - Cash for Honours, Iraq war, major recession, national debt, huge deficit, erosion of civil liberties, rising taxes, war on the motorist and a whole host of other things. His material was endless yet 8.6million people voted for Gordon Brown's Labour Party and 19million in total voted for parties other than the Conservatives. Brown was supposed to be fish in a barrel but despite their second worst loss of seats, Labour put in a stronger showing than many anticipated. Cameron failed to convince enough people that he was any better and that is the problem.In 1997 we had the fourth strongest economy in the World with balanced public finances. The economy had improved vastly since the crash of 1992 and John Major's Tories won almost 15 million votes in 1992 - a record not even surpassed by Blair - yet Tony Blair and his team were able to win in an epic landslide in 1997 because they played the game perfectly - and Major's Tory party essentially emploded in this respect.
Cameron was supposed to be the Tories moderniser, he was being compared to Blair since he became leader of the opposition and maybe that in itself is the problem.
martin84 said:
Du1point8 said:
Of course it had nothing to do with GB changing the boundaries meaning it was just about impossible for CMD to win by a majority.
That excuse is brought out on PH quite often but what exactly do you mean by it? Its Gordon Brown's fault that David Cameron couldnt convince enough people to vote for his party? Cameron would have a majority if he got the votes. He didn't get the votes. If the Conservative's cannot win with the current boundaries then why? rumple said:
Always said, if Cameron and his clowns were any good they would have got in by a landslide, they were up against Gordon Brown for christsake
One could argue the PR machine's failure goes back to the 2010 election. Cameron had plenty of ammunition with which to attack Labour and Brown - Cash for Honours, Iraq war, major recession, national debt, huge deficit, erosion of civil liberties, rising taxes, war on the motorist and a whole host of other things. His material was endless yet 8.6million people voted for Gordon Brown's Labour Party and 19million in total voted for parties other than the Conservatives. Brown was supposed to be fish in a barrel but despite their second worst loss of seats, Labour put in a stronger showing than many anticipated. Cameron failed to convince enough people that he was any better and that is the problem.In 1997 we had the fourth strongest economy in the World with balanced public finances. The economy had improved vastly since the crash of 1992 and John Major's Tories won almost 15 million votes in 1992 - a record not even surpassed by Blair - yet Tony Blair and his team were able to win in an epic landslide in 1997 because they played the game perfectly - and Major's Tory party essentially emploded in this respect.
Cameron was supposed to be the Tories moderniser, he was being compared to Blair since he became leader of the opposition and maybe that in itself is the problem.
http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/press_relea...
Du1point8 said:
You have three year old electoral boundaries articles in your bookmarks? You're an interesting little fellow arent you?Still doesnt answer my question. Why are these newly made seats supposedly sure things for Labour? Labour lost 92 seats in 2010 by the way, their second worst hit in an election. Why dont people in them vote Conservative? If they did vote Tory - Tory would win. Very simple. We already know over 56% of voters voted for left sided parties in 2010 so that suggests the geographical spread of voters generally leans left, maybe the reason the boundaries dont give Tories the advantage is because people in them dont vote Tory?
martin84 said:
Du1point8 said:
You have three year old electoral boundaries articles in your bookmarks? You're an interesting little fellow arent you?Still doesnt answer my question. Why are these newly made seats supposedly sure things for Labour? Labour lost 92 seats in 2010 by the way, their second worst hit in an election. Why dont people in them vote Conservative? If they did vote Tory - Tory would win. Very simple. We already know over 56% of voters voted for left sided parties in 2010 so that suggests the geographical spread of voters generally leans left, maybe the reason the boundaries dont give Tories the advantage is because people in them dont vote Tory?
Im not going to try and prove to anything anymore to someone who never backs up themselves with evidence and then just belittles anything put forward to them on every thread they are on.
I have tried to back up anything I say with details but you yourself dont... and when someone shows something, you do a pedantic comment like you have done.
If I can be bothered to look it up, I remember wales and scotland have were given more bias than england and in one constitute they changed the boundaries to give themselves 4 votes in one labour stronghold but going for a north, east, south and west boundary change.
Du1point8 said:
I know how to use search engines to get evidence on something I talk about.
Im not going to try and prove to anything anymore to someone who never backs up themselves with evidence and then just belittles anything put forward to them on every thread they are on.
I have tried to back up anything I say with details but you yourself dont... and when someone shows something, you do a pedantic comment like you have done.
If I can be bothered to look it up, I remember wales and scotland have were given more bias than england and in one constitute they changed the boundaries to give themselves 4 votes in one labour stronghold but going for a north, east, south and west boundary change.
Why are these areas Labour strongholds? Why cant the Conservatives convince the majority to vote for them? Thats the question I'm asking you. The other point is how would you go about making the boundaries completely 'fair' anyway? Are you saying when the Tories won 4 times 79-92 the boundaries were Tory biased?Im not going to try and prove to anything anymore to someone who never backs up themselves with evidence and then just belittles anything put forward to them on every thread they are on.
I have tried to back up anything I say with details but you yourself dont... and when someone shows something, you do a pedantic comment like you have done.
If I can be bothered to look it up, I remember wales and scotland have were given more bias than england and in one constitute they changed the boundaries to give themselves 4 votes in one labour stronghold but going for a north, east, south and west boundary change.
Both major parties have their own heartland dont they, Labour do very well in the North, Scotland and Wales where as the Tories do best in middle England, the East and Southeast.
martin84 said:
Du1point8 said:
I know how to use search engines to get evidence on something I talk about.
Im not going to try and prove to anything anymore to someone who never backs up themselves with evidence and then just belittles anything put forward to them on every thread they are on.
I have tried to back up anything I say with details but you yourself dont... and when someone shows something, you do a pedantic comment like you have done.
If I can be bothered to look it up, I remember wales and scotland have were given more bias than england and in one constitute they changed the boundaries to give themselves 4 votes in one labour stronghold but going for a north, east, south and west boundary change.
Why are these areas Labour strongholds? Why cant the Conservatives convince the majority to vote for them? Thats the question I'm asking you. The other point is how would you go about making the boundaries completely 'fair' anyway? Are you saying when the Tories won 4 times 79-92 the boundaries were Tory biased?Im not going to try and prove to anything anymore to someone who never backs up themselves with evidence and then just belittles anything put forward to them on every thread they are on.
I have tried to back up anything I say with details but you yourself dont... and when someone shows something, you do a pedantic comment like you have done.
If I can be bothered to look it up, I remember wales and scotland have were given more bias than england and in one constitute they changed the boundaries to give themselves 4 votes in one labour stronghold but going for a north, east, south and west boundary change.
Both major parties have their own heartland dont they, Labour do very well in the North, Scotland and Wales where as the Tories do best in middle England, the East and Southeast.
the boundaries should be made to be one for every council and not multiples to make it fair, is that hard to understand?
The government does seem to be bad at PR at the moment which adds to the notion that they are out of touch as they fail to see pitfalls until it is too late. Part of the trouble seems to be George Osborne splitting his time between being Chancellor and head of Conservative strategy, he should do one or the other not both quite badly.
A well oiled machine of a Government will have its policy people including Ministers at the same table as the media strategists who will advise them how best to portray a policy and most critically when to do it. Considering David Cameron is supposedly a PR man its even more shocking how his administration are so bad at this. Andy Coulsen was presumably supposed to be the person in charge of this but if Andy Coulsen was already working for the Government he'd have said 'dont hire this guy, if it turns out he was involved in the phone hacking you'll drag us into a 6 week story.' There was a 90% chance that decision would blow up in Cameron's face, so the sensible thing would've been to not hire him.
We've had bad budgets before but this years was exceptionally awful. I cant think of a budget which has caused so much anger that its still in the news cycle more than a month later, but this has managed it. Things like the 'charity tax,' changes to pensions and cutting the 50p tax has cost the Government more in political capital than its likely to gain in money and that should've been rectified earlier. Francis Maude should've had his remarks vetted by a media man who wouldve either barred his media appearence or written him a new script. If all of this wasnt bad enough, Theresa May not knowing what day of the week it is was an amateur moment they could've really done without.
We've had bad budgets before but this years was exceptionally awful. I cant think of a budget which has caused so much anger that its still in the news cycle more than a month later, but this has managed it. Things like the 'charity tax,' changes to pensions and cutting the 50p tax has cost the Government more in political capital than its likely to gain in money and that should've been rectified earlier. Francis Maude should've had his remarks vetted by a media man who wouldve either barred his media appearence or written him a new script. If all of this wasnt bad enough, Theresa May not knowing what day of the week it is was an amateur moment they could've really done without.
The difference between the last lot and this lot is stark.
Noo Labour knew/planned 'exactly' what they were doing, even if we didn't like it.
This shower has absolutely not a clue as to what they are doing... and boy, doesn't it show!
2015?
How the hell will they/we survive that long?
Need a sea change. And I think it will come.
Noo Labour knew/planned 'exactly' what they were doing, even if we didn't like it.
This shower has absolutely not a clue as to what they are doing... and boy, doesn't it show!
2015?
How the hell will they/we survive that long?
Need a sea change. And I think it will come.
dandarez said:
The difference between the last lot and this lot is stark.
Noo Labour knew/planned 'exactly' what they were doing, even if we didn't like it.
This shower has absolutely not a clue as to what they are doing... and boy, doesn't it show!
I think now we see just how clever Blair and his team were. Expert politicans, clever advisors. An administration without Alastair Campbell looks like what you see in front of you.Noo Labour knew/planned 'exactly' what they were doing, even if we didn't like it.
This shower has absolutely not a clue as to what they are doing... and boy, doesn't it show!
I remember Ian Hislop opining on many occasions that 'this Government is extremely good at burying bad news' which was true. By contrast this one whips up bad news for itself then puts its foot in its mouth prolonging the agony.
New Labour's well greased flim flam machine knew how to work the media. The media is a worthy foe, an evil beast and right now the current lot are fish in a barrel for them.
It's a feat in itself that the Conservatives managed to form a government.
A left leaning electorate where facing the possibility that a major part of the economy would have collapsed without public sector intervention as the worst excesses of capitalism where being exposed. Getting the public to vote for a party that previously advocated heavily on behalf of free market capitalism (particularly in finance) was always going to a difficult sell.
Now I agree that their PR has been handled poorly subsequently and they lost too many support while achieving too little reform on many issue (top income tax rates, pastry tax definitions etc.) but the Conservatives shouldn't have made it into government at all in the current climate so credit where it is due.
Ultra-capitalists and the anti-EU lobby may dislike the direction of the Conservative coalition but Socialists weren't fond of the Blair/Brown governments either.
A left leaning electorate where facing the possibility that a major part of the economy would have collapsed without public sector intervention as the worst excesses of capitalism where being exposed. Getting the public to vote for a party that previously advocated heavily on behalf of free market capitalism (particularly in finance) was always going to a difficult sell.
Now I agree that their PR has been handled poorly subsequently and they lost too many support while achieving too little reform on many issue (top income tax rates, pastry tax definitions etc.) but the Conservatives shouldn't have made it into government at all in the current climate so credit where it is due.
Ultra-capitalists and the anti-EU lobby may dislike the direction of the Conservative coalition but Socialists weren't fond of the Blair/Brown governments either.
AJS- said:
It's all very well to criticise their media advisors and spin doctors, but ultimately you can not polish a turd. If the Tories had an ideology and a purpose then their PR would be a lot easier.
It's very easy to be a Socialist, much harder to be right wing, it's almost unfashionable nowadays. Cameron has a problem in that he doesn't know who he is, born into money, even his first job on a nod, a wink and a phone call, he's had very little contact with working class people and boy does it show. And yet he shuns traditional Tory values as well, and shows disdain for trad middle class voters which is bizarre. He is obviously copying Blair, but has none of his charm, but in the meantime he is confusing conservative voters who cannot for the life of them see the difference from labour. Blair was lucky with the economy( his own words) so cam cannot replicate that, if he is going to be unpopular then f
k it, so what, he doesn't need to engineer an exit like Blair, he has money, all decisions should be for the country, not personal enrichment or ideology. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff