The University of Westminster seems an apt location to host a debate centred upon distrust in British politics. It basks in the shadows of the Houses of Parliament, whilst students, who will be heavily financially affected by the pledge breaking of the Liberal Democrats, flock about the premises. But is it public affairs that can be blamed for bringing the public’s political mistrust to boil?
Arguing for the notion are The Mirror’s political editor, Kevin Macguire and ex-Conservative spin-doctor, Shelia Gunn. The opposition comprise of ex-Conservative political advisor and current Director general of PRCA, Francis Ingham and Tony Blair’s ex-special advisor, Lance Price. Thus both sides are politically balanced.
The sentiment from both sides agreed that journalists, PR and politicians have synonymously caused a decreasing public trust in politics. I concur with this and suggest that, subsequently, PR cannot be blamed for the public’s lack of confidence in politics.
Within this political trinity, I would suggest PR is the most minor aggressor in undermining trust in politics. To prove this point, firstly, let’s think of the benefits a good communications team can offer a government. Effective teams have helped support some of the most successful governments and campaign trails. Margaret Thatcher was one of the first British prime ministers to employ a communications team; during her leadership, despite numerous controversial and unpopular policies, she was repeatedly re-elected. Clement Attlee, voted the best Prime Ministers in British history (based on a MORI report in 2004[1]), was in office for less than half the time of Thatcher; the fact that he refused to have a PR team surely can’t be a coincidence. More recently, ‘Obamamania’ led to a global infatuation with Barack Obama, despite the vast majority of the world having no direct input in the choice of the US president. The ‘yes we can,’ logo was mass produced onto everything from birthday cards to glow-in-the-dark fridge magnets. Fuelling the highest voter turnout in forty years and Obama receiving the most votes ever, for a presidential candidate[2].
Of course political PR has a darker side, too. Political PR must have been to blame for encouraging Cameron to embrace 2006’s ‘hug a hoodie’ speech. Danny Kruger, then Cameron’s special advisor, now a chief leader writer for The Daily Telegraph penned the speech, which Cameron has been mocked about ever since.
In spite of the, often rather obvious, blips from special advisors; politicians and journalists are both more provocative than political PR. Politicians are advised, possibly at times, persuaded, by lobbyists; however, they are the ultimate decision makers. Their special advisors are, unsurprisingly, employed to advise.
Politicians are the faces that the public can see; they interact with the electorate and their presence increase their party’s authority in Parliament. Francis Ingham suggested that ‘media-unwise MPs’ have been a cause of decreasing trust in politics. I would suggest, rather, that it is MPs without a good communications team. David Cameron, himself a ‘ruthless’ (MacGuire’s words) PR man, who was once Director of Corporate Affairs for Carlton Television, surely must be media-savvy; however the majority of News of the World readers found him to be untrustworthy both before and after the election[3]. Quite the feat considering the Murdoch-owned publication supported Cameron during the election.
Politicians have undermined trust in politics by being distrustful. A recent example of this is with Nick Clegg, whose popularity soared after the 2010 televised Election Candidate debates, where he vehemently advertised Liberal Democrat views. Notoriously including the abolition of tuition fees.
Politicians being distrustful is a factor in the undermined trust in politics, however the most strident would be journalists and recent reporting trends. The vast frontiers of the ever-growing Internet have meant news is available quicker and from more sources than before. The public are no longer restricted to newspapers and televised news; synonymous with this information influx are more journalists, more stories thus more competition. Journalists were never known for their tact, however now, some are willing to report with more sensationalist methods to obtain a scoop. The News of the World phone hacking affair in 2007 and The Daily Telegraph’s MP expenses scandal in 2010 are examples of recent methods executed by journalists to acquire a scoop. The hyperbolic journalism used to report these stories only encourages the public’s disgust towards political figures. The fact that the newspaper industry regulate themselves through the Press Complaints Commission means that journalists are able to pursue these stories.
The debate at the university of Westminster concluded with 78 against the motion and 61 for, meaning that Price and Ingham were victorious. A comment on PR Week’s article of the debate, suggests this result was unavoidable considering the audience was made up of PR people. I would suggest that of any industry, it is the communications industry that would be most self-aware, considering constructing and maintaining images is the norm for people who work in the field. But then, myself being self-aware, I would say that. I work in PR.
