An opposition party can only be truly effective via the media. Government has its own spin and PR, but the opposition must cultivate this through good press stories for them and bad ones for the government.
Blair understood this better than anyone and used it to great advantage in the dying days of the Major administration, mostly through the fanaticism of Alastair Campbell.
Fast forward to today and a small party perpetually in opposition is now in government. When in opposition, projecting a clear party line was a key goal. For the Lib Dems in government, this seems to be proving difficult. The Lib Dems’ head of communications, Jonny Oates, has been subsumed into Andy Coulson’s media operation in Number 10.
Every time I see a Lib Dem cabinet member giving interviews it is to defend Tory policies. Concurrently I find myself praising liberal home and justice secretaries, both of whom happen to be Tories.
Coincidence? It seems to me that this is the perfect government communications strategy. The ‘fluffy’ Lib Dems dish out the bad news so that people can’t say ‘same old Tories’. The Tories preach about civil liberties and prison reform so that the right-wing press can’t screech about the ‘loony liberals’. Perhaps we’re all Liberal Conservatives now.
But what of the party? Without a clear voice, how are the public to know which policies are Lib Dem and which are Conservative? This is a duty we owe to the electorate.
Simon Hughes clearly has an important role here. As deputy leader, but not in government, he can speak freely about our difficulties with government policy. But I would argue that a divided message should be coming from the heart of government, with all the resources that allows. Clegg and Cameron are proclaimed as an equal partnership, but this requires a presentational equality: Coulson and Jonny Oates must be on an equal footing.
Lib Dem cabinet members should be told that in every interview they give, they push the Lib Dem aspect of each policy announcement. On budget day the airwaves were full of Lib Dems embracing the VAT increase, rather than correctly identifying it as a Tory policy. It fell to David Cameron to insist that Lib Dem voters should be proud to see their policies in the budget.
A coalition government and collective cabinet responsibility are not easy bedfellows. If differences are highlighted, the media screams “splits!”. But it is only by highlighting the differences between the two parties that we can save ourselves from political irrelevancy. Just look at the polls: the Tories are up and we are down.
I have read the coalition document and can list our early victories in government: less tax for low earners, higher capital gains tax, restored link with pensions and earnings, no ID cards, no detention without trial. It is a list to be proud of. I can explain this list to everyone I canvass in Elephant and Castle. But I would appreciate some help from the government.
* Ben Johnson is a Lib Dem member in Bermondsey and Old Southwark, and was an (unsuccessful) council candidate in East Walworth, London Borough of Southwark, May 2010.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1274
Gasping Local Government.
The Chagos Islands, Mauritius and the ICJ
Honouring the Real Thing and launching Black History Month in Liverpool
Starmer kills off Leveson two
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
Leon Duveen
Helen Dudden
Roland
Suzanne Fletcher
Joseph Bourke
32 Comments
It’s not your communications strategy which is your problem: it’s your political strategy which appears to suggest that being a door mat for for the Tories to wipe their feet on is a perfectly respectable position to take up. Why don’t you have a word with Charlie Kennedy about it?
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2010/07/charles-kennedys-division-lobby-absenteeism/
absolutely right. I have been shocked at how timid we seem on Newsnight and question time in dealing with Labour attack dogs.
But its not going to happen and being associated in the public’s mind with the likes of Zac Goldsmith is doing the Lib Dems tremendous damage
@Ben Johnson “A coalition government and collective cabinet responsibility are not easy bedfellows.”
Excellent piece, which raises a major issue for the party. While we should have every sympathy for ministers grappling with the overwhelming demands of their new jobs, and for the understaffed Lib Dem press operation, we don’t have much time to get this sorted.
First impressions count, and if the image of the coalition is of a Conservative government with minimal Lib Dem influence, we’re going to be punished in the polls.
If we present a more distinctive line, it is in tension with joint cabinet responsibility, and it will make some Conservatives uneasy. But if the coalition is to survive for five years, it is essential. And it needs to involve the entire Lib Dem leadership, not just Simon Hughes.
To reduce the tension, the Lib Dem leadership need an open discussion with the Conservatives about how to approach this. How the coalition presents itself is not a minor issue. It needs to be tackled, urgently.
Every time I see a Lib Dem cabinet member giving interviews it is to defend Tory policies.
You haven’t got used to this government malarkey, have you? They are government policies for which all members are collectively responsible.
I know so many of you want to return to the days when you ad no record so could say what you liked, but it ain’t gonna happen.
Those Lib Dem “early victories” in full:
less tax for low earners,
Paid for by a VAT rise which falls disproportionally heavily on low earners.
higher capital gains tax,
Still lower than income tax rates
restored link with pensions and earnings,
Was going to happen anyway and the “early” introduction is a slight of hand because of the deflation your economic policies are bringing and will make not one pensioner better off than they would ave been.
no ID cards,
Programme still exists and has just been rebranded
no detention without trial.
ha ha ha. When did this happen then?
” the Lib Dem leadership need an open discussion with the Conservatives about how to approach this. How the coalition presents itself is not a minor issue. It needs to be tackled, urgently.”
To waste government time on discussing how you look in order to increase your electoral appeal, at a time when you assure us we face a major national crisis which requires severe pain for many, would be obscene.
Stop worrying about presentation and get on with government.
You haven’t got used to this government malarkey, have you? They are government policies for which all members are collectively responsible.
You haven’t got used to this coalition malarky have you? (And neither has most of the world including most our our ministers).
The line should be “That is a Tory policy which we have unfortunately had to accept as part of the give and take of coalition. A Liberal Democrat government would do things differently – and that is…”
They will have to learn. But I hope they don’t leave it to the last few weeks before the next General Election or they (and we) will all be slaughtered.
Tony Greaves
To my lay persons eye it looks like someone, somewhere is trying to run the entire Lib Dem participation in the government as a ” Yes” campaign in the AV referendum but doing so with a very narrow view of what that referendum will be about and what may make people vote “Yes”.
If the AV vote is a de facto vote on the principle of coalitions, this coalition “works” and “works” for a government is “strong” government then ergo being seen as a “strong” government will engender a ” Yes” vote.
There is something in this but trying to exhorcise a pre ordained list of demons from the public mind over a single topic we are ignoring a growing list of other phantoms , namely the lack of distinctiveness.
This dilemma is time limited till next May when the AV issue will be out of the way. However a year is a very long time in politics. Everyother aspect of the party’s identity in office will have been fused in the public mind by then with very little that can be easierly done to alter it.
The line should be “That is a Tory policy which we have unfortunately had to accept as part of the give and take of coalition. A Liberal Democrat government would do things differently – and that is…”
Why would the general public see that as anything other than a variation on the Lib Dem’s easy cop out of never actually having their policies tested out in reality? Are people really looking to MPs in power to talk about how powerless they are?
What would Lib Dems say if their MPs followed a similar principle, and said “That is a policy from our Federal Policy Group which I have unfortunately had to accept as a condition of being in the party. I would do things differently – and that is…” ? Rebelling on an issue would be one thing. Rebelling as a general communications strategy would suggest someone placing politics over governance.
A consistent message from the public is that it would be rather nice if politicians actually worked with each other rather than play political games. Easier said than done, of course. The Lib Dems may well need a better communications strategy; Ben has a valid concern. But if it relies on dissing the Tories while talking about how wonderful things would be if we were in the driving seat, I doubt it would do us any favours.
@Jon Walls
Sorry, Jon, but I find your analogy weak and your argument unpersuasive, if not impenetrable.
We have an 84/16 Coalition government. Of the two parties of government, the Tories have 84% of MPs and we have 16%. It’s not “dissing” the Tories, or playing political games, to point out the policies of a 50/50 or 16/84 Coalition government would be different, still less a 100% Lib Dem government. The public do want politicians to work together but they also understand that that doesn’t entail complete agreement.
Regarding reformation of the NHS. Get all the management out. They do not know what they are doing and are making decisions about peoples lives i.e. critical drugs are being denied to some people because of the costs, but the heavy costs are high salaries paid to the incompetent management. I saw this with my own eyes as I used to work for them. Most of the management are trained bullies which is their idea of management. I am all for the GP’s and Consultants taking over the reins of funding. This should put a plug in the waste generated by these managers. It is also a disgrace that the letters dictated by the Consultants are going out to India. What is going on when there is high unemployment in this country. This so called management are then justifying their jobs by getting nurses, doctors, adminstrators and porters out, whilst they are sitting pretty and still in work.
@ Ben
Interesting article, it is a relief to see some consistent acknowledgement from the contributors to this site that the Liberal Democrat’s have a problem.
Constantly seeing Lib Dem ministers defending what is clearly Tory policy is weakening the soul of the party and the patience of the electorate.
I am not offering solutions , I am merely pleased to see the denial shifting away.
The first thing you need to do when you have a problem is to acknowledge it exists. We are starting to do that now and I for one commend it.
@Tony Greaves – this is how that would work:
interviewer: So, you say this policy is “unfortunate” – so you mean it is wrong?
Lib Dem: errr, no
Interviewer: So it’s right?
Lib Dem: errr, no.
Interviewer: So you are saying that a policy adopted by your ministers isn’t right?
etc, etc
Ending in either the resignation of the Lib Dem or worse.
You are in government, there are no half-way houses with this: you ave to defend the policies of the government.
Ministers have to sell the policy of the government. That’s a given. There is however a difference between supporting an agreed policy and being seen to have rolled over. Phrases like “I have long argued for [X Lib Dem policy] and this is a good first step towards that” might feature heavily. But there are only so many Lib Dems in government jobs and they need to be much more vocal when Liberal Democrats as a party feel that there is a better way than the agreed or conceded line.
People out there are being told that we have “sold out” or “become Tories” and however ridiculous we may think Labour lies are, we all know from having camapaigned against them how effective they can be if left unchecked. We need strong identifiably Lib Dem people coming out and putting a liberal alternative where there is one. We can no longer rely on many of our usual frontbenchers because their hands are now tied.
@Barry George
“I am not offering solutions , I am merely pleased to see the denial shifting away.
The first thing you need to do when you have a problem is to acknowledge it exists. We are starting to do that now and I for one commend it.”
Yes. It’s good that those of us who support the coalition are starting to be less defensive.
There’s a problem. I suspect everyone knows it, including Nick Clegg, and even David Cameron. But there won’t be a complete solution.
Joint cabinet responsibility is there for a reason – the voters tend to punish divided parties, and they’d probably punish a divided government. And division in a government is mercilessly exposed by the media, and exploited by the opposition. At its worst, division can paralyse a government, with civil servants not sure which policy position will prevail. In the present position, with the bond markets watching and judging, we don’t want that.
And if we started implying opposition to certain policies, so would the Tories. And the public disagreements would escalate.
I think we need a way to signal our different priorities, while supporting the government policy. How that can be done, I don’t know.
We might go for something like the following: “As you know, we proposed something different at the last election However, we’re in a coalition, and we’ve come up with an excellent compromise, which is Y. And this will be beneficial in the following ways…” (The minister then tries to avoid talking about the bits of Y which they really dislike, and emphasising the bits that we Lib Dems like) I think that might work. And it has the advantage that often it is often quite true – a lot of the differences between parties are nothing like as dramatic as they are presented in political rhetoric.
I don’t think the current approach is sustainable. And whatever new convention is adopted, I think it’s important it happens with the prior agreement of both parties.
“Stop worrying about presentation and get on with government.”
Actually, I don’t agree. I think our presentation is awful because our position in government is awful. It follows that if people want to improve the presentation, they will eventually have to admit they need to improve our role in government.
Jon Walls points out that “If (a better communications strategy) relies on dissing the Tories while talking about how wonderful things would be if we were in the driving seat, I doubt it would do us any favours.” Absolutely right. We can forget about the idea of routinely relying on a “don’t blame us for this one, guv” line. It would only make us look ridiculous.
George Kendall’s alternative is: “We might go for something like the following: ‘As you know, we proposed something different at the last election. However, we’re in a coalition, and we’ve come up with an excellent compromise, which is Y. And this will be beneficial in the following ways…’ ”
Now that sounds a lot better, because it promises something positive that we Lib Dems have achieved. The only trouble is, we then need to find something to boast about which looks important to the general public.
What have we done for Lansley’s health policy, or Gove’s schools policy, or Osborne’s benefits policy, that anyone outside our own circle will believe is worth a row of beans?
Cui Bono ? The article and the thread responses seem to assume that whati going on is a bad thing. However that’s only true from a certain point of view. If you are a partisan for either
1. a long term centre right realignment on the CDU/FDP model
2. A Conservative majority next time round
then all of this looks wonderful so far. Before assuming its an accident you should ask whether its design.
David
Interesting idea.
If Nick Clegg had been a Tory mole, could he have acted more effectively to destroy the Lib Dems as a political force?
We are running the ” Torquoise ” strategy ” which recognises that as a very junior partner one way of influencing the much greater whole is to blend all of our distinctiveness. It’s a matter of taste as to whether or not the resulting visual change is worth the collective self extinction that forming the blend requires.
The alternative, that seems to have been deliberately rejected in the coalition architcture, is to keep the big blue square, but use our limited amount of paint to slash a thin but bright yellow line right across the canvas. We may only occupy a small piece of canvass, we’ll have to acknowledge how much is blue but people will really notice the yellow bit such as it is.
What ever you think of it the coalition architecture is very deliberately crafted and from my judgement made of reinforced concrete.
1. Lib Dem influences over policy here and there but almost no distinctive complete wins or “wedges” where a single distinctively, ” Jesus, the Tories would never have done that” policy shines through.
2. Actually rather a lot of Lib Dem ministers, 22, but spread right across government and with only 2 proper cabinet jobs and neither of those in big bread and butter departments.
There are of course many advantages to having so strongly gone down the “Torquoise” route – I’ll leave it to a proponent of the coalition architecture to set them out. However I don’t see how people can credibly say they like being in the coalition in general buit just don’t want all the down sides
that come with the deal. From the ” Gay Wedding” press conference in the rose garden onwards there has been a strong ” Visual merger” aspect of all of this, its been deliberate, and at this stage unmizing the two colours of paint will be almost impossible.
I think it’s fairly safe to say no-one within the Lib Dems is rooting for 2, David. As for 1, I doubt that has much support either. We like being an independent party. We want to be in a position where we can form alliances with either left or right as required or as circumstances dictate. “reallignment” – read annexation – would ultimately reduce our influence on Conservative leaders (because where else would we go?) and lose us any real chance of sharing power with Labour because we will be seen as “natural” allies of the Tories.
We are and should be neither.
I just wanted to add on the topic of communicating the positive Lib Dem message on the coalition that while the mass-media air war is important, there is always the other side of the coin which is the pavement campaign. I know I am having difficulty motivating activists to move on with the next campaign – and it is the activity we carry out on the ground that will often make or break how we will be seen.
Benjamin,
You are right to raise on the ground campaigning – a topic that has recieved an astonishing lack of comment as the implications of the coalition sink in – but that is where this is all going to get really, really interesting. In my experience Focus is about
– establishing a local brand to compensate fort the fact we have a vague or not existant national brand. ” where we work we win “.
– running campaigns against things. Evene successful controlling council groups all to often act like oppositions. Even when campaigns are for something positive and specific the sub text is that its an opponent that won’t offer it.
Being in national office will remove the premise of the first point. We are getting loads of air time and profile. The ephocal nature of the changes we are making to the public expenditure profile will blast conciousness of the nature of the government down to the lowest of low infomation voters.
The second point gets harder as well. Once you have your photo taken on the steps of Downing Street you’ve made it and at least some of the buck stops with you. It will be interesting to see how oppoositionalist campaigning is framed against such a stark and powerful national brand.
@ Tony Greaves
The line should be “That is a Tory policy which we have unfortunately had to accept as part of the give and take of coalition. A Liberal Democrat government would do things differently – and that is…”
Thanks mate I was starting to think that I was the only person who thought we should be doing this AT THE VERY LEAST. I can’t believe that the ‘Stepford Wife’ syndrome ( where minor coalition partners have to become robotic overnight hypocrites going back on everything they stood for a few weeks ago) , is the norm in European Coalitions > I am genuinely interested to find out if it is or is not the norm ? Does anyone know ???
This article is spot-on. If the Liberal Democrat party does not get this right, we shall reap none of the rewards our appointed Ministers are fighting so hard for, and that we deserve: we will end up the losers in this coalition.
The Conservatives have no reason to trumpet our successes. We seem to need a stronger, better-directed Press department.
Yes, of course that said by Tony Greaves, John Fraser etc is right – but it is difficult to put the responsibility for “getting it right” all on our PR people. They have come in for a hard time in the past! Deserved in some cases, eg Mr Littlewood, who appears now to be off the scale in terms of right-wingery! Before going into a coalition, we should have had time to think clearly about what the implications were likely to be for party principles, organisation, campaigning at different levels etc. It is particularly difficult with the Tories – not just “because we have fought them for many years”, but because the principles of the Lib Dems – as expressed in the Preamble to the Constitution, are so entirely opposed to Tory thinking in many areas. It is difficult to envisage just going ahead as if nothing has happened. It could not be possible, surely, that parts of our leadership are ready to throw out the party’s carefully negotiated constitutional principles and the values that underpin them, could it?? It has been especially important in recent years, since NuLab, to ensure our support for public activities, and the public sector. It looks as if our leadership has now ditched this principle.
Sorry Paul, I think your approach is naive. The Lib Dems can’t afford to perpetuate its image as the party that never has power – even when it signs a deal to get some. Imagine the response:
– The old Nick Who? jokes will be resurrected as Nick What’s The Point?, or Nick Why Bother?
– Pundits will ask whether all Lib Dem interviews need to be supervised by a Tory, so that the general public will get at least one coalition MP that can explain the policy about to be foisted upon them.
– People just made redundant in the depths of recession will make bitter comments about how nice it must be to get a well paid job, guaranteed for a few years, where you don’t actually have to do anything.
– Satirical shows will do sketches about the never never land where Lib Dem policies really do come true.
There are plenty of tricks to turn a conversation in your favour e.g. “one of the things I really hope comes out of the Great Repeal Bill is such and such, because the Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for… “, “in my constituency there has been a concern that blah de blah, so the Lib Dems are proposing that …”, “this policy isn’t popular with everyone, but the Liberal Democrats are committed to making the coalition work as it represents the majority vote from the election. One particular aspect of the new policy that we made sure was in the Bill is yada yada, because we believe that means the following good things for people…”
People like MPs who show a bit of spine. Anyone who follows politics will respect politicians simply playing the coalition game. But slopey shoulders, smug appeals to “do the math”, setting up camp on the moral high ground, talking about what you would do if you win in five years time – these are for when you’re preaching to your home choir. And the last time I checked, the Lib Dems had the smallest one.
I’ve been saying this for weeks now. I’ve even messaged a fair number of our MPs about it and largely they’ve agreed. Communication has to get better. It’s all well and good people keep saying ‘cabinet responsibility’ comes into play etc but if we are actually trying to change politics then honesty, debate and disagreement has to be projected as a good thing and we have to stop running scared on the national press and broadcast media. Everyone’s frightened they’re going to shout ‘split’ and everything will come tumbling down. Well it’ll only come tumbling down if we let it. I want to see some real leadership here Nick. And whilst I’m supportive of the coalition, I do feel somewhat leaderless at the minute. That has to change! We need to see and hear more of you!!
Am just a bit puzzled here about the idea that a better PR job will make this work I really don’t see that it will and if I need to say sorry for being a bit pointed here, well sorry.
No mater what way I look at it it just does not make sense the Liberal party for the last eighty years of its life was left of centre; for crying out loud it was Liberal politicians that formed the Labour party. The social Democratic party was formed by dissident Labour politicians as such was left of centre. The father and mother of the present Lib dem party were both left of centre.
Now in the last twenty years the Labour party has shifted from the left to left of centre leaders like Kinnock, Smith and Blair put the party firmly in the centre of politics , I mean the LD were more radical in some arrears and further to the left than them.
I would suggest that the PR peeps the spin merchants are doing a sterling job, the construct they have produced has the sublime elegance of a Penrose triangle and that it is not all the coalition and this sublime Penrose construction have in common.
I’m glad that this piece has triggered some debate!
I think the game has changed. In the early days of the coalition I heard Theresa May calmly explaining to John Humphreys why certain Tory policies were left out of the coalition agreement. She explained, very eloquently, that a coalition was about compromise and that the government would also enact libdem policies.
This is all I ask. That libdems follow the example being set by May and explain to the public that this or that policy was not in the libdem manifesto, but that we are enacting policies from both parties.
The public want to know why they should vote libdem. The only way to convince them is to explain what we have achieved in government for our voters. It is self evident that most policies will come from the majority Tory coalition partner, so we need to speak even louder about our achievements.
@ben
” It is self evident that most policies will come from the majority Tory coalition partner, so we need to speak even louder about our achievements.”
then the deal ought not to have been done. The deal should be for a light blue Gov of an even tone, not a dark blue gov with a few yellow or orange spots, that is the whole of the government should be centre right, not as appears to be the case rabid thatcherite with a few concessions to the lib dems, a few scraps from the lords and masters at the table thrown to the mainstream of the party and the millions of voters.
it is due to this that there is a hemorage in support for the LD in opinion polls, your government and therefor your party is becoming unrepresentative of its votors and that is suicide for the party. Unless your party can drag the Tory party into the position of being light blue in all things then its Toast time. IMHO
Jon, I think you misunderstand my position. I am certainly not advocating that Lib Dem ministers and backbench MPs spend the next five years with their arms folded, grumpily saying that it wasn’t their idea. And I am pleased to see that few if any are doing so. On the contrary, they are already using what you rather unfortunately term “tricks” to highlight the liberal aspects of Coalition policies. They should continue to do so.
But that approach will only take us so far. The fact is that in an 84/16 Coalition there are inevitably going to be some policies that the 84% want but with which the 16% won’t be comfortable. The public aren’t stupid – they know this, even if some journalists and pundits haven’t cottoned on yet. And they won’t respect Lib Dems “playing the coalition game” if it means (as you seem to believe) endless dissembling and spinning.
The Coalition partners, especially the Lib Dems, must be able to express these differences in an open, honest way that doesn’t damage the Government.
Clearly we need a better communications strategy. Even my ‘sympathetic’ friends are actually beginning to believe that the LibDems have ‘sold out’ and that Nick Clegg is variously: a Tory mole/plant, or, so hungry for power he’s happy to abandon his party’s principles and policies. As ever, we’re bound to be under-resourced and under-staffed for this important function. We shouldn’t – and can’t – expect anything from the print media (other than, perhaps occasionally, The Guardian and The Indie). It’s easy to be paranoid when you know they’re out to get you!