The dust has not yet settled on one of the biggest political scandals for decades, MPs expenses. Politicians of all persuasions have been affected, leaving the public disillusioned and angry about the system and those who use it for their personal gain.

Surely it can’t get any worse for our political class? Oh yes it can!

Not content with claiming taxpayers’ money for duck houses and bath plugs, some MPs and Peers are now willing to lobby government and influence policy for a rather modest fee of £3000 to £5000 a day.

Channel 4 explored the 'murky world of political lobbying' in Dispatches

The recent allegations aimed at those featured in Monday night’s Dispatches programme on Channel 4 has brought lobbying to the public’s attention. Seen by many as shady and sleazy, there have long been questions about the ‘revolving door’ between politics and business.

The lobbying industry, said to be worth £2 billion, is where you will find hundreds of ex-MPs, advisers and officials all using their personal knowledge and experience to their and their clients’ advantage.

Recent accusations concerning former Labour ministers Stephen Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon are most certainly embarrassing, but there is no suggestion they have done anything wrong. Like the expenses scandal, they claim to have kept within the rules.

Within the rules and in the public interest?

Current rules state that sitting MPs can work for corporate clients but they must declare any payment in the register of members’ interests. Any paid work taken by an ex-minister within two years of leaving office must be cleared by a panel – the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) and they are not allowed to table amendments or vote on bills in exchange for payment.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life also lists seven key principles that those in public service should adhere to. The first of which reads:

‘Selflessness – Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.’

This is totally at odds with the approach of former transport secretary Stephen Byers who described himself as ‘like a cab for hire’. The MP for North Tyneside openly bragged that he had played a role in influencing government decisions relating to National Express and Tesco.

Although Stephen Byers has since said he exaggerated the claims, it leaves a dark cloud hanging over the world of lobbying and business.

Former health secretary Patricia Hewitt is said to earn over £180,000 a year from work outside of her role as an MP. She currently works for companies such as Barclays, Boots and BT and although all of the following have been agreed by the committee in charge of monitoring outside jobs, ACOBA, can her role in political life be kept separate from her business interests?

But is it so wrong that soon to be ex-MPs can make money from their knowledge and contacts gained in political life? Lobbying is a fact of life in most democracies and even campaigners against it are not calling for an outright ban.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair is said to have earned £20 million since leaving Downing Street in 2007, so why should former colleagues not also gain benefits from their knowledge?

Calls for transparency

Tamasin Cave, of campaign group The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency, said: “What is wrong is when it happens behind the scenes and when it is opaque. When the public can not see how public policy is being influenced then we have a problem.”

The need for greater transparency in the lobbying industry has been very apparent over the past year.

Conservative leader David Cameron shocked the industry in February when he said it had got out of hand and was the next big political scandal waiting to happen. The Conservative leader has described the latest revelations as ‘scandals worse than those in the 1990s’.

The Liberal Democrats have also called for far greater transparency as part of a wider clean-up of politics. Party leader Nick Clegg has said: “I think people are so fed up with the way money and greed is corrupting our politics and it’s why I’ve always said we need to go far further than reforming MPs expenses – we need to reform the whole rotten system”.

Register rejected in favour of self-regulation

The government last year rejected calls by the Public Administration Committee for a statutory register of lobbying activity, instead giving the lobbying industry a final chance to get its house in order through self-regulation and vowed to publish details of ministerial meetings with interest groups.

But the latest revelations have led the government to announce plans to regulate the lobbying industry at Westminster as a manifesto pledge.

The CIPR have also been working on creating transparency amongst their members with the proposed introduction of a public register of clients. The move is expected to be agreed at the AGM on 15 June and is likely to affect CIPR members including Bell Pottinger Public Affairs chairman Peter Bingle.

One senior lobbyist told PR Week in February that: ‘If everything goes according to plan, the CIPR will have to change its code of conduct. Certain people will then have to take a decision and it is hard to see how it can be fudged. In other words, either they declare their clients and stay in the CIPR under the Public Affairs Council umbrella – or they don’t declare them, in which case they would be unable to remain CIPR members.’

Stephen Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon have now been suspended from the parliamentary Labour party, along with Margaret Moran. Conservative MP Mr Butterfill (who is no longer expected to move to the House of Lords) has referred himself to the standards commissioner and Baroness Morgan has already referred herself to the sub-committee on Lords’ interests.

At the next election 140 MPs will stand down and unless tough action is taken it will be difficult to stop MPs and former ministers who are coming to the end of their time in Parliament searching for an alternative livelihood, in their most marketable asset – the contact book.

The standard histories list personalities such as Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays, though their legacy is questionable. Mark Borkowski’s alternative history of Hollywood publicity brought a new cast of characters to light, though their limited attachment to the truth makes them dubious role models.

Now a television drama has introduced us to a hidden hero. Channel 4′s Endgame depicted the secret talks held in England that led to the end of apartheid in South Africa. These talks were brokered by a corporate public affairs manager, Michael Young. His actions were sanctioned by his company, but he was still taking a great risk. The outcome was not obvious at the time, and the journey was tortuous.

In this video interview, the real life Michael Young speaks about the making of the film and of his role in it. He’s the opposite of the showman-publicist; he’s a self-effacing political operator who saw that his public relations skills could be used to good effect for conflict resolution.

Dark side of the spin

Miller and Dinan, two university sociologists, are the self-appointed watchdogs of the UK public relations business, a similar role to that performed by Stauber and Rampton in the US (editors of PR Watch and authors of books including Toxic Sludge is Good for You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry).

It’s an important role, given the undoubted growth in the size and status of public relations in the last few decades. Democracy deserves nothing less, and it’s not in the interests of PR practitioners or educators to pretend that the business is too minor to merit scrutiny.

“This book is our attempt”, the authors write, “to explain how the ‘insidious’ and ‘mysterious’ power of PR works to undermine democracy.” So they recount PR’s origins in propaganda, claiming this is “an account which the industry does not want to become common knowledge”, though most PR students will be familiar with the chief protagonists – Ivy Lee, Edward Bernays, Walter Lippmann, Carl Byoir and Arthur W. Page.

They move from propaganda to lobbying, and make the claim that “corporations and their lobbyists are the real rulers of the world.” The ultimate target of the book is clear: it’s capitalism, in the form of global business interests. So when environmentalist Jonathon Porritt reappraised capitalism in his 2005 book, calling it “the only real economic game in town” and criticising his former Green Party allies for being “too anti-business”, he’s viewed as another tool for corporate propaganda. It’s implicit that the only views worthy of respect are from the old anti-business left; all others have sold out to the corporates.

Above all, the authors state that “global capitalism needs global PR,” and the heart of the book is a review of the globalised public relations consultancy business. They make some telling observations about “the striking concentration in the business”, pointing out that PR consultancies Burson-Marsteller and Hill & Knowlton are both part of the same global company, WPP. Elswhere the well-known political affliation of Lords Bell and Chadlington, who head two other holding companies, is used to imply that their businesses, and their employees, would share the same political beliefs.

This world view is notable when turning to China: “the People’s Republic of China (like the former Soviet Union and Eastern bloc countries) had very little use for PR under a command economy.” True. They had little use for multi-party elections and a free press too, yet the authors still argue that PR undermines democracy.

Equally, the creation of New Labour could be seen as a democratic triumph: of the return to government of a political party that had long been unelectable. But these authors view it merely as another insidious victory for market forces. “The change from Tory to Labour was not a change from corrupt to clean politics. It was a handover of power from one party of business to another.”

Theirs is a well-researched and well-written account, but a blinkered one. Public relations academics do not shy away from considering propaganda (think of Kevin Moloney’s 2006 edition of Rethinking Public Relations: PR Propaganda and Democracy and note the lack of punctuation in the subtitle) and in my experience students are always eager to discuss it. But there’s no denying it: the view of the world from a sociology department and from a business faculty is very different. It’s not only the past that’s another country.

All stories, he said, must have a hero and a villain. One of his heroes, ‘Miss Whitby’,  showed how celebrity endorsement can go wrong when a presumed local beauty contest winner lined up for a press story actually turned out to be an ear, nose and throat specialist with the same surname as the North Yorkshire town. 

Karl raised some interesting facts about the NHS, including how the continuous growth rate of the organisation would mean every 2nd graduate could be working for it by the year 2030. 

He also discussed how the NHS is becoming very local, with particular areas of the country now becoming focussed on individual health problems, such as smoking and obesity. 

The lecture provided something new for most attendees, especially students who benefited enormously from the general advice given throughout. This included: ‘If you get big-wigs on visits, give them something interesting to do! They’ll make hundreds of these visits so make yours stand out’ and a piece of advice every PR practitioner can use: ‘Leave 20% of your day free for unexpected work, because shit happens!’

Karl is the Director of Communications and PR at the NHS, which he joined in 2007. Prior to this he lectured at Leeds Metropolitan University on undergraduate and postgraduate courses.

Profile questions: 

What has been your most challenging PR experience?

My most challenging experience has definitely been with the NHS, to sell the idea of death. Our challenge was to communicate to patients to encourage them to express their wishes on where they would prefer to die. At the moment 60% of NHS patients die in hospital, where 65% of patients wish to die at home. 

What has been your most enjoyable PR experience?

Generally when I’m able to see a campaign right the way through, from start to finish, is very rewarding. The merger of two companies I worked on, one British and one American was particularly rewarding. When a plan comes together is always the most enjoyable experience.

Which industry has been the most rewarding to work in?

Financially, financial PR was very rewarding! On a day-to-day basis however the NHS has been the most rewarding.

What is your favourite PR book you have read?

A book called ‘The Political Brain’, by Drew Westen is very interesting. Its subtitle is ‘the role of emotion in deciding the fate of the nation’, which can leave a lot to think about.

What is the best piece of advice you’ve heard for the industry?

Know the power of stories. My lecture is based on stories and how their importance can give a campaign the narrative to emotionally involve people. 

Like all stories, there needs to be a beginning, middle and end, but in addition to this there needs to be a hero and villain, often the press is one of the two. There needs to be jeopardy and a worthwhile journey too.

On 17 May 2007 John Grogan MP (Labour, Selby) tabled an Early Day Motion (EDM) which could have the most profound effect on the public affairs industry since John Major established the Nolan Commission.

The EDM is part of a wider campaign by the Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC) – with Grogan as their front man – to pressurise non-member agencies into joining.

Grogan fired a shot across the bow of non-member firms on the APPC’s behalf. Grogan’s EDM neatly summarises the essence of the debate between the APPC and non-member firms that raged throughout 2007 and continues into 2008.

At first glance the EDM endorses the role that public affairs firms play in British democracy. But it is the latter part of the text which has seen the APPC and some non-member firms at each other’s throats.

It calls for “all public bodies and private firms” tendering public affairs contracts to insert clauses into their agreements with public affairs consultancies that insist they adhere to the APPC’s code of conduct.

By implication, they must become members of that organisation. And it is this refusal to join the APPC – often for quite legitimate commercial reasons – that has led to conflict within the industry.

APPC and disclosure

The APPC is a self-regulatory body for the public affairs industry. It was set up in 1994 by five public affairs agencies against the backdrop of the cash-for-questions scandal.

It has its own code of conduct, the central tenet of which is clause 18. This requires consultancies to disclose the names of all their clients in the APPC’s published register. This client disclosure clause has formed the biggest obstacle to joining for some non-members.

Confidentiality

So, why is the clause so contentious and why has it prevented some of Britain’s most long-established and successful public affairs firms from joining the APPC?

Client disclosure could breach confidentiality agreements between public affairs firms and their clients. Lord Bell, whose firm Bell Pottinger Pubic Affairs refuses to join the APPC, said that his agencies were unable to sign up to APPC or Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) codes due to “confidentiality clauses in some of our client contracts with government and public bodies – normally because of national or personal security issues” (PRWeek, 24 August 2007).

Bell’s reference to security issues is not as far-fetched as it at first seems. He advises Boris Berezovsky, the exiled Russian business tycoon, who has survived several attempts on his life.

The Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) set up an inquiry into lobbying, after Grogan and the APPC highlighted the issue. The inquiry has already held several evidence sessions and continues this year.

The Committee called three MPs at its first evidence session: John Grogan, Peter Luff and Stephen Pound. Defending the position of non-members, Luff used a persuasive example from his own days as a lobbyist.

He described a foreign insurance company that wanted him to promote the idea in Parliament that it would be acceptable for it to take over a British firm. Luff advised the company that a campaign would not be necessary and the firm went ahead with the acquisition without public affairs support.

If he had been required to declare the insurance firm as a client it would have been a breach of Stock Exchange rules around mergers and acquisitions.

Confidentiality is clearly a central ingredient in building trusting business relationships. Irreparable damage would be caused to some client-consultant relationships if the law required public affairs firms to disclose the names of their clients.

Closed shop

By attempting to force non-members to join, there is a risk that the APPC will create a ‘closed shop’ in the industry. That is to say, access to Parliament could become restricted if organisations tendering public affairs contracts were required to employ only APPC members.

The implications for democracy of an outside body having such a high degree of control over access to Parliament are of serious concern. Parliament should control access to Parliament.

Law firm DLA Piper, which has a lobbying arm, made a formal complaint to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) that the APPC was in breach of the 1988 Competition Act by trying to force public sector bodies to work exclusively with its members. The Law Society backed this complaint.

The OFT closed the case in November 2007 after the APPC backed down from its position requiring that those contracting public affairs services should only deal with its members.

A set of ‘guiding principles’ was then formulated by the APPC, in association with the CIPR and the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA), which fell short of requiring agencies to disclose their client lists.

Storm in a teacup

“In making representations to the institutions of government, political consultants must be open in disclosing the identity of their clients and must not misrepresent their interests,” states clause 4 of the APPC’s code of conduct.

This clause effectively addresses the issue of openness and transparency in the industry, requiring lobbyists to be open about who they’re representing when presenting a client’s case to decision-makers.

Clause 4 makes the disclosure clause (clause 18) redundant. Ironically, not clause 4 but clause 18 is the source of argument between the APPC and some non-member firms.

Clause 4 deals perfectly well with the issue of transparency – something that the APPC and John Grogan have overlooked.

If the APPC were to remove the client disclosure clause, they would remove a barrier preventing some firms from joining.

Hypocrisy

Non-APPC members are entitled to a different interpretation of transparency. An unfortunate consequence of the debate is the growing misconception that APPC members automatically adhere to their own standards. They do not.

The case of Edelman and Burson-Marsteller, who were called to appear before the APPC’s management committee in October last year, is evidence of this.

The agencies were accused of not registering clients with the APPC. The Sunday Times and The Observer rumbled the agencies on the eve of the Labour Party conference. Both firms were let off the hook.

Burson-Marsteller successfully argued that they hadn’t undertaken public affairs work for the client in question. Edelman admitted its error and apologised. Ironically, Edelman’s European Vice-President Michael Burrell is a former APPC chair.

Looking ahead

As the industry awaits the PASC’s report, it must try to find a way forward without doing any further damage to itself.

The APPC must surely regret the aggressive stance it has taken toward non-members. The resulting PASC enquiry is likely to mean tougher regulation for the industry. Select committees rarely support the status quo.

Although the APPC is seriously misguided in sticking to the disclosure clause as a condition of membership, it is unlikely that it set out to create a ‘closed shop’ or anti-competitive situation.

However, this would be the result if APPC membership were made a condition for those bidding for public affairs contracts.

The exclusion of non-APPC agencies would give a commercial advantage to members. But this would be an unintentional side effect rather than a purposeful move by the APPC to increase its members’ market share.

The squabbles over APPC membership reflect an industry coming of age, trying to find a unified voice. CIPR past president Lionel Zetter described the current system of self-regulation as “broadly effective” – it is.

Nevertheless, the industry must act fast to come to some kind of collective agreement. The ‘guiding principles’ are a step in the right direction. Now the industry must get its house in order before the other House does the job for it.

EDM 1509 – Public Affairs Firms and Transparency – 15.05.2007

Grogan, John

That this House believes that public affairs firms have a key role to play in articulating the point of view of business, charities, trade unions and public bodies to Government and Parliament; believes that political lobbying must always be open and transparent; welcomes in this regard the codes of the Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC) and Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA), which insist that public affairs firms publish the names of all clients and do not make payments to hon. Members and Peers; notes that the APPC register is easily accessible on that Association’s website and calls on the PRCA to adopt a similar practice; applauds the decision of Thames Gateway London Partnership to insist that agencies bidding for their public affairs contract must adhere to the ethical codes of the APPC; and calls on all public bodies and private firms to insert a similar clause in all lobbying contracts.

Early Day Motions

Early day motions (EDMs) are formal motions submitted for debate in the House of Commons. However, very few EDMs are actually debated. Instead, they are used for reasons such as publicising the views of individual MPs, drawing attention to specific events or campaigns, and demonstrating the extent of parliamentary support for a particular cause or point of view.

Photo credit: Joe Swan

When Jeremy Paxman asked Michael Howard the same question twelve times in succession in 1997 he was by his own admission ‘on to something’. Despite the fact that the next feature had collapsed and Paxman later claimed he ‘couldn’t think of anything else to ask’, the blueprint for a particular form of political journalism was defined in that moment. The Home Secretary with his three key messages loaded and ready to fire was destroyed by Paxman’s tactics. Head of BBC Newsroom, and former Newsnight Editor, Peter Horrocks, nominated the Paxman / Howard interview as “one of the toughest political interviews ever conducted,” claiming it “is still seen as riveting political theatre.”

Yet, in an era when voting figures in Britain are the lowest they have been for a century (that was before women got the vote!), and the public have a sceptical and cynical view of politicians, is it appropriate that political journalism should be defined as a form of theatre?

Perhaps it is not a matter of being appropriate so much as it is about competition. As consumer choice in media outlets increases, channels have to work harder to retain their audience stake. The media academic David Buckingham believes that this has led to the tabloidisation of news programmes, where tabloid methodologies of spectacle and celebrity culture are adopted to secure audience figures. This is an understandable response by the media. And whilst it is questionable how much Paxman’s political standoffs contribute to the political debate, it is certain that he is one of the few political journalists with celebrity status.

Such is his fame that he was invited to address the Edinburgh Television Festival – the most prestigious industry event in the annual calendar – in August last year. Love or loathe the man, Paxman is respected by his peers and has become synonymous with Newsnight’s success.

‘Entertainment’ is not an oft-cited justification for the aggressive political interviewing style represented by Paxman and John Humphrys. Perhaps the gladiator and lion comparisons make people uncomfortable. It is more fashionable to define this interview style as a journalistic reaction to spin; as a weapon enforced by interviewers to break through the key message barrier. However, it is rare for a well-trained politician to drift from the key messages prepared and rehearsed by their PR team. Surely, it would be political suicide to do so?! The equivalent of throwing off your armour, chucking down your spear and screaming “come eat me”. Or would it?

Take for example the interview between Jon Sopel and the Chancellor Alistair Darling in October 2007 in the wake of Gordon Brown calling off the expected election. Sopel, aspiring to a Paxman-esque interrogation style, repeatedly prodded the Chancellor as to whether the week had been damaging for Gordon Brown. The Chancellor’s line was that in six months time people would recall the policy issues addressed by the Government during that time and not the ghost election. Unsatisfied, Sopel repeated the question and Darling recalled his rehearsed answer. And a frustrating tennis game unfolded; both men batting-off the other’s comments in pursuit of their own agenda, until Sopel said: “I’m trying to ask you some very direct questions and I’m struggling to get a direct answer;” to which Mr Darling interjected: “I disagree with the premise…” Unfortunately, it took a few more minutes of play before the topic moved on, but this was the first and only point in the interview that the interviewer and interviewee acknowledged each other’s position.

In pragmatic linguistics theory a political media interview is an unusual form of argument. It can be called an argument rather than a discussion because the media in their role as the fourth estate have a responsibility to hold politicians to account. In an argument each participant operates according to a set of rules. It is understood for example, that the interviewer asks questions and the interviewee answers them. In a conventional argument both participants try to validate their position and establish their stance as the most dominant. What makes a media interview more complex is the audience. This third party introduces a performance element that is missing from a private argument, it also shifts the focus of the interviewer and interviewee from each other towards the audience they are trying to impress.

This can lead to an exchange such as that between Sopel and Darling, in which neither party engages with the other and attempts to impress the audience directly as opposed through a joint communicative effort. What this leaves the audience with is a gap. A gap between what is being asked and what is being answered. In linguistic theory this gap is called an enthymeme and it is believed that when there is a gap in communication between the interviewer and interviewee the audience inserts their own meaning. In the case of Sopel and Darling, or Paxman and Howard, the audience is left with a feeling of confusion. The meaning that fills the gap is an impression of an overpowering journalist and a shady politician. This does neither profession any favours and adds nothing to the political debate in question.

Whilst the Paxman school of journalism continues to exist with its interjections, machine-gun questioning and celebrity interviewers, political advisers need to counsel on more than key message scripting. Every time the viewer experiences a gap in communication between the interviewer and interviewee they insert their own meaning. The risk here is that the audience’s opinion is in conflict with one or both of the participant’s agendas, once the audience loses interest the purpose of the interview is over. This is particularly damaging in a generation where more and more citizens are becoming disengaged with politics. The journalist / key message showdown is turning people off politics. What is missing in this forum is content.

Politicians need to be trained to engage with questions. If Alistair Darling had expressed his discomfort with the premise of Jon Sopel’s question in the opening of the interview it may have concluded that line of questioning. It certainly would have produced a more engaged and engaging interview with less scope for the audience to speculate on both men’s agendas. The evasion of a question is what irritates journalists and audiences.

In a 2005 Guardian interview Paxman refuted claims that he was responsible for the general public’s cynicism towards politics by stating: “It seems to me that the way to remove peoples’ cynicism is when asked a straight question, to give a straight answer.” The secret to a successful political interview is to deliver your key messages in a way that engages with the question. If the prepared key messages are unsuitable for a particular question then the interviewee should not attempt to answer the question with those messages. There must be room for creativity and there shouldn’t be such a fear of venturing off the script.

In a generation where citizens are increasingly disengaged with politics it is essential that political interviews shift their focus from a Punch and Judy show to a discourse that engages with and doesn’t automatically attack political content. It is difficult to say what came first: key messages or aggressive interviewers. Both seem to be in part a reaction to the other and both have developed independent performance styles in an attempt to master the stage they share. I can’t help but feel there is something of a macro-journalism / PR showdown being played out on the Newsnight and Today Programme stage.

What is certain is that citizens are more disengaged with politics than they have been for a hundred years. Without citizen participation there can be no valid democracy. The tabloidisation of political interviews may win viewers but it is not engaging their political consciences. This could be the result of the increasing gap in communication between interviewer and interviewee in which the audience inserts their own meaning, sustaining their scepticism in the political process. Key messages should be a communication aid; something which enables politicians to simplify complex issues into points of prioritisation. They should not be a shield to bat-off awkward journalists. It’s important that a degree of fluidity is introduced in political interviews to foster a dialogue that is useful to the audience and the political process.

References:

Buckingham, D. 2000 The Making of Citizens. Young People, News and Politics London and New York: Routledge

The Guardian (2005) Paxman answers the questions [Online] Monday 31 January, 2005 Available at: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,12123,1402324,00.html Accessed 25.01.2008

The Politics Show, 7 October 2007, interview transcript: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/7020890.stm

With trust in politicians at an all-time low – and their reputation and future career entirely dependent on public scrutiny and support – what better way is there for them to communicate with publics than to write a blog?

One thing is certain, while most politicians are still wary of engaging in this form of transparent two-way communication, their voters are not. They are making their views known virally and these views are instantly accessible on the web, thanks to Google and other search engines. The blogosphere is a graveyard that is never empty and holds a bottomless pit of revelations which can continue to haunt. It hosts a conversation that cannot be ignored.

The appeal of political blogs is that they are free of rhetoric, propaganda and party political spin, while providing an opportunity for genuine opinions and a lively and interactive debate. Although some are personal ramblings which fail to captivate readers, a few of them are very high profile and have been influential in bringing about change.

Former Conservative parliamentary candidate and author Iain Dale is regarded as one of the UK’s top political bloggers and is a popular political pundit; his sharp, witty and informative blog has also proved to be a valuable asset and self-promotion tool and has broken major news stories ahead of the mainstream media. The appointment of Andy Coulson as the Conservative Party Director of Communications is just one example of a story broken by Iain Dale.

Dale publishes an annual guide of top political bloggers in the UK. His latest “Guide to Political Blogging in the UK 2007-8” is a directory of 1,200 political blogs, including the best 500 nominated by readers. He also generously promotes lesser known bloggers on his regular “Daley Dozen” post and links to his favourite political sites.

Dale shares the blogging limelight with a satirical site written pseudonymously by right-wing libertarian Paul Staines called the “Guido Fawkes’ blog of parliamentary plots, rumours & conspiracy”. His revelations must make many politicians squirm uncomfortably. Many of his posts are based on the private lives of politicians – John Prescott has been one favourite – and it makes irresistible reading.

Both Dale and Staines provide compulsive reading for political anoraks who want to keep abreast of the latest political news. Both men are aware that political journalists will be avidly trawling their sites regularly throughout the day for leads they can follow up.

Dale has impressively described his readership as reaching 404,000 in 2007, double the circulation of the The Independent! Staines’s viewing figures are similarly impressive as both men rival each other for the top readership spot. This demonstrates their massive appeal.

Having seen the impact of political blogging, mainstream political journalists are becoming bloggers too, having to establish their popularity and credibility in the blogosphere like any other blogger. The Spectator’s Coffeehouse blog and the BBC’s political editor Nick Robinson’s blog are among my regular reads, and there are many more excellent sites too, if only time permitted! Be warned, trawling blogs can become addictive!

As I write this, Staines and Dizzy, a fellow right-wing blogger, are questioning whether donations for Gordon Brown’s leadership campaign were legally declared. Dale links to this story and promotes it further. This increases pressure on government to be transparent and to respond, knowing that the national media will report on it too.

It demonstrates how right-wing bloggers can very publicly criticise government in a way which left-wing bloggers have not managed to equal against Conservatives. As a result, Conservative activists have shown that they are far from being anything like their former “blue-rinse” image. They are sharp, internet savvy campaigners out to score political points in a bid to knock Labour off its perch. For them, blogging is the perfect domain. It is much easier to criticise a government when in opposition, to poke fun at any failings, real or perceived. The real test for UK Tory bloggers will be whether they can survive if the Conservatives win the next election. The boot will be on the other foot, and it is obviously not known how they will they respond and maintain their appeal.

Dale’s blogging guide of top 500 political blogs showed that 154 were on the right and 153 on the left, so they are equal in numbers. But when it came down to their impact, 14 of the top 20 blogs were on the right, and only two were from the left. Today, there isn’t one single left-wing blogger who has a strong following. Labour bloggers have no iconic and influential Iain Dale figure to support them the same way. Recess Monkey, written by Alex Hilton, is ranked the top Labour blogsite in Dale’s guide, even though it caused a spectacular media frenzy earlier this year by incorrectly stating that Margaret Thatcher had died. He is followed on the list by MP Tom Watson, one of the country’s first blogging politicians who has maintained his regular and loyal readers.

UK bloggers are beginning to make their mark and there are signs that the government is taking the blogosphere seriously. Last year, it was forced to climb down from its policy on the recruitment of junior doctors when a medical blog called Dr Crippen, written by a British NHS doctor, exposed critical security flaws in the system, and then mobilised doctors to take to the streets to protest the perceived fairness of the new system.

The COI, the UK government’s communications agency, announced recently that it was working on a way to monitor what people said about policy on blogs and internet forums for the media briefings it sends to ministers because it didn’t want to be caught unawares by debates spread on the web.

In fact, it is doing more than that, having already responded to a blog post, something which would have been unthinkable a year ago. The Ministry of Defence posted a 600-word response on the EU-Referendum blog after it again challenged the MoD’s equipment and procurement policy. It was posted by Lord Drayson, Minister for Defence Equipment and Support.

Ministerial blogs have been pioneered by Foreign Secretary David Miliband who is now writing his third ministerial blog, having started his first as Minister of State for Communities and Local Government, before becoming Environment Secretary. Topics he has written about recently include the role of diplomats, EU regulations and street children in Tanzania. It was hoped that other ministers would be inspired to follow his lead, but that does not appear to have been the case. Mr Miliband hopes it will bridge the gap between government and publics, providing an opportunity for the ordinary man in the street to have his say on political issues, though he has been criticised for failing to respond to comments, and using it as another political website.

In spite of Mr Miliband’s enthusiasm, too few politicians have embraced this interactive technology, even though it’s free, perhaps through fear of saying the wrong thing, having to respond to abusive comments left by ranters, or simply feeling that they cannot find time to regularly write an online site. Only around 6% of MPs currently write a blog.

Conservative MP Nadine Dorries writes a very witty blog which gives an excellent behind the scene account of parliamentary life and extracts from it are often featured in the national media – as well as raising a few eyebrows among her party whips. Her blog has been described by The Sunday Telegraph as “cult reading for MPs from all political parties”. But she has been forced to close the comment facility on her site because of “vile” comments she was receiving on a controversial matter. This means there is no two-way communication anymore. However, it has not deterred her from continuing to write her frank “shoot from the hip” posts, and her blog has certainly raised her profile.

Another blogging enthusiast MP is Lib Dem Lynne Featherstone, who urges others to start too. She believes this form of two-way communication is the perfect way to keep constituents informed – and dispel the image that politicians do little all day other than eat and drink and are interested only in their own egos. She believes it has been a very effective tool in discussing local issues and for campaigning, and believes she has personally benefited from helpful and informative comments posted by readers.

John Redwood, another Tory MP, was voted as having the best parliamentarian blog in the Dale guide, and his site demonstrates how it can be used successfully for campaigning and discussing topical issues; he also responds to comments.

I believe more politicians will turn to blogging in the run up to the next general election. During Labour’s deputy leadership contest last year, five out of six candidates had a campaign blog, though they are now mostly defunct. More activists will use blogging as a campaigning tool, along with video posts and YouTube made popular by WebCameron, videos posted by Conservative leader David Cameron. They are already actively updating their profiles and “friends” on Facebook and other social networking sites.

But the fact is, the conversation is going on now, and they should be listening and responding. I wonder if Gordon Brown could be truly innovative and be the first Prime Minister to start writing a blog….

Recommended reading and references:

Iain Dale’s Guide to Political Blogging in the UK 2007-08, published by Harriman House. http://www.politicos.co.uk/books/246220/Iain-Dale/Iain-Dale%20s-Guide-To-Political-Blogging-In-The-UK/17773a3fa52672136e7f727bd4da273b

Iain Dale: http://www.iaindale.blogspot.com/

Guido Fawkes: http://www.order-order.com/

Conservative Home: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/

Labourhome: http://www.labourhome.org/

Lib Dem Blogs: http://www.libdemblogs.co.uk/

David Miliband: http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/blogs/david_miliband/

Political Betting: http://www.politicalbetting.com/

EU Referendum: http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/

Dr Crippen: http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/

Recess Monkey: http://www.recessmonkey.com/

Dizzy: http://dizzythinks.net/

David Cameron: http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=webcameron.index.page

Nadine Dorries: http://www.dorries.org.uk/Blog.aspx

John Redwood: http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/

Tom Watson: http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/

Lynn Featherstone: http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/blog.htm

Spectator Coffee House blog: http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/

Nick Robinson: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/

Photo credit: Ellee Seymour

In the wake of last year’s council by-elections, Lib Dem candidate Barry Smith was ‘abused, threatened and spat at’ following accusations of paedophilia. These horrific claims were made by none other than his political opponent for the marginal seat of Leyton in Greater London, Labour’s Miranda Grell.

Grell has since stepped down from the Labour Party after being banished from the seat she won with a mere 28 votes having lost the appeal against her conviction for breaching the Representation of the People Act 1983. Mr Smith has a 39 year old Malaysian partner, yet Ms Grell has been found guilty of telling constituents that Mr Smith had a 14 year old Thai boyfriend while she was out canvassing their vote.

Mr Smith had to move away from the area where he had been a councillor for many years as a result of the damage done by Ms Grell’s comments, despite the fact that she has now been held accountable for her actions.

But what happens when you can’t find out who to make accountable? When there’s no one to retract their statement, to take to court for libel damage, to even respond or back up their comments? Welcome to the new political arena.

The traditional media has an author, a journalist or a presenter commentating on events; in short a tangible being to attach the words we see and hear to, but the new media is a completely different ball game. Today any Dom, Nick and Gary can log on and become whoever they want. While this is a valuable outlet for people who lack confidence in the real world and need a mask to hide behind, there is a very sinister side to it all as well. In the case of Grell and Smith there was someone to take to task for their actions, but now when the closest you can get to finding out who is slating you is an IP address, where do you go from there?

With the increasingly partisan nature of the traditional media, people are being forced to go underground to hear political viewpoints that may correspond with their own. Already political blogs have become a huge arena for discussion between members of the public on issues that are important to them. However with the rise of citizen journalism, we have inadvertently lost the cultural filters that safeguard the general public from unsubstantiated mudslinging that really isn’t worthy of publicity.

One huge assumption here is that the people writing the blogs really are ‘Joe Bloggs’, but due to the anonymity of the internet we just don’t know. It could be anyone from your next door neighbour to Alastair Campbell.

Already in the forthcoming presidential elections in the USA we are seeing new lows for dirty politics. Whispers about Hillary Clinton’s sexuality started on some underground blog sites and since then have been picked up by the mainstream media. While the mainstream media is not pointing any fingers or making any accusations because the claims are outlandish and would be attributable to a specific journalist, the online forums are going to town on what they are saying, just because they can. Clinton has fallen foul of a viral smear campaign where details of her ‘sexuality’ have been sent to inboxes all over America.

Things don’t seem much better for her main opponent, Barack Obama, who has been at the centre of accusations of Islamic fundamentalism. The original source of these claims was ‘Insight magazine’, a Washington DC based publication, but it soon went national when it was picked up by the Fox News Network, owned by Rupert Murdoch. While there were some truth to the claims made by ‘Insight magazine’, the snowball effect of what was being said was amplified massively by the online media, allowing people to turn allegations into ‘truths’ about Obama (or Osama as he was subsequently dubbed). Irresponsibly broadcasting speculation with no real background research is a disappointing but increasingly frequent move by the American media.

Sadly we are far from immune to this sort of thing in the UK. Although it isn’t as vicious as we have seen in the States, good old Blighty is beginning to fall foul of the Americanisation of politics. At a national level the youth are at least taking an interest in party politics again, even if it is only via the Facebook sites they join, where the personality of the party leaders is put under close scrutiny instead of the party and its policies. With our news media outlets on the whole upholding a decent standard of quality and impartial reporting, the media that young voters are more inclined to interact with feature popular groups to join such as “Stop David Cameron…his lies make the baby Jesus cry.” And “Gordon Brown does a funny mouth wobble every time he finishes a sentence!” This can hardly be described as a melting pot of reasoned debate.

While in these cases the creators do appear to be members of the public, there is no guarantee of this; it’s not exactly a challenge to create an online profile these days. The majority of these groups seem to be poking fun at the political mainstream, but there is the potential for so much more. Already at the local level we have seen Facebook be used for much more sinister ends. The group “Norman Lamb (North Norfolk Lib Dem MP) Accountablilty Society” has been used not just to criticise the MP, but to insinuate criminal activity during the 2005 General Elections. He is accused of smearing his Conservative opponent Iain Dale by having his campaign team phone round Conservative voters to ‘inform’ them of his sexuality.

In response to this, fingers have been pointing left, right and centre at who the possible author could be and one of the fingers ended up directed at Iain Dale, which has in turn been greeted by another metaphorical finger. Mr Dale, a presenter on internet TV station 18 Doughty St, has vehemently denied any input into the comments made about Norman Lamb. Even in the face of misplaced accusations of mudslinging due to the lack of an author, he still maintains a balanced view on the use of the internet for political debate. “Anonymity is both a boon and curse on the internet. It allows people to participate in debates who otherwise couldn’t, but it also allows anonymous trolls, bullies and smearers to peddle their filth.”

On one occasion, the real author of a smear campaign was very publicly unmasked. On the launch day of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, a parody appeared on YouTube entitled ‘Al Gore’s Army of Penguins’. In this clip, we see a penguin Al Gore preaching about global warming to a group of bored penguins, who eventually fall asleep only to be woken up and hypnotised by Gore on the dangers of climate change. This apparently amateur footage managed to appear above An Inconvenient Truth when Gore’s name was searched for using Google. Perplexed by this, the Wall St Journal decided to look into its authorship. The amateurs behind this were in fact found to be using a computer registered to the DCI group, a PR and lobbying firm ‘led exclusively by Republican Party members’. Furthermore, some of the DCI Group’s high profile clients include General Motors and Exxon Mobil. While the IP address has been traced back, no one has been willing to comment on this matter and as the new ‘dog ate my homework’ excuse is fast becoming ‘it must have been a rogue employee’.

Despite continued efforts to professionalise the PR industry by the likes of the CIPR and PRSA, it is really down to the individuals to keep a check on their ethics, but when there is no one to monitor and safeguard standards, can we really rely on politics and big business to use self discipline? Sadly while the sort of behaviour continues unchecked by regulation or conscience, it’s us the voters who lose out on balanced, fair and clean elections and until that day, the blogs of war are on the rampage.

References

Miranda Grell vs Barry Smith

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7006231.stm ‘Councillor slurred election rival’

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6992435.stm ‘Councillor accused over ‘slurs”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6993949.stm ‘Anti-gay accused ‘is plot victim’ ‘

http://www.mirandagrell.com/

Hillary Clinton vs Barack Obama

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2917646.ece
‘Snarls, smears and innuendo for Hillary Clinton as attack dogs get ready for the fray’

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Obama_2.htm ‘Hillary’s team has questions about Obama’s Muslim background’

David Cameron vs Gordon Brown

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2212501396 ‘Stop David Cameron… his lies make baby Jesus cry’

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5262088251 ‘Gordon Brown does a funny mouth wobble every time he finishes a sentence!’

Norman Lamb vs Iain Dale

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2308748068 ‘Norman Lamb (North Norfolk Lib Dem MP) Accountablilty Society’

The quote from Iain Dale is one that he sent me to use in an email, which I can forward if needed.

Al Gore vs. DCI Group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore%27s_Penguin_Army_video

Image credit: www.freeimages.co.uk

If you wander into the National Assembly building in Cardiff Bay, you can buy a cup of tea and watch the proceedings taking place in the chamber below. The Richard Rogers-designed home for Welsh politics speaks of openness and connection, with the panorama of Cardiff Bay’s oddly shaped skyline visible through the building’s massive glass walls. The people on the outside are very much linked to the Assembly Members within, which fits in very nicely with the new image that Wales is trying to shape for itself as friendly, relaxed, and open. Nothing like stuffy old England.

It’s a huge success, both in terms of providing an iconic focal point for politics in Wales, but also by creating an open public area where politicians, school trips and curious tourists share the same space. For a silent building, it communicates its messages clearly and directly.

Yet despite this setting, those wanting to talk Welsh politics seem to find it hard to know where or how to begin. Simple questions such as “what is the National Assembly”, “what does it do and how does it work?” can produce uncertain and complex answers even from those in the centre of the Welsh political sphere.

But the devolutionary clock is ticking and the National Assembly needs to find its voice quickly. Wales faces a referendum within the next four years, where the public will be asked to decide whether it should be given greater law-making powers. If this referendum is to produce the ‘yes’ vote that many are craving, it is essential that The National Assembly for Wales makes its case in clear and powerful terms, letting the public know what it has done already, and has the potential to do in the future.

For the moment there’s no shortage of muttering, posturing and wrangling over the finer points of the latest Government of Wales Act. But if you tried to pin someone down to tell you what exactly is going on in Welsh politics, you’d be hard pushed to get a straightforward answer. Despite the ambition and enthusiasm driving Welsh politics forward, it’s a complicated, convoluted and at times irritatingly pedantic affair. It certainly doesn’t lend itself to easy explanation.

Wales currently finds itself in a devolutionary half-way house. It hasn’t got the status of Scotland’s Parliament, but it’s definitely something more than the ‘glorified county council’ as dubbed by its detractors.In areas such as education and health, its remits are wide ranging. However it’s a system in transition meaning that when it comes to defining what the National Assembly is and what it does, there are few established definites to work with.

Nevertheless, the National Assembly now has a very positive effect on those living in Wales, or hoping to do business there. The message should be ‘ignore it at your peril’, yet as Wales is granted ever more areas of independent control, the opportunities for discussing Welsh political events have not increased at the same rate. Even though the figures suggest that support for greater Welsh independence is growing throughout the country, it is all too easy for the Welsh to remain ignorant of what is going on down in Cardiff Bay. The complexity of the subject matter only goes so far in explaining this media deficit. Another likely explanation may come from the fact that over 80% of news and print media in Wales comes from London, and with even the BBC facing accusations of an English bias, getting a place for a story with a specifically Welsh angle is hard work.

Things were brought to a head recently, when Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price threatened not to pay his TV licence fee, as his interests as a Welsh citizen were not being properly represented. He’s not alone in feeling short-changed, as many feel that those in charge of publishing newspapers and reporting the news have been slow to recognise the changing political face of the UK.

However, on the issues of health and education, one story on the Six o’clock News will not be enough to cover the varying details affecting London, Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff. An inquiry is currently underway within the BBC to uncover the extent of this England bias, and it is coming under increasing pressure to make news programmes more inclusive of other parts of the UK outside the South East.

Betsan Powys, Chief Political Correspondent for BBC Wales, believes that with a little creative thinking there’s no reason why national news couldn’t be more inclusive of the UK’s constituent parts. Using the example of private finance initiatives, she feels that a devolution angle can be fed into other news stories. “PFIs haven’t been used to the same extent in Wales as they have in England,” she explains “but that doesn’t mean that stories on them have to exclude Welsh interests. There’s no reason why you couldn’t do a report from a hospital in Cardiff or Aberyswyth showing how the health service here is operating without PFI. Here you kill two birds with one stone, you highlight the differences between the devolved nations of the UK – you actually remind people that the political map is shifting – and you get a story from outside London.”

National print and broadcasters have perhaps a greater responsibility to explain the processes of devolution than they realise, as it’s not as if Wales can compete with its own selection of home grown national media. The only Welsh national newspaper, The Western Mail, has a circulation below 40,000, and while the paper seems generally in favour of further devolved power, any political stories will have to fight for space with the antics of Wales’s rugby players.

So the search is on for different routes of communication. External communications at the National Assembly has capitalised on the physical space of the Assembly buildings, and on a daily basis welcomes school groups in the same space as visiting foreign dignitaries. On a face to face level it does well in engaging with its publics, but getting messages out to those who can’t get down to Cardiff Bay still poses a problem.

CIPR member Anna Miller, who works with the Assembly’s media relations team believes that the way to engage people with Welsh politics is to explain what the Assembly does for them on a local level, making each story relevant, from Bangor in the North, to Swansea in the South. “We mustn’t underestimate the scale of what has to be achieved here,” she says, “but despite the challenge, there is real potential to engage with people. The things that the Assembly deals with in areas such as health, education or the Welsh language affect people’s everyday life.”

She believes that while links to the national press and media are important they are so limited it is far better to put effort into getting stories reported on a more regional level, as the combined readership of local papers gives these stories a good reach, bypassing the national press and still making an impact.

And here there is evidence to suggest that the way the National Assembly functions lends itself to reporting at a local level. As Miller explains, “some of the most well covered stories of the past year have come from the Assembly’s Petitions Committee, where anyone who can get 10 signatures together has the potential to present their petition for consideration. Whether the petition has been about the closure of a local swimming pool, or revision to the Assembly’s current policies on child protection, stories generated here have real local interest and demonstrate the accessibility which is one of the Assembly’s greatest strengths.”

Engagement and accessibility will be top of the agenda in the coming months as an ‘All Wales Convention’ tours through the country, gauging public opinion on greater independence and hoping to spark a wider national debate. As a new version of democracy opens up in Wales, the importance of this debate and the role it will play in explaining what devolution means cannot be underestimated. Yes, this is a period of transition, and as such the full state of play has yet to be defined and as you would expect, the process of political devolution is an unwieldy beast to explain. However, there is a danger that if the people of Wales are not engaged at this point of the process, then their interest and patience may be lost by the time a vote comes for greater powers. In the Assembly Chamber there’s ambition and optimism aplenty, but it may come to nothing unless it is communicated to the world outside its glass walls.

Photo credit: Welsh Assembly

One day in August last year, I was sitting in an office at a public affairs consultancy in Brussels. It was the second day of my summer placement and I had just been asked to look up the specifics of some sort of voting procedure in the Council of Ministers.

The problem was: up until that very moment, I hadn’t even heard of the Council of Ministers; in fact, I knew very little about any of the EU institutions. At this point it dawned on me that I’d had no idea what I had let myself in for; I felt a bit out of my depth.

According to PR textbooks, public affairs is a public relations specialism. Kevin Moloney defines public affairs as ‘the public relations specialism that seeks to influence public policy making’. Yet somehow it never occurred to me that, as the term ‘PR specialism’ already implies, in addition to standard PR skills, specialist knowledge in a particular area is required. It was only on this second day of my placement that I realised that the knowledge needed for this particular specialism concerned, evidently, government and politics.

So how similar is public affairs to PR? Since returning to university I’ve realised that many PR students have no idea what public affairs is – maybe public affairs is so different from PR that it is a stretch even to call it a public relations discipline.

At the public affairs consultancy, I was surrounded by men. As any PR student will tell you, the majority of students on PR courses are female, and on previous PR placements I had always been working alongside women. No one at the consultancy had a degree in PR or communication; their degrees were all politics-related. To me it certainly seemed like I had left the world of PR – and entered the world of politics.

Public affairs was daunting at first. But my colleagues patiently helped me navigate my way through the institutional maze that is the European Union, and it soon all became easier. From day one, I loved every minute of my public affairs placement, and I don’t think I will ever go back to PR. So what is the allure of public affairs?

To be honest, I used to think politics was rather dull. But once you start to realise what goes on behind the scenes, policy making becomes quite fascinating. When you begin to understand how politics work, you realise that there is so much more to it than what you see on the news on TV.

At the public affairs consultancy, I spent a lot of time doing web research on all sorts of topics and condensing all this research into political monitoring, reports and briefs. Now this might not sound very interesting to many PR students, and the reality is, if you work in public affairs you probably won’t be organising a fairy tale themed store launch party any time soon.

Without a doubt, public affairs is rather more serious than PR. Many PR students are highly creative and enjoy being involved in imaginative campaigns – and public affairs might not be for them. I once told someone I was studying PR, and the reply was “so you’re going to be working as someone’s PA?” I’m sure many PR students could tell similar stories. However, I felt that – as is possibly the case with many PR specialisms – in public affairs you suddenly get taken a lot more seriously.

For me, it all comes down to this: PR is about coming up with creative, original ways to grab your target public’s attention amid the clamour of thousands of media outlets. Public affairs is about getting the attention of policy makers, so you need to behave accordingly and put forward your arguments in convincing and concise ways. In PR you might well be trying to get people to buy your brand of cereal instead of your competitor’s. In public affairs, you are trying to influence public policy.

I’m not saying it’s not exciting to get your company’s name into a national broadsheet. However, I also know what it’s like to have to write press releases trying to make a new range of shower fixtures sound interesting. Laws made in Brussels, on the other hand, have the potential to impact on the lives of hundreds of millions of people across the 27 EU member states.

Public affairs certainly involves communication and makes use of public relations techniques, but it is undeniably a specialism. Not every PR student or practitioner would feel comfortable in public affairs. Depending on where your personal strengths lie, you may well enjoy working in public affairs, but don’t expect the transition to be smooth and easy.

I won’t compare what we do to the oldest profession, but this has certainly been my experience during nearly fifty years in, as I prefer to call it, our communications ‘craft’.

Clearly deciding what you should be doing and then doing it well are critical factors. But convincing clients actually to carry out what you see as a proper programme, or to react swiftly to any crisis, is even more important.

It is often far harder than logic alone should ensure, calling for a combination of skills – clarity of expression in both writing and speech (the use image-forming words); determination; character; even a touch of charm. Churchillian stuff, indeed, but don’t be too concerned if you are yourself not strong in every area. A famous American PR trailblazer, Ed Bernays, covers this aspect commandingly in his book ‘Public Relations’ (1952).

The chapter called ‘The Ideal Public Relations Man’ (don’t fret, ladies, he meant you too) spells out the priorities with fluent skill. He is especially strong on the need for discretion, objectivity and logic.

First, however, in this context we need to define the word ‘client’. We are not simply talking about consultancies: the larger and faster-growing ranks of in-house practitioners are also in our frame, some commanding today’s top-level salaries to prove the point.

If one works for example, within a local authority, your clients are technically the general public. But in effect senior councillors and chief officers, earning more than cabinet ministers, are the people who really cut the mustard. How to win their support is also what we are discussing here.

Good sense dictates that one builds the strongest relationship if there is common ground on aims and how to achieve them. Aristotle said “you cannot agree with someone who denies the first principle.” So convincing your client of the value of public relations to them must be the start.

Definitions of public relations abound, many varying only in their pomposity. My own is simplistic: PR equals Performance Recognition. Be good first and only then tell people about it.

This takes one to the heart of any organisation with which, of course, your top clients will be more familiar than yourself. But they might also be blind to certain defects that could well emerge in any communications exercise.

The well tried SWOT analysis (Strengths; Weaknesses; Opportunities;Threats) is as good a start as any for an initial and continuing public relations programme.

Step one: research

Consult carefully on this with other specialists. Research deeply. Study the overall scene. As any warrior will tell you: ‘Time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted’.

Time is also well spent in the quest for suitable allies. Here the client is certain to be helpful but you should have your own candidates in the communications context. Hopefully what will emerge is a strong plan mutually agreed – the basis for success in any venture.

Occasionally, of course, you do not have time for these luxuries. There could be an immediate crisis pending as the reason for your being called in at the start. Such a firefighting scenario is common in political public relations, or ‘public affairs’ if you will, but most practitioners come into contact with it sooner or later.

May I cite a personal example, necessarily succinct. Our consultancy was called upon by a district council concerned that the country’s local government minister would overturn recommendations made by an inspector, after a full public inquiry, to prevent development of a small woodland site.

Action was swiftly required. We aroused the media. Burning a Minister in effigy is always a strong television attraction and in this case it attracted national newspaper coverage as well. No marks for guessing who manufactured the splendid effigy.

All-party political groups were rallied across the country, for what we argued was a matter of national principle. Remember the need for allies, drawn as widely as possible.

Fortunately a new Minister was then appointed in the customary July reshuffle. Good luck helps in such matters but he still needed to be persuaded to change his predecessor’s viewpoint.

Research had, however, revealed a far better, larger site for housing nearby. This was quietly presented to him, together with an opportunity to announce a change at the Party Conference in October, the first major speech in his new post.

A reception-cum-rally of local councils opposed to any change in the public inquiry principle was arranged for the evening prior to this speech. The Minister knew then he would face a noisy response if he retained the current stance – but was anyway by now convinced of the alternative.

A change of view was duly indicated at the reception and, of course, wildly applauded at the Conference itself. Victory after only fourteen weeks of campaigning.

Step two: develop relationships

A modest fee income, therefore, but rich rewards longer term. We had convinced a new player – those with the alternative site in their hands – of our worth. They became close colleagues for seven further years.

The reference to rapid action is important in any wider programmes. Clearly one cannot easily anticipate such events but crisis management plans are wise to cover the risks as much as possible.

It pays, for instance, to make political and civil service friends before you have need of them. Again, strong personal trust is forged in the preparations required. And, of course, it is your client who himself becomes concerned with such significant contacts.

Step three: media matters

Time to discuss media coverage overall. At the dawn of public relations as a business, press contact played a major role. After all, there was little television, limited radio, no websites – and most of the players had themselves been journalists in their original careers.

More recently one gains the impression that seeking out such exposure is considered by some to be almost demeaning. ‘Grand strategy’ – much more dignified – should be the PR person’s main role, they claim.

Not so, in my view. Your top client enjoys personal media coverage just as much as most of us, and more so if it falls into the blue chip category.

Handling senior clients, I have always aimed at seeing them at least twice yearly on top management TV programmes as a guru if possible. Most are well able to cope with such a role; if not there are skilful presentational guides to coach them along.

Nothing binds the main client more closely than such coverage, including seminar appearances if the venue is right. Today we tend to aim at a Parliamentary setting which has the added asset of a wider media grasp. Follow-up through articles in trade media is relatively easy then to achieve.

Always remember that the smallest stories can, with a little imagination, gain a coverage which impresses. One client long gone, manufactured electrical dimmer switches, hardly the most dramatic of products.

Selecting the well-known pre-Christmas silly season for coverage, we organised a party for people surnamed ‘Dimmer’. A small tribe arrived to receive their Xmas gifts (again no prizes for guessing what they were) alongside either distant relatives or new family faces.

A low-cost, light-hearted function which made the nationals in diary pieces and some local TV as well. Our client proudly told the tale for years.

Or take the City of Plymouth, occasionally visited (with Council encouragement) by foreign, usually American, Drakes, anxious to discover any connection with the famous Sir Francis. Not readily proved but welcomed and worthy of a picture with the current Lord Mayor, wearing the same chain carried by his famous predecessor. Coverage here was extensive, especially across the United States.

Modest cost but high value – and another satisfied client.

Step 4: PR confidential

After some years it is remarkable how close one can personally become to key clients. Shared, often difficult, experiences produce a bond. The fact that you are quasi-independent allows a top executive to treat you as a confidante in many issues. He may well have few others with whom to confide.

Ensure you are as neutral and friendly with others in the organisation as possible but above all retain the top contact.

If there is a palace revolution, it is an altogether different matter but again, from my experience, professional reputation can always be a strong factor.

Those who master client respect hold their posts lengthily. Peter Hunt (a former CIPR president and much else) has been working with Coca Cola for nearly fifty years. Michael Joyce (a retired consultant and early PRCA chairman) advised a leading security company for thirty years.

Now in their eighties, both are quiet, charming but determined men and top professionals to boot. Ed Bernays lived to be a hundred. There’s perhaps a lesson to be learned from that fact as well.

Douglas Smith HonFCIPR is still active at Westminster where he was recently elected to the first ‘Public Affairs’ journal’s Award for Lifetime Achievement. He won a similar distinction from PR Week in 1990. Douglas is a former Chairman of the PRCA, President of CIPR and President of CERP Consultants – a unique professional hat-trick.

Photo credit: Victoria Crampton – Ptarmigan

Government isn’t seen as very sexy compared to the world of celebs falling out of clubs at 3am. Therefore I expect that you haven’t thought about working in public affairs. But if you really want to make a difference to people’s lives and really want to make headlines, this could be the career for you.

I also suspect you don’t vote since only 61% did in 2005.

Being a PR student you probably have many opinions on the way your country is run and the actions of the government. For instance, when the government ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003 almost everyone felt strongly about this. Even so, more people vote for a Big Brother eviction than at a general election.

I worked for Andrew Robathan, my constituency MP but also the Conservative Party deputy whip, at Westminster. His role as deputy whip means he rallies his party to vote on various issues. But he was also the ideal person to discuss voting with, as he has much to do with Conservative Future, the branch of the Conservative Party catering for the under 30s and with a membership of 15,000.

He believes that the dumbing down of society is to blame for the lack of interest in politics. Politics is no longer a compulsory part of the curriculum and it’s not fashionable to be active in party politics. But this means that fewer people feel they can influence the policy process. But anyone can go and see PMQs by writing to their MP and most MPs value the opportunity to meet constituents to find out more about their opinions and learn about issues in their constituency.

Most MPs welcome students going in to help out. If you have press experience and a good writing style, think about doing a parliamentary or public affairs placement; it looks great on your CV and will guarantee fabulous and unusual portfolio pieces. And if that doesn’t tempt you, you will get to see more celebrities than flicking through an issue of Heat!

To help you navigate the corridors of power, here’s a simple guide to government and parliament.

The UK is a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch in which ministers of the Crown govern in the name of the Sovereign. Parliament passes laws, approves taxation and debates the major issues. The House of Commons, the centre of Parliamentary power, has 659 elected Members of Parliament, each representing a local constituency.

Voters do not directly elect the Prime Minister, although he or she is also an elected Member of Parliament. The leader of the party that wins the most seats in the election, or which has the support of a majority in the new House of Commons, is, by convention, invited by the Queen to form a government. He or she becomes Prime Minister and chooses the ministers with whom a new government will be formed and appoints Ministers, who head individual Government departments.

There is no written constitution. Instead, the relationship between the State and the people relies on statute law, common law and conventions. The UK Parliament makes primary legislation and has the supreme authority for government and law-making in the UK as a whole.

Following devolution, the responsibilities of the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland changed considerably, although they retain their positions in the UK Cabinet. They ensure that the reserved interests of the countries they represent are properly considered in central government and they lead the presentation of government policy in their parts of the UK. They are also responsible for safeguarding and promoting the devolution settlements of their respective countries.

Many decisions made in the Houses of Parliament are made as a direct result of lobbying, the influencing of members’ votes either by parliamentary colleagues, constituents or outside pressure groups. When working in Public Affairs much of the work under taken is direct or indirect lobbying. Lobbying takes its name from the ‘lobbies’ of parliament where MPs gather before debates in the Commons. Traditionally, people wishing to influence the opinions of MPs or peers have frequented the ‘lobbies’ seeking to persuade members of the validity of a particular viewpoint.

Agencies are employed by organisations to represent their views to parliament in a variety of ways – by arranging meetings, organising protests or providing briefing material. MPs are also ‘lobbied’ directly by their constituents, local businesses and campaign groups on many issues.

Key Terms

MP- Member of Parliament

MEP - Member of the European Parliament

EDM - Early Day Motion

PMQs - Prime Minister’s Questions

White Paper - Documents produced by the government setting out details of future policy on a particular subject. A White Paper will often be the basis for a Bill to be put before Parliament. The White Paper allows the Government an opportunity to gather feedback before it formally presents the policies as a Bill.

Green Paper - Green Papers are consultation documents produced by the Government. Often when a government department is considering introducing a new law, it will put together a discussion document called a Green Paper. The aim of this document is to allow people both inside and outside Parliament to debate the subject and give the department feedback on its suggestions.

Whip – Whips are MPs or Members of the Lords appointed by each party to maintain party discipline. Part of their role is to encourage members of their party to vote in the way that their party would like in important divisions. Whips also manage the pairing system and often act as tellers during divisions.

Cabinet – The Cabinet is made up of about 20 senior ministers chosen by the Prime Minister. It decides on government policy and co-ordinates the work of the different government departments. Cabinet meetings are private and its Members should not disclose any information about them. They are also bound by the convention of ‘collective responsibility’ to publicly support the decisions taken at Cabinet.

Constituencies – The UK is divided into areas called constituencies. One MP is elected to represent each of these areas. The size and number of constituencies are reviewed at intervals of between 8 and 12 years by the Boundary Commissioners. Any changes must be agreed by Parliament.

Ballot – In the House of Commons this refers to the draw for Private Members’ Bills. The House of Lords ballot is used to select Thursday debates and topical questions.

Bills - A Bill is a proposal for a new law, or a proposal to change an existing law, that is presented for debate before Parliament. Bills are introduced in either the House of Commons or House of Lords for examination, discussion and amendment. When both Houses have agreed on the content of a Bill it is then presented to the reigning monarch for approval (known as Royal Assent). Once Royal Assent is given a Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and is law.

Backbenches (backbencher) - The backbenches are the seats where an MP or Member of the House of Lords sits if he or she is neither a minister nor a spokesman for his or her party.

Photo credit: Katie Matthews, Andrew Robothan MP

There is no denying that in Britain today obesity is now at crisis level and something drastic needs to happen in order to prevent it from worsening. But is banning advertising junk food to children really the magic solution?

Currently, one in every three children is overweight or obese and the number is sharply rising. As a former chair of the Foods Standards Agency has warned, for the first time in over a century life expectancy may fall and parents may begin to outlive their children.

But can this really be blamed on junk food advertising, hypnotising children into buying their products? Or is it instead a more intrinsic deep-rooted problem within our society? While it is true to say that children could be easily swayed by clever marketing, how would you explain the growth in adult waistlines?

This current epidemic has resulted in a public and press backlash against junk food and fast food suppliers, witness Morgan Spurlock’s ‘Supersize Me’ and the popular television series ‘Jamie’s School Dinners’. Jamie Oliver demonstrated the lack of nutritional awareness, with many children unable to tell a cauliflower from a cabbage.

According to research gathered in 2006 by the independent body Which? Nearly 9 out of 10 parents in Britain thought that food companies needed to be more responsible in the way that they market food to children.

McDonald’s, for example, enlists many marketing techniques to entice children into buying its products and making its restaurants child-friendly places to be (with the offer of free toys).

This manipulation was highlighted in the 1997 McLibel case. Although McDonald’s won the case, it damaged their reputation. David Green (McDonald’s head of marketing at the time) admitted to targeting children since ‘children are virgin ground as far as marketing is concerned’.

A study conducted at the University of Liverpool found that children who watch junk food adverts on television would increase their food intake as a result. The study involved 60 children of different weights between the ages of 9 and 11 being shown a series of food adverts and toy adverts followed by a cartoon. The results showed that children ate a much larger amount of food after a food advert rather than a toy one, with obese and overweight children more than doubling their food intake.

One organisation that wants to tackle this problem is Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming. Lobbying in favour of a change to the law is Sustain’s campaign co-ordinator Richard Watts. He also campaigns for clearer food labelling; better quality food in school and ensuring every child is taught how to cook. ‘The government should end junk food television and advertising before 9pm, as the first step in a longer campaign to change our food culture and create healthier diets’, he argues. This idea is supported by the Food Standards Agency, the advisory committee for Ofcom as well as a whole host of celebrities including, Anthony Worrall Thompson, Sarah Beeny and Trisha Goddard.

The campaign is being supported by approximately 300 organisations, including the British Heart Foundation and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. One of the main aims of the campaign is to protect children from junk food advertising and in particular from companies who admit that they specifically target children as part of their marketing strategy. So it would seem that many people agree that junk food advertising is a big factor in the current obesity situation.

In order to maintain this pressure on the government Sustain regularly issues press releases and information detailing research into junk food advertising and obesity. It also has, on its website, a draft letter people can sign and send to their MP.

In response to all this pressure, the government challenged Ofcom to tighten its regulations for food marketed to children. These regulations are currently in place and ban adverts for food such as burgers, chocolate bars and fizzy drinks being shown during television programmes aimed at young people under the age of 16. However the Children’s Food Campaign does not believe this to be enough. This is because much of the television viewed by children is not classed as children’s television and will therefore not be affected by the ban, for example ‘Ant and Dec Saturday night takeaway’ and the ‘The X Factor’. The ban also fails to take into account the latest methods utilised by fast food companies such as texting, websites and packaging.

This issue is a very contentious one, with many people having an opinion on what is best for our children. All this is happening at a time when the very subject of lobbying itself is under debate, with Spinwatch talking to the select committee concerning the future of lobbying. The organisation says that lobbying continues to be ‘shrouded in mystery’. It argues that the industry’s efforts to regulate itself have failed.

Records obtained by Sustain show that Ofcom was lobbied 29 times by the food and advertising industry before putting together its plans. Mary Creagh, MP for Wakefield said ‘I am disappointed by Ofcom’s lack of consultation with health and consumer campaigners. They have ruled out a 9pm watershed which is the only way to stop junk food advertising to children and tackle the time bomb of childhood obesity’. When asked about the meetings, Kate Stross, a representative of Ofcom said ‘there are a lot of players in the industry and we say yes if they want to see us. Consumer groups tended to come to see us together.’

Channel Four, ITV and channel 5 all strongly opposed the ban claiming that they need the funding produced by advertising to run the channel and make the programmes on it. When queried in relation to the 9pm proposals, Kate Stross said ‘the cost to broadcasters of a ban on such advertising pre-watershed would be very high indeed. We came to the view that it would be disproportionate. It has been estimated that a ban on junk food and drinking advertising before 9pm would cost broadcasters up to 240 million a year’.

So it would appear as though neither side of the argument has succeeded in fully achieving their objectives, with no full ban on child advertising until 9pm or any ban on other mediums but with still a ban in place.

However, with the ever-increasing momentum of the campaigns and the ever-increasing waistband of the average Briton, the government will not be able to turn a blind eye on the situation for much longer and unless a solution to the current obesity problem in this country is quickly found people will continue desperately trying to find someone to blame.

Image credit: www.freeimages.co.uk