The message is central: government comms in a post-Covid world

GUEST POST: Eliot Wilson is Co-Founder of Pivot Point and a former House of Commons Clerk. Follow on Twitter. Connect on LinkedIn

Only the most loyal and optimistic Downing Street hanger-on would now argue that the Government has had ‘a good war’ when it comes to the media handling of the pandemic. The failings of the Number 10 operation and the Government Communication Service more widely have been laid painfully bare almost day by day: confusion, changing vocabulary, unclear advice and an inconsistent cast. For every unexpected star like Professor Jonathan Van Tam, the deputy Chief Medical Officer, there has been a Priti Patel, announcing proudly that shoplifting has fallen while retail has been largely closed for business.

In any event, Number 10 has decided to respond to this series of failures, and has hit upon a structural review. The Government’s media operation will be centralised in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office, and the daily briefings, deemed by some a success – “event TV” was one phrase I have heard – will be built upon. Most excitingly, for a media built on the cultivation of personality, there will be an “experienced broadcaster” selected to present these briefings, who will be the face of the Government to many people. It will be a political appointment, and insiders say they would like a woman to get the job.

This is obviously a potential revolution in how the government communicates. If the briefings are televised, even if only in highlights, and feature heavily as soundbites on the news of the day (and they will), the new ‘spokesperson’ will, after the Prime Minister, be probably the most recognisable person in the administration, certainly the one with the most airtime. She (let’s assume Downing Street has its wish) will be in charge of media relations, with a powerful influence over the news agenda on a daily, if not hourly, basis, but she will also have a direct line of communication with the voting public. That is a hugely powerful platform.

Critics have already dismissed this move as ‘presidential’ and an Americanised gimmick. That’s hardly a vote of confidence to look at the hapless succession of White House press secretaries in recent years – Sean Spicer? Sarah Huckabee? The scrappy-but-ineffectual incumbent, Kayleigh McEnany? – and, while handsomely paid, they have not lasted nor had much influence.

The brightest star was Anthony Scaramucci, director of communications for all of 11 days (and with whom I have worked a little). The Mooch is a different kettle of fish: voluble, outgoing, eccentric; self-made, self-assured and self-confident. He was too big, too outrageous, a beast to be kept in the Trump circus for long. Personally – I found – he is affable, courteous and charming, but too quickly he was the message and not the medium. He is now one of the president’s most avowed and entrenched opponents on the Republican side of the aisle.

Traditionalists in the UK dislike the bright clothes and snowy-white teeth of American political staffers, and dismiss them as lightweights. By their logic, as on the Potomac, so by the Thames. Maybe, maybe not. It is perfectly conceivable that the Government might find a respected and serious media figure with genuine heft: the mighty Emily Maitlis might not be ideologically simpatico but would be a formidable hire, Fiona Bruce and Victoria Derbyshire both have impressive CVs and skills, and one can imagine Sophie Raworth or Kirsty Wark ably controlling a rowdy press pack. So we should not write this off ad hominem (or ad feminam).

What should concern people is the structural change in the way the Government speaks to people. If there is a single figure with a daily communion with millions of voters, what does that say about the supposedly inviolable practice of ministers making statements in Parliament, to which they are accountable? How much more comfortable would HMG be delivering brightly wrapped nuggets of good news to a selected audience than have a member of the Cabinet slog through an hour of questions from Members of Parliament after an oral statement?

And how far does influence run both ways? Would this new spokesperson begin to be involved in the creation and shaping of policy as well as its presentation and delivery? Good PR practice says that your comms team should be engaged right from the beginning, able to contribute to a project as part of an organic whole. Is the same true for Whitehall? Would the new figure sit ion on policy-shaping meetings, advising from the outset what might and might not ‘fly’? That would be a major point of interest for Whitehall scrutineers like the excellent Institute for Government.

No-one with any experience in public relations or comms would say the Government’s media operation is flawless. It’s arguably not even very good, and some hard thinking (and new hires) are almost certainly needed. But that doesn’t make any change the right change. This idea of centralisation round a new figurehead would make me uneasy if I were a civil servant, a MP or a journalist. Be careful what you wish for.

If you have ideas for the group or would like to get involved, please email us.

This piece was written for The Telegraph.

Priti decent turn of events

Adam Honeysett-Watts is Director of Conservatives in Communications and works in the financial technology sector

Last week, the BBC issued an apology after Andrew Marr accused Home Secretary Priti Patel of laughing during an interview about Brexit. Quite rightly so – because she wasn’t. Shortly after the statement was released, the Conservatives in Communications (CiC) network welcomed the Home Secretary to our autumn reception, which took place at the Ellwood Atfield Gallery in Westminster and was kindly sponsored by Built Environment Communications Group (BECG).

Before she was elected as an MP – and promoted to several roles within Number 10, HM Treasury, DWP and DfID – Patel worked in the communications sector. Her analysis of the current state of play and her advice to the PR industry were therefore of relevance, interest and well-received by the many professionals in the room. As you might expect, much of her fireside chat with Kulveer Ranger, patron and a former advisor to Boris Johnson, focused on delivering Brexit, and the dynamics between the party and Parliament.

Unsurprisingly, these issues continue to dominate the agenda this week. What begun as just a slogan in Manchester – ‘Get Brexit Done’ or ‘Get Brexit Sorted’ to our friends north of the border – has become a shared common purpose that most Tories are united behind. In fact, Patel was keen to point out that the whole of the parliamentary party backed both the second reading and the programme motion on Tuesday. That was some whipping, but also representative of the public’s general angst, clear and disciplined messaging and a determination to move on and forward.

Sadly, while the second reading did – the programme motion didn’t pass in the House, so we are back in limbo; exactly what businesses wanted to avoid. Extra time to debate the deal won’t really change anything. As I’ve written in the past: One constant throughout these past four years has been the failure of the remain and remoan camp to run an effective operation and win enough support. Has anything changed? No. But Johnson is willing to compromise. Opposition parties should vote for the election motion this afternoon. Failing that, MPs should back the election bill on Tuesday.

If you have ideas for the group or would like to get involved, please email us.

This piece was written for our website.