Who is making these disastrous decisions?
Discussion
I was reminded the other night of Nick Timothy & Fiona Hill.
These two were blamed for the disastrous decision to call a General Election whilst Theresa May was PM.
This got me thinking who is actually to blame for the PR woes of the current government?
We all know that ministers don't come up with these ideas, so who?
These two were blamed for the disastrous decision to call a General Election whilst Theresa May was PM.
This got me thinking who is actually to blame for the PR woes of the current government?
We all know that ministers don't come up with these ideas, so who?
Ministers or the PM will lay out the objective. Then it's a combination of Special Advisors and Civil Servants who move the thing forward. Issues get discussed, ideas shared and consensus reached. Ministers represent the policy and are responsible for its implementation but their involvement the preparation and substance is usually minimal - as it should be.
Whether a decision is disastrous or not is often far more subjective than you might think.
What differs is the way in which policy is explained or justified. The last time I think we had a reasonable level (and I use the phrase in the most relative of terms) of positive acceptance on policy was the Tony Blair government (Iraq aside). This is because Social Media wasn't really a thing then, people still read newspapers and Alistair Campbell was a profoundly brilliant communicator who was able to pitch policy in a way that made sense to many people. The government controlled the narrative.
Today, government communicators are constantly chasing the narrative rather than creating it. This makes it exceptionally difficult, arguably impossible to pitch a policy without people already having an opinion about it. As we have seen on so many occasions over the past decade, once someone forms an opinion, they never shift from that position - even in the face of tangible, evidential proof that their opinion is flawed or based on incorrect facts.
Whether a decision is disastrous or not is often far more subjective than you might think.
What differs is the way in which policy is explained or justified. The last time I think we had a reasonable level (and I use the phrase in the most relative of terms) of positive acceptance on policy was the Tony Blair government (Iraq aside). This is because Social Media wasn't really a thing then, people still read newspapers and Alistair Campbell was a profoundly brilliant communicator who was able to pitch policy in a way that made sense to many people. The government controlled the narrative.
Today, government communicators are constantly chasing the narrative rather than creating it. This makes it exceptionally difficult, arguably impossible to pitch a policy without people already having an opinion about it. As we have seen on so many occasions over the past decade, once someone forms an opinion, they never shift from that position - even in the face of tangible, evidential proof that their opinion is flawed or based on incorrect facts.
Greenmantle said:
I was reminded the other night of Nick Timothy & Fiona Hill...
Ah yes, those two. The last tiny vestige of trust I had in the competence of our politicians was finally blown to smithereens.I am also reminded of Sunak's GE announcement when he nearly drowned in the deluge. None of the brilliant minds had thought to check the weather forecast.
BikeBikeBIke said:
It's a good point. Who is today's Bernard Ingram/Alistair Campbell/Peter Mandleson?
James Lyons. https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-government-hire...
BikeBikeBIke said:
It's a good point. Who is today's Bernard Ingram/Alistair Campbell/Peter Mandleson?
Arun Advanihttps://ifs.org.uk/articles/raising-revenue-closin...
Hereward said:
I am also reminded of Sunak's GE announcement when he nearly drowned in the deluge. None of the brilliant minds had thought to check the weather forecast.
As a professional communicator myself, I am consistently aghast at the fundamental errors of judgement of government appointed communications advisors. My theory is that they are the wrong type of communicators; more theory, process, systems and academic and less, well, common sense.A good example of this was in Covid when they shut bars unless a bar was part of a work-pace canteen. The House of Commons Bar fell into the latter category so legally could remain open. But it seemed odd to me that nobody thought to consider what that would 'look like' to the general public - or what the 'optics' were to use political jargon, regardless of the legality.
This is where the likes of Alistair Campbell shone. They 'got it' and understood how to pitch and a tell a story in way that was understood. To me, government comms today is done by committee and in the comms world, it's often said that a Camel is a Horse drawn by committee.
StevieBee said:
A good example of this was in Covid when they shut bars unless a bar was part of a work-pace canteen. The House of Commons Bar fell into the latter category so legally could remain open. But it seemed odd to me that nobody thought to consider what that would 'look like' to the general public - or what the 'optics' were to use political jargon, regardless of the legality.
Good point.I suppose there were two reasons for that:
a) They did consider it, and decided to think "f
k it, we simply dont care"or
b) It never even entered their heads.
And I don't know which option is worse.
snuffy said:
StevieBee said:
A good example of this was in Covid when they shut bars unless a bar was part of a work-pace canteen. The House of Commons Bar fell into the latter category so legally could remain open. But it seemed odd to me that nobody thought to consider what that would 'look like' to the general public - or what the 'optics' were to use political jargon, regardless of the legality.
Good point.I suppose there were two reasons for that:
a) They did consider it, and decided to think "f
k it, we simply dont care"or
b) It never even entered their heads.
And I don't know which option is worse.
Greenmantle said:
I was reminded the other night of Nick Timothy & Fiona Hill.
These two were blamed for the disastrous decision to call a General Election whilst Theresa May was PM.
This got me thinking who is actually to blame for the PR woes of the current government?
We all know that ministers don't come up with these ideas, so who?
Even though its decades old, The Thick Of It, is a good programme to A have good fun laughing at and B educating on how government works behind closed doors. Tucker was based on Campbell. Even though its an old programme they had social media in its infancy involved and the infamous Blackberry's they all used to keep abreast of shifting news and opinion. And you could see in it how they were attempting to control the narrative but also reacting without too much thought to anything that impacted that narrative, often chaotic scenes which I can imagine do happen in real life. These two were blamed for the disastrous decision to call a General Election whilst Theresa May was PM.
This got me thinking who is actually to blame for the PR woes of the current government?
We all know that ministers don't come up with these ideas, so who?
Thanks for your answers.
That Sunak GE announcement in the rain and the "Houses of Commons" Bar staying open during Covid reminded me of my uncles favourite saying
"They have all those brains but zero common sense!"
In my mind these advisors have zero common sense and so should look for employment more suited to their ability.
That Sunak GE announcement in the rain and the "Houses of Commons" Bar staying open during Covid reminded me of my uncles favourite saying
"They have all those brains but zero common sense!"
In my mind these advisors have zero common sense and so should look for employment more suited to their ability.
Playing Devils Advocate, there could also be things which on the face of it were pushed way down the priority list for them but are made into a big deal by others. The canteen example, yes could maybe have been handled differently but bear in mind they had a global pandemic to manage, lockdowns, a vaccine to roll out, and a million other things ... all to be managed by a limited resource pot probably working 16-18 hours a day getting no sleep and stressed out of their minds. Possibly.
The reality is there will always be something where we all look retrospectively and point out the obvious, but in the mix, in a fast moving environment, with thousands of people involved and many more moving parts, things get missed - thats the reality of it. It happens at government, it happens at even the best run large businesses.
The reality is there will always be something where we all look retrospectively and point out the obvious, but in the mix, in a fast moving environment, with thousands of people involved and many more moving parts, things get missed - thats the reality of it. It happens at government, it happens at even the best run large businesses.
BikeBikeBIke said:
It's a good point. Who is today's Bernard Ingram/Alistair Campbell/Peter Mandleson?
Campbell was recently saying that the shift from newspapers/TV news/Radio news to the new media of Twitter, Facebook etc and the public's ability to immediately comment publicly means that you're not going to get Campbells or Mandlesons in the future because no one can create or manage the narrative in the way they used to be able to do.coldel said:
Playing Devils Advocate, there could also be things which on the face of it were pushed way down the priority list for them but are made into a big deal by others. The canteen example, yes could maybe have been handled differently but bear in mind they had a global pandemic to manage, lockdowns, a vaccine to roll out, and a million other things ... all to be managed by a limited resource pot probably working 16-18 hours a day getting no sleep and stressed out of their minds. Possibly.
The reality is there will always be something where we all look retrospectively and point out the obvious, but in the mix, in a fast moving environment, with thousands of people involved and many more moving parts, things get missed - thats the reality of it. It happens at government, it happens at even the best run large businesses.
That’s a fair argument. The reality is there will always be something where we all look retrospectively and point out the obvious, but in the mix, in a fast moving environment, with thousands of people involved and many more moving parts, things get missed - thats the reality of it. It happens at government, it happens at even the best run large businesses.
But, it’s also worth keeping in mind that the government comms team isn’t a single person, it’s an entire department whose job is present the government and its policies in the most favourable light possible and / or with clarity. It’s the most well-resourced comms department of any institution or company in the country.
Keeping it open.... forgivable for the reason you mention.
Defending that decision when this fact was called out by the press... not so much. Someone should have said, ‘you know what?,.. you’re right!’ (even if legally, they weren’t).
Greenmantle said:
In my mind these advisors have zero common sense and so should look for employment more suited to their ability.
I’ve met and work with their ilk a lot. I’m not sure if common sense is the right phrase. They are indeed super-bright but rely heavily on complex behavioural modelling and theoretical narrative mapping techniques and all manner of other high-brow academic-led processes, all of which are relevant and useful but only if they can be articulated in a way that everyone can understand.
‘Nieve’ is perhaps a more accurate description.
StevieBee said:
coldel said:
Playing Devils Advocate, there could also be things which on the face of it were pushed way down the priority list for them but are made into a big deal by others. The canteen example, yes could maybe have been handled differently but bear in mind they had a global pandemic to manage, lockdowns, a vaccine to roll out, and a million other things ... all to be managed by a limited resource pot probably working 16-18 hours a day getting no sleep and stressed out of their minds. Possibly.
The reality is there will always be something where we all look retrospectively and point out the obvious, but in the mix, in a fast moving environment, with thousands of people involved and many more moving parts, things get missed - thats the reality of it. It happens at government, it happens at even the best run large businesses.
That’s a fair argument. The reality is there will always be something where we all look retrospectively and point out the obvious, but in the mix, in a fast moving environment, with thousands of people involved and many more moving parts, things get missed - thats the reality of it. It happens at government, it happens at even the best run large businesses.
But, it’s also worth keeping in mind that the government comms team isn’t a single person, it’s an entire department whose job is present the government and its policies in the most favourable light possible and / or with clarity. It’s the most well-resourced comms department of any institution or company in the country.
Keeping it open.... forgivable for the reason you mention.
Defending that decision when this fact was called out by the press... not so much. Someone should have said, ‘you know what?,.. you’re right!’ (even if legally, they weren’t).
As much as I agree with your comment about the government saying yes you are right and we cocked up, they can never do that, because the opposition will seize upon it straight away and frame it as an admission of incompetence which would be hugely damaging.
ATG said:
Campbell was recently saying that the shift from newspapers/TV news/Radio news to the new media of Twitter, Facebook etc and the public's ability to immediately comment publicly means that you're not going to get Campbells or Mandlesons in the future because no one can create or manage the narrative in the way they used to be able to do.
I don't think he was saying that when the Conservatives were in office.It does change how communications work and makes it harder but fundamentally it still has to be integrated with the policy development and have well planned announcements. A lot of Labour's communication looks like internal messages before working out how to communicate it to the country.
I don't think Campbell would have left the open goal of saying pensioners would be safe immediately before cutting WFA or cutting WFA on its own or telling everyone the budget will be painful.
borcy said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
It's a good point. Who is today's Bernard Ingram/Alistair Campbell/Peter Mandleson?
An irish chap, his name escapes me. Doesn't do much media stuff. He was behind the election campaign and, i believe, has moved into looking after the plan/'the grid'. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff