Some years ago, Sarah Macauley, as she then was, persuaded me to sponsor a conference on the role of referendums in political life. For those of my age and coming from Wales, our introduction to such assessments of public opinion came from very formal processes to assess whether pubs and bars could be open on a Sunday.
Today, it is Sarah's husband, Gordon Brown, who has to ponder the outcome of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and where the EU might go from here. I did obtain a copy of the Treaty and tried to read it. I do wonder whether anyone managed to get beyond page 3. There has been plenty of debate about the role of communication from the EU to the 450 million people who now live within the Union, but I am yet to see any activity. Certainly, when I worked in Brussels, I encountered the peculiar EU language of bureaucracy and the creation of many words and phrases that seemed to only exist within the corridors of the Commission and the Parliament. Indeed, my old colleague, Paul Adamson, at The Centre, produced a lexicon that sought to throw some light onto some of the more bizarre creations.
At the same time, in the UK, we have the resignation and by-election caused by David Davis' fears about the loss of constitutional freedoms. I am currently writing a book about the influence of new technologies on the traditional relationships between citizens, banks, shops and the state. Hardly a day goes by without another complex issue raising its head and the arrival of such technologies as Phorm which have the potential to radically change the worlds of PR and advertising.
Meanwhile, the BBC Trust has published a report on the issues of reporting politics in a devolved UK environment. Read a Scottish daily and you will find little coverage of events from the other parts of the UK. In Wales, most of the newspapers read are produced in England and seek to serve a larger English audience. Current affairs and commentary- rather than political reporting - now seem to be the staple of most newspapers. Major political issues are invariably reported from a Westminster perspective as if devolution had never occurred. The ban on smoking in public places, which had different start dates throughout the UK, was woefully and inaccurately reported. There is no wonder that cultural divides - and antagonisms - between the UK's constituent parts has become part of the status quo. And if that was not enough of a challenge, I also read this week that only 15% of UK residents ever read a newspaper.
This growing disconnect will be a major concern to politicians and the public affairs industry at large. In Brussels, I met enough notable figures whose views basically were that democracy had no real role in the 'Project' and that EU citizens were too mentally-challenged to either have a view or to play any part in the future of the bloc. In the UK, some will argue that the media no longer reports politics, but that politics divines its policies from the pages of the tabloid press.
To this complex set of issues is added today a US dimension. George Bush is in London today bidding adieu to both Blair and Brown. The broadcasters and traditional media appear to suggest that once Bush retires, then US politics will return to normal and all current global issues will ameliorate. Pages of newsprint and hours of satellite time have been devoted to the US process, with scarcely a word about possible future policies.
All these examples show a growing disconnect between politics and the people. The Irish referendum focussed on issues as diverse as abortion, agriculture, an EU army and neutrality. Anyone trying to analyse why Ireland said 'no' will have a real challenge on their hands. David Davis will now find out whether people are concerned about growing state intervention in their lives or whether they follow a tabloid line of detaining any possible terrorists for up to 42 days.
Meanwhile, Gordon Brown will be in Brussels determining a way forward from the Irish vote. Perhaps Sarah will remind him of California which regularly uses referendums to assess public views and opinions. If I remember correctly, referendum voters there regularly vote to liberalise laws on drugs, and equally often vote for even more stringent penalties.
Quite how UK and European politicians rebuild this bridge to voters remains to be seen. There are now more PR people than journalists in the UK and it might well be that the communications industry should play a role in this. I would have welcomed a simple guide to the Lisbon Treaty, for example. Possibly, some Brussels lobbyists have already climbed this Everest. But the range of other issues now seems almost too complex to even attempt. There has to be informed discussion and debate within democracies and the PA industry has a major role to play there. In a disconnected society, quite what role communications will play in future remains to be seen.
A week away in the remotest part of the Outer Hebrides is probably a good place to be to avoid endless discussions about the travails of Gordon Brown. Yet, despite the local focus on newly born lambs, this year's brood of attentive chicks being cared for by birds you would never see in London and the rumours about the latest immigrants, a pair of snowy owls, it becomes ever clearer that the political world 660 miles north of London is fast diverging from that of London, Cardiff or Belfast.
You would not think that a radio programme about the Eurovision Song Contest would have much relevance in this connection. Yet, almost every caller wanted the end of a UK entry and the promotion next year of a Scottish entry. Again, elsewhere in broadcasting, the debate continues as to whether the BBC should produce its own edition of the Six O'Clock News. Already, respected broadcasters term RAF squadrons based in Scotland as the Scottish Air Force. The old phrase 'down South' meaning to indicate the three other parts of the UK are now described as 'countries across the border'.
Gordon Brown has talked about 'Britishness' for over a decade as if there was a need to protect and buttress a decaying edifice. Culture in Scotland has now a much more distinct shine from that elsewhere in the UK - although Hebridean culture that currently intends to turn a hotel and bar into a new church, might not reflect the entirety of the Scottish diaspora's views.
It seems most likely to me that the Scottish experience will move further again from what you might expect in England. Wales, too, with plans for more Assembly powers, will appear a stranger land to many.
New Labour seem to have no plans for addressing the English aspect of this drawing apart. Any debate swiftly alights on free medical prescriptions in Wales and free university education and extensive free care for the elderly in Scotland. Part of the problem may be that very few people from England ever visit Scotland or Wales and thus have a media-driven view of what is happening to the UK.
If Scotland does enter the Eurovision Song Contest (and I will avoid the inevitable jokes this will create for English people), will there then be a category for EnglandandWalesand Northern Ireland? Will Scottish developments set a standard of policy and involvement that will have to be copied by the rest of the UK or will there be another plan? If the BBC produce a separate news service for Scotland (as they already do in Wales, but who cares), will there follow a demand that England has its own service, produced not from London but in Manchester? Indeed, are there that many institutions left that can truly be described as 'British' in nature?
Apart from a few academics, very few people seem to be considering the implications of this second phase in the devolution programme. Years ago, a colleague expressed astonishment when he finally concluded that devolution could result in the break-up of the UK. But Blair and Brown knew all the implications, surely?
But until something is done about the elephant in the corner of the room - England- it would take a brave and insightful person to predict where this all will take us.
PS When the Carinish Inn does become a church, I will let you know. Could this be a policy solution for lager louts and the under-age drinking problem in England?
On Tuesday, I attended a lecture at Oxford University organised by the James Martin 21st Century School. The question asked of Professors Sir John Sulston, John Harries and Richard Dawkins was 'what is science for?'
Having spent much of my career explaining sceince to non -scientists (of which I am one), I guessed that a Nobel Laureate like Sulston and Dawkins, recently called Darwin's Rottweiler for his controversial views, might have thought-provoking views. Whether science is to explore and to produce good (as Harries put it) or to create new forms of life to leap-frog the end of humankind certainly gave a wide enough landscape to produce some further deep philosophical questions. There was much talk of synthetic biology and the doubling of computer power every eighteen months. That was familiar enough from my time working on agricultural biotechnology where laboratories house as many computer terminals as petrie dishes. But if science is to make man immortal, as some suggested, does this deal with the current range of religious and ethical issues that surround current scientific research?
As ever, the old distinction between pure and applied science manifested itself in issues surrounding public and private funding of research - should science only pursue commercial outcomes? What is the role of patents and IP when scientists make those leaps forward in overall understanding?
As usual, when you get an Oxford debate going, the issues move quickly to complex philosophical areas and the seemingly simple question - 'what is science for?' - reminded me of those entry papers set for aspiring students at the University. If the intention of science in the 21st century is to create a new form of humankind, there were suitable challenges from the floor from Professor Colin Blakemore, formerly of the British Medical Research Council and Andrew Graham, the Master of Balliol College.
As I left thinking how lucky I am not to have to sit a three hour exam answering this simple enough question, I did ponder the range of issues that will face scientific PR people in the decades ahead. Will developments be stymied by ethical debates (just personal viewpoints according to Dawkins) or subjected to muddled thinking by the tabloid press? If nothing else, the debate highlighted again the urgent need for scientists to engage far more in communication to explain what they do.
John Harries did concede science would not allow everyone to avoid death and become immortal. There would be some selection (but by whom? who knows?). Call me a cynic, but what would you think of an immortal Gordon Brown or David Cameron?
In the House of Commons lobby in the mid-1990s, I heard a Tory MP declare to a colleague that he was off to a meeting to 'bury socialism forever'. Even at that time I found his comment memorable and showing a distinct lack of knowledge of British politics post World War II.
He had forgotten the recent trend over decades for British politics to follow the trajectory of a pendulum. Tired of Thatcherism, the UK turned to Tony Blair in the hope of new ideas and policies. Many were later startled to find that much of what was to follow was again distinctly Thatcherite in flavour. Last Thursday's election results showed a definite rejection of recent policy and tax ideas from Blair's successor, Gordon Brown. Many pundits may well have been right to point to historic downturns in local elections that were subsequently turned around at following elections. But again, it may have also been a decisive crank of the pendulum in another direction.
It could well be another two years before anyone knows the answer to this conundrum and in two years no-one will be thinking of Boris Johnson being elected as London Mayor or losses in councils that few could identify on a map. The economy may well have recovered its equilibrium and issues such as Iraq may have ceased capturing any public attention. Although people in the UK hate the idea, the election of a new US President may have a global beneficial effect, perhaps not in terms of policy, but at least in a sense of certainty.
But as I have warned before - and before the PR industry paper 'PR Week' addressed the notion - these shifts in the pendulum will have an effect on politics and the public affairs industry. Mayor Boris (as he undoubtedly will be known) will be surrounded by a phalanx of new advisers on transport, economic affairs, environment and a host of other policy areas. There will be a desire on the part of the Tory High Command to use London as a test-bed for policies that they might subsequently introduce to the rest of the UK. How London's battery of New Labour public affairs agencies will handle that challenge will be worth observing.
For my US friends who read these thoughts and kindly explain the nuances of their politics to me, perhaps I could outline Gordon Brown's dilemma in a sentence? His local council where he lives in Scotland is now run by the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Parliament is run by the Scottish National Party. His local council for Downing Street in London is run by the Conservatives and the Mayor of the UK's capital city, for the first time, is now also a Conservative. Even in my home country of Wales, the Labour government only operates in a coalition with Plaid. More intriguingly, the 'S' word used by the Tory MP in the House of Commons fifteen years ago - socialism - is now almost obsolete in UK political usage.
No one can ever think that the PR and public affairs challenges remain unchanged.
2008 seems to feature some interesting elections. No, I am not focusing on Hillary and Barack, but on Ken, Boris and Brian. Perhaps to comply with the law, I should add Richard, Gerrard, Sian, Alan, Lindsey, Winston and Matt to that list (although Matt has given up before even the poll is held). Here in London, we have a strange election for the London Mayor and assembly in two days time, with three different ballot forms and two forms of voting. It is to be hoped that the problems that beset the last Scottish Parliamentary elections will not happen in London.
But when did politicians become to be known by their first names? Ken started the trend and his posters only say 'Vote Ken' - no mention of the Labour Party of any hue. Boris could only be Boris. A poster saying Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson might convey something quite different. And for a former Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to be just Brian has to be an innovation too.
Polls are showing a close race, but with a second choice on the ballot and many still undecided, how my research colleagues can make any sense of it I do not know. And despite K, B and B appearing like music hall artistes in any venue that will have them, the election has to be seen as a warm-up act for Gordon and David (although familiarity of first names seems inappropriate for them)
Yesterday, I was in a bookshop where there was a special display of the biographies of Ken and Brian and the more eclectic outpourings of Boris. Was it Barack or Nicolas (Sarkozy) that made a book publication part of the political campaign?
I have no idea who might win, but I did notice that the biography of Ken is now reduced by £3. Does someone think they will have problems shifting these after Thursday?
These days, any scientific discovery is invariably swiftly followed by a call for an ethical debate. It was only five years ago that the mapping of the human genome was completed. However, it was not long before the debate about the societal implications of predicting future illnesses from genetic tests started in earnest.
The US Senate has now passed legislation that would ban discrimination on the basis of findings from individuals' genetic factors. Whilst the bill still requires approval from the House of Representatives, Senator Edward Kennedy has already dubbed the law 'the first new civil rights bill of the new century'
The bill would forbid, for example, the refusal of insurance cover for those whose tests indicate a pre-disposition to suffer from some illnesses at some future date.
This debate is hardly new - there are real analogies with the concept of eugenics, first dreamed up in the UK, then applied with ghastly consequences in Germany and later in the US.
Even today in the UK, if you have an illness like diabetes, you will have an uphill struggle to purchase such products as travel insurance. As far as I know, there is as yet no evidence as to the statistical link between signs of genetic predisposition and the numbers who eventually fulfil that scientific prediction.
I hope that the US bill will become law and that the UK and the EU take a similar approach. The alternative will be the creation of a new world of discrimination - and possibly, by consequence, further public distrust of science and its applications.
If you watch politics long enough, you will get a sense of history repeating itself. What goes round seems to come round again. The current debate about Gordon Brown in some ways a repeat of the John Major years - a Prime Minister taking over from someone who was either admired or loathed in equal proportions.
Market research always tends to provide as many answers as new questions that require answers, but the decline in Gordon Brown's popularity has been as fast as that for Neville Chamberlain during the Second World War. Whether there will be a recovery amidst the current financial woes and adverse media comment remains a huge question. Next month, there will be local authority elections and in London a vote for the London mayoralty, the biggest contest in terms of electorate in Europe, save that for the French President. Given the electoral process used, will this herald more support for the Greens or even the UKIP and the BNP?
You have to hand it to Tony Blair - with hindsight, what a great time for him to leave British politics. With the SNP running the Scottish Parliament and Labour governing in alliance with Plaid Cymru in Cardiff, will Labour's fortunes be dented further if Boris Johnson wins in London?
This all makes longer-term planning for public affairs people problematic. It was the same during John Major's final days. New Labour's win in 1997 saw the appearance of many new PR agencies that were entirely Blairite in terms of staff and contacts. Will we now see the creation of agencies formulated with a Cameron prime ministership in mind? That would be as informative as the weekly surveys that add to Gordon Brown's woes.
It was Harold Macmillan who talked of 'issues, dear boy, issues' in terms of electoral popularity. Some times in the political cycle, there seems an inevitability about the next phase that no amount of PR or media management will affect. After next month's elections, that pressure will only become worse or Gordon Brown will survive to fight another day. It certainly is a challenging time for the UK's public affairs community.
Those who know me will be well aware that I am both an avid book collector and reader. Two books have come my way in the last week or so which should be compulsory reading for any PR professional.
Flat Earth News, by Nick Davies, is a journalist's review of how the media currently works. As Davies notes, there is a rule in what was Fleet Street that 'dogs should not eat dogs'. but this is precisely what he does in the book. There are some errors in the publication and some of Davies' colleagues have been critical of his expose of how the media works, but for PR people who deal daily with the media, it is well worth reading.
The second - Scared to Death - by Christopher Booker and Richard North - looks at a range of recent scares ranging from BSE to Global Warming. I know from my own work in biotechnology that no subject is ever as black or white as NGOs might have us believe. Even if only a fraction of this book resonates with you, it is a salutory guide for those who claim 'issues management' as part of their job role.
PR continues to change and the challenges become ever more diverse. Both these books are worth studying, if only to challenge the current mindset.
Peter
Last month, I bemoaned the apparent decline of 'consumer affairs' as a PR issue-gathering tool in UK commerce.
Consumer issues now appear in the very few remaining broadcast programmes on that subject and in the acres of holiday-focussed print that make up the Sunday papers. How often the issue is not so much about the holiday or contract itself, but the lack of response from the holiday operator or airline concerned. Interactions are now funnelled through call centres, very few of which can deal with anything apart from what the computer nerds term FAQs
Responses, if you get one at all, now seem to be phone calls reinforcing the details of small-print contracts, tinged with a hint of regret. Phone calls are not legally binding as a letter might be - and are presumably a cheaper way of interaction.
This tendency to ignore letters now seems to be the norm. As I am writing a second book on PR in the technical age, I have sought background information from a number of large, and often publicly owned corporations. One letter required two follow-up reminders before I received even a brief and fairly useless response.
My former trade union colleague, Roger Darlington, has just been appointed to the New National Consumer Council. It seems to me that many companies now regard communications to customers as being a one-way street with no processes or resource put in place to deal with entirely reasonable and common enquiries. The arrival of more and more competitors often leads companies to consider communications as an additional overhead that can be cut back. I find such a conclusion quite baffling.
As we approach more unsettled economic times and even a recession, will this make companies think again about this approach? If not, then I can only conclude that Roger will have a major task on his hands.
And what of corporate reputation? The market researchers will soon be phoning me as part of some omnibus survey. My four unanswered letters to well known companies - and no acknowledgment even after six weeks- will have a negative reaction. But do companies even care about their reputation these days?
Peter
In the last three days, the number of life-term prisoners has increased by three. DNA evidence played a great role in their convictions and the argument about a national DNA database starts again.
By coincidence, the European Court of Human Rights is now being asked to authorise the deletion of DNA records for those never charged or convicted of an offence. The database, now containing some 4.5 million records for England and Wales, is one of the largest in the world.
Proponents of a national database point to the ease with which criminals might be caught - but does that mean I will be charged with dropping a crisp packet in Oxford in 1984? Others say that if you have nothing to hide, then why oppose such a scheme. Again, calls upon police time already means that some crimes are simply not investigated. If there is a database, then policing will surely change dramatically. Opponents point to the possible longer-term use that might be applied to DNA records. They talk about a return to the concept of eugenics.
Others point to the seeming inability of government to manage large IT projects, let alone safeguarding the data once it is collected.
A few years ago a French politician explained to me that DNA records were not much used in French crime detection because it was an Anglo-Saxon technology. Other countries certainly, are not expanding their databases.
Scientific developments in understanding (and identifying) DNA means this will continue to be a major public issue for years to come. PR people will have to acquaint themselves with the issues surrounding DNA, as it spreads from being confined to crime, to a range of other commercial sectors.
Peter
|
 |
|
