When the election started David Cameron’s Tories looked like they were cruising to some sort of nuanced victory. The first televised leaders’ debate put paid even to that. The Liberal Democrats jumped from a distant third to being front runner or in close second place, depending on which poll you trust. So-called Cleggmania was born. Now some sort of humiliation looks much more likely than it did, even if Cameron becomes PM.

Of course, the leaders’ debate is game-show politics, which makes it even more prone to febrile moodiness than EU or local elections. I agree with my friend Richard D North’s view (expressed on his blog and in his book on Mr Cameron’s Makeover Politics) that we may well be watching the end of 20th Century class politics. Why wouldn’t it get weird? But interestingly, the running is still being made by ordinary newspapers and broadcasters. Who said TV was dying or that dead tree press is dead? One wonders how Clay Shirky and Jeff Jarvis explain such events.

Once upon a time, political parties had a mass base, with mass membership, rooted in trade unions, social classes and local constituencies. Not any more. Today the political elite is remote and connects to the masses via the media. The contest for votes is fought on TV and in the tabloids and broadsheets, sometimes in the style of the X-Factor, Britain’s Got Talent and American Idol. Modern elections are always more about style than content, but I don’t think the real intentions of the major parties were ever more obscure to us than they are today.

Supposedly we live in an age of engagement, in an age in which we form interactive online social networks based on common values. But that doesn’t fit well with the British election experience. Social media – Twitter, Facebook and blogs – are just a backdrop to this story. Charlie Beckett summed up the TV-impact well:

…the curious voter can watch the debates and form their own judgements on the basis of what the candidates say and how they perform.This kind of ‘disintermediated’ communication is usually thought of as an Internet phenomenon. But as Michael Cockerill’s excellent documentary on the history of TV debates reminded us – mainstream broadcast media can do it, too, albeit without interactivity.

Moreover, the political party with by far the largest web-based social presence, with the most interactive website, has the least influence of all on public opinion. The British National Party is a joke (though it might win a seat; we’ll see). But according to the web-rankings agency Alexa the BNP is the world’s 28,545 most popular site compared to the Conservatives at 52,423, Lib Dems at 68,446, Labour at 69,527 and political blogging sensation Guido Fawkes at 40,688.

There’s lessons here for firms. Old media still counts for much more than new media. However new media and old media interconnect so both need to be engaged. But it’s largely a myth that the online networked society changes the rules of PR and communication in general. By the way, I shall deal with the advocates of the Stockholm Accords’ misreading of contemporary developments (they think we live in a new value-network society) at a later date. For now I merely remark that in many ways they miss the obvious: the emergence of new media, and the fragmentation it encourages, makes old media more important than ever, even as their audience shrinks, precisely because the mass public is increasingly disengaged from public life.

No related pages.

Forrester Research, the independent technology and market research company, is banning its researchers from blogging. It seems that the “personal” nature of blogging and Twitting is a challenge to Forrester’s business model

Forrester is wary of allowing its staff an opportunity to develop an exit strategy around a social media presence focused on themselves. For a useful report, see Forrester crimps bloggers: epic E2.0 fail.

The Forrester stance reflects that made by the likes of the WSJ, Apple and some British football clubs. This emerging trend challenges head-on the advice provided by many so called social media gurus. One such example is Neville Hobson in the UK. He advocates making corporate communication personal, which was advice I dismissed in a recent debate with him: Corporate blogging: now it’s personal?

Meanwhile, David Cameron has ordered Conservative candidates to clear their remarks made on Twitter with head office. It would seem that keeping control of the message is top priority for the Conservatives, just as it is for most corporates.

Anyway, social media is not going to play a major role in the forthcoming UK election. An exception to that will be the sites of outsiders such as Guido Fawkes and Iain Dale, both of whom have a direct link to mainstream media and neither of which is constrained by party discipline. Curiously, whilst they’re great at dishing the dirt, neither is especially interesting on – as it were – political philosophy.

Another exception will be the BNP, which will hide out on the web because its members fear canvassing in public, and because it will not get a “fair” hearing in the mainstream media.

Meanwhile, Obama’s link to the social media world has been exposed as being just a one election campaign stand, rather than the ongoing relationship it was reported to have been. In short, Obama surfed a wave of enthusiasm that does not exist in the UK today, and which no longer exists in the US either.

Last, the Edelman’s 2010 trust survey provided some startling insights into a new and rapid trend reversal:

“Trust in information from friends and peers, “people like me,” dropped by 20 points, from 47 to 27 percent. Trust in information from digital media – blogs, social networks, and free content sources like Wikipedia or Google news – remains low: only between 11 percent and 22 percent of respondents express trust in information about companies from these sources.

To be fair, Edelman reports that trust in all media has fallen, but mainstream media, it would seem, is holding up much better than social media in the credibility stakes. In particular, business magazines are doing very well indeed when it comes to being trusted (here’s a useful summary from Silicon Valley Watcher).

Counter-intuitively, I think that all these trends reveal that social media is coming of age. I believe that we have learned a lot from a period of experimentation and false hopes over the last few years. Now all that remains is for some social media “gurus” to catch up with reality and to start giving sound advice to the corporate world.

No related pages.

Let’s first get a sense of what’s being said. Here’s comment number one on Cameron’s latest piece “Labour have lost the right to govern“:

“…with your wishy-washy performance, I am not convinced that you are the man to lead the Conservatives forward.”

Then there’s others, and here’s some badlights:

“…It is time for all none believers to resing the House – as this is the only way to bring the matter to a head”

“….When is the last time that a politician ever proclaimed anything other than anger at a pre-election budget and called it all manner of fraud etc etc etc.”

“David, You’ve always struck me as a decent guy, and coming from a working class background, with aspirations of bettering my lot in life, I find Brown’s class war abhorrent.

“Help is only an email away – just ask me.”

“Apart from the rubbish spoutd by the pro tobacco candidate, all of these comments simply rereat what too many people are saying, far far too many.”

“I have allways been a Conservative voter but after watching PMQ time every week i dont personally feel your strong enough to run this country.”

“I am a lifelong conservative from a business/conservative background. I don’t believe that any of you have “earned” the right to form the next government.”

What kind of masochist sets himself up for this? There were were 144 comments on this piece. Most of them were unhelpful and illiterate. It was difficult to know (there were no click-throughs to websites) whether they were from real people or were organised hits by political opponents. Many were arguably the work of the angry brigade with time on their hands.

The question is what purpose does providing a platform to such ranting serve? It does nothing, I would argue, to advance David Cameron’s image. Reading the comments was far from exhilarating or illuminating. It was in fact depressing.

I then switched over to the Labour Party’s website. To its credit – never mind the reason – there was no room or facility to leave comments. Labour seems to have had the good sense to put its blogs elsewhere.

The question is should political leaders blog, Twitter or use Facebook? Well,I think not. It seems that Barack Obama kind of agrees with me. He revealed recently that he’s never Twittered in his life and that he can’t use the Blackberry he clutched so conspicuously during his election campaign.

Politics and politicians have an image problem. But phoney engagement, dialogue and interactivity will not help solve it. Such techniques have nothing to do with serious debate or with listening. Our politicians should show more self-respect and dignity if they want to win back our respect – and that means standing back from social media nonsense.

No related pages.

At the moment we a have a theatrical clash of positions. It goes something like this. The Finnish reactor currently being built – which is an example of the type the UK hopes to build – is already three years behind schedule and 3bn euros (£2.71bn) over budget. So what hope a UK nuclear programme being timely or affordable? Ah, responds the UK’s Nuclear Industry Association (NIA):

“The industry is confident that we can have the first new stations operating in the UK by the end of 2017. The UK’s innovative approach of full design assessment prior to any construction means that we will avoid many of the delays which can be seen elsewhere in the world”.

Then up pops the British regulator, Kevin Allars of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII),  to say he’s every bit as tough as his colleagues in Finland (not that he’s saying regulatory success equals delay) and, just to prove his point, agrees there’s never been a reactor built to time or budget in the UK.

The truth is that neither the regulator nor the industry has a helpful position. Neither does anything to enhance the reputation of the industry or to advance its case in the public domain. Rather they do much to knock the industry’s credibility and to bewilder the public. So how do we move things along?

The real debate should begin with why we need nuclear energy in the first place. At the top of nearly everyone’s list right now is fighting global warming (see UK Energy Secretary’s Ed Miliband’s recent national policy review statement). I fear this is the argument grabbed by industry’s PRs. It’s a dead end.

That’s not because global warming isn’t happening. It is not even because those most worried about AGW (anthropogenic global warming) are often those most opposed to to nuclear power. Nor is it because all ten sites identified in the UK face worries about GW-driven coastal erosion, rising seas, warming cooling water and storms. No, it runs deeper than that.

The trouble is that if dealing with climate change is ever taken seriously enough to panic, the major response is likely to be to aim seriously to reduce electricity demand. Bang would go the major benefit of nuclear energy. It is, after all, a virtually limitless secure energy supply source which boosts output and satisfies demand.

If AGW is taken seriously, the argument for an expensive and tricky source of energy would be commensurately somewhere between very weak and politically unfeasible.

Nukes don’t fit well into a no-growth-to-low energy low carbon unambitious world. But that’s what the EU is committed to right now (European Commission, Energy Policy for Europe, 10 January 2007, p5). It is an outlook that fits quite well with Greenpeace’s view:

“Gordon Brown very recently committed the UK to generating around 40 per cent of our electricity from renewables by 2020. If he means it, Britain could become a world leader in clean energy and his case for nuclear evaporates.”

So it does. Moreover, Greenpeace also rightly points out that nuclear power can only deliver a 4 per cent cut in carbon emissions some time after 2025 (though I’d hope by 2021). That said, it begs the question why Greenpeace gets het-up over building a few new coal plants today, which must be equally as insignificant in percentage terms (a case of one smart argument undermining a dumb one, I think).

Then there’s the energy gap argument. There certainly is a real threat that the UK’s lights could go out at sometime in the not-so distant future. But is virtually impossible to say when, or under what circumstances this would happen. There are too many variables for that.

For instance, old conventional plant can be made to worker longer than its original planned life. There’s an emerging world network of gas pipelines (and no it is not all about Russia), not to mention liquefied natural gas. Then there are renewables coming on stream, and there’s innovation. And when push comes to shove, as demand exceeds supply, rises in price could be used to dampen demand.

I don’t know what carbon price would seriously dent demand, but I suspect it would dent demand somewhat before it would encourage nuclear power.

Dieter Helm, Professor of Energy Policy at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of New College, has captured well how events continually alter the energy landscape in unexpected ways:

“Though the recession has brought a breathing space on the demand side of the equation, it has markedly worsened investment on the supply side. The credit crisis has made it harder and more expensive to finance investment; just when the investment is needed, finance has dried up.”

So how do I size up the debate and advise the nuclear industry to position itself? Well I think its case might go something like this. Britain is in recession, the world is in recession. The Far East is currently getting the edge on the West and it is doing so by not skimping on energy growth when it comes to coal or nuclear power.

The Tories might talk about a new age of austerity but if they want to hold out hope or hold on to power they had better have something more upbeat to offer. That can only be the prospect of economic growth – that requires investment in energy infrastructure and generation on an increasing scale. That supply will need to be secure, on tap on demand (unlike wind) and at a predictable price.

That all speaks to nuclear power strengths. In short, nuclear’s future may be rosy because AGW is not taken seriously, electricity demand is not seriously limited, and there are fears of a serious energy gap especially if it’s decided that AGW matters, but not enough to drive serious (demand-denting) policy.

So who cares if the first couple of UK new nuclear power stations are a little late, over budget and more difficult to build than predicted? That’s life when it comes to making visions come true when it comes to major infrastructure investment. It’s no big deal. For sure, as we build nuclear plants en masse the economies of scale will accrue.

But there’ll be no nuclear revival of significance or true merit so long as the debate remains stuck where it is. It is time to ramp up the nuclear message and link it to economic growth, security, prosperity and hope (a point made well by the authors of Energise! here). It is time to assume that we want a great deal of electricity and at moderate prices (prices only slightly ramped up by carbon taxes) and preferably with an acceptable carbon footprint.

This argument would be gung-ho, cynical, sceptical, realistic. It would be upbeat. Oh dear, what a tough authentic sell.

For the record, I spent almost ten years working in the nuclear industry in the UK, Ukraine and Switzerland, including for the Nuclear Industry Association.

No related pages.

The problem with Parliament has not been too much power badly used, but too little power, too little debate and too much government reliance on the media as the focus of policy-making. In the process MPs, politicians and political parties have seemingly lost the trust of the electorate.

So, here’s my ten remarks on how to restore trust in MPs and Parliament after the latest PR fiasco over expenses:

1. Restore the central role of Parliament, MPs and debate

Since (and arguably before) Tony Blair was elected, Parliament has been bypassed by the Executive as a vehicle of debate and policy-making in favour of reliance on the media. This has left MPs as an inward-looking bunch of jobsworths with little self-pride and little sense of their role in shaping outcomes.

Today’s The Times counterintuitively calls for more politics not less as part of the solution to the current crisis, in its editorial The Political Manifesto. In the words of Roy Hattersley: “Part of the House of Commons’ problem is the idea that political ideas no longer matter. In truth, the person is less important than the policy. We need more ideologically committed MPs, not fewer.”

There’s a case to be made that the 1997 intake was not of the highest calibre, which reflected the diminished expectations of their role (more on this later).

Anyway, we now need a heroic effort by the parties, the Government of the day and MPs themselves to reassert the role of individual MPs as the representative of their constituencies mandated to decide for themselves how to balance their own views and their own conscience, and the interests of the country, their party and their constituencies.

2. MPs have to recognize that the media no longer play traditional roles.

The lesson of the furore over MPs’ expenses is that traditional media are both in decline and more influential than ever. In their struggle to maintain circulation in the face of the internet the media are no longer predictable or reliable. Hence, The Daily Telegraph has become the class enemy of Tory Toffs and grandees.

In response, Parliamentary PRs must stop playing footsie under the table with the media at the expense of Parliamentary debate. Otherwise, they will continue to see their masters kicked again and again. This requires Parliamentary PRs and party advisers to find new ways, including the internet, and to return to old ones based on discussion in the House and then cascading interactively to the masses, to communicate their masters’ messages effectively. But the best way is for politicians to do what they are paid for – act politically and lead and harass government and each other.

Sure, the media will remain important, but their importance needs to diminish.

3. Make expenses transparent by creating a modern open administration to manage the allocation process and auditing.

There is a good case to be made for increasing MPs’ salaries substantially and let them spend it as grandly and as frivolously as they like.

4. Pomp & circumstance still stand for something.

Tradition is worth protecting not for its own sake, but because it symbolizes hard won rights and historic compromises; such as the opening of Parliament ceremony surrounding the Queen’s speech. Anyway, Parliament remains supreme. Its rights and democratic freedoms still need defending from outside interference, as in the Damian Green case, for instance.

5. Stop groveling and raise your chins.

There’s nothing wrong with saying sorry. But there is something pathetic about what Ann Widdecombe described as the competition between the political parties to prove that “My shirt is hairier than yours”. Such a show just reinforces the message that MPs are guilty and not to be trusted. The trick is to say sorry calmly, redefine the debate and move on quickly.

6. Being loved is not what Parliament is about  – it’s respect that’s vital.

It would be a tragedy for Parliamentary democracy to try to swap respect for love and or popularity. Respect starts with self-respect, which our MPs have shown precious little of recently.

The maintenance of respect requires a little distance, reserve and sense of elitism – based on earned merit – on the part of the respected. There’s nothing wrong with calibrated arrogance in its rightful place; in fact it is a must-have.

Leadership and unpopularity go hand in hand. In the words of my friend and social commentator Richard D North, “the public have always loved hating Parliament and it means next to nothing that they are now hyperventilating about it.”

For instance, the public is for hanging and Parliament against. However it is not Parliament’s job to be led by the mob’s opinion, but to lead us in the right direction based on reasoned argument.

7. Call an early election to rejuvenate Parliament with fresh faces and a new mandate.

New Labour is exhausted. David Cameron is right to call for an early election to clear the air, reset the agenda and re-establish the authority of Parliament and politicians. An election would focus the debate on the future. It would highlight what needs doing to overcome the current economic, social and political mess we’re in. It would also offer an early opportunity to kick out dead wood MPs. Instead, in should come a better crop of MPs than what The Times describes as the low quality ones that have recently populated the House. But Norman Tebbit was right to tell the BBC Today programme that the election shouldn’t happen too soon. He argued that constituencies need the summer to decide for themselves what to make of their sitting MP: back him or sack him (or her)?

8. Launch an education programme about the role of Parliament, MPs and the electorate.

There is too little understanding in society of the various roles of Parliament, MPs and the electorate. MPs need to renew their contract with the masses; the masses need to understand the role they play, too.

Moreover, while PR gurus such David Brain are right to point out the following, the trends identified need resisting in one sense and fixing in another. Mr Brain says:

We are entering an age where traditional deference is dying off and people no longer believe that respect can be merely attributed because people have ‘status’ or ‘power’ or ‘position’. Today, respect has to be earned and re-earned if people’s default position of scepticism is to be overcome.

There is still a role for elitism based on merit and tradition. Scepticism and cynicism can be overcome to the extent required for the functioning of a healthy democracy. There is, indeed, no reason to give in to the trends the internet encourages. There is every reason to believe that a balance can be struck between the old and the new sentiments if we intervene consciously (confidently) to make it so. That’s where education and communication of the renewal of the contract between MPs and society comes in.

9. MPs need to be more dignified in Parliament.

David Cameron was right to want to end Punch & Judy politics. He admits he has failed to do so, but he should not give up on what was a noble aim.

10. End of spin – tell it straight and cut the crap.

This crisis may lead to MPs who are cowed and humiliated and turned into local ombudsmen for every tinpot failing of local and national bureaucracies. It ought to end with MPs calmly and boldly reminding the nation of their real role. The nation will believe them when it sees rugged behaviour by MPs. As usual, it’s the reality which will earn our attention and it will trump the present media withchunt.

So I fear my pitch would end lamely. I’d have to say: “You don’t need PR. You need to grow a couple.”

No related pages.

Whatever happened to due process? On-the-spot government surrounded by unelected opponents and their friendly media is not democracy in action. It actually undermines the image and authority of elected representatives. Though, admittedly, one should blame Woolas and Prime Minister Brown, not Lumley for that.

Dominic Lawson usefully reminded us in The Sunday Times yesterday of Gordon’s Brown’s comment of just over one year ago, “We’re moving away from this period when, if you like, celebrity matters – people are moving away from that”.

Phil Woolas lowered the dignity of Parliamentary democracy when he seemed to formulate government policy as he groveled in a corridor to Joanna Lumley.

We don’t know what the upshot will be. Woolas’ response to being hijacked was almost dignified and he may have done more stonewalling than waffling. There’s a good chance good sense will prevail and won’t necessarily make Ms Lumley a happy bunny.

Oddly but not untypically, the Tories got this issue round their necks. Their over-excitement over this campaign was a hostage to fortune.

Governments have to make unpopular policy decisions. The next Tory government will have to implement many controversial policies to sort out the mess New Labour created. When they do, the Tories will face an army of special-pleaders spearheaded by celebrities just as good-looking and popular as Joanna Lumley.

I have sympathy for the Gurkhas. But I also know that immigration is a complex issue. They signed contracts which did not include British citizenship as part of the bargain. Charles Moore, in the Spectactor, was on-point as so often. He noted that the Gurkhas are merceneraries, and said he implied no criticism in the job description but it did rather militate against sentimentality.

Anyway, the ins and outs of the issue do not concern me here.

I do advocate, however, that we should publicly resist the “Lumley Effect”. Special pleading always has its ugly and undemocratic – ultimately its unfair – side. Give in to it and it’s like giving in to hostage-taking or blackmail. Yield too often and nothing will ever get done by any government.

As PR professionals we should not celebrate a campaign just because it was effective. We should always wonder whether the quality of argument has been served. We ought to remember the toughness of Dominic Lawson’s cleverly composed point that:

In the end, political arguments should be judged entirely on the merits of the case, rather than by the relative beauty, charm or fame of the proponents. It will never happen, of course.

If anybody ever doubted the power, potential and influence of PR – but also the baleful effects of some PR – they need only study Joanne Lumley’s campaign on behalf of the Gurkhas.

No related pages.

His admission of cocaine use – but not crack – won him more votes than it lost him. Would we have cared more if he’d taken crack, say, than we did about the difference between Clinton’s usage of pot and Obama’s use of cocaine, I don’t think so. Of course, if he had turned up high as a kite at the G20 summit in London we would have cared very much. If ever he advocated kids misbehaving as he once did, we’d care also.

We should remember that the allegations against George W Bush and Bill Clinton about alcohol, drugs and sex added more to their stature than it took away. The slurs against Sarah Palin confirmed her status as heroic victim.

What’s really revealing – besides the lies, smears and sliminess of it all – about the demise of Gordon Brown’s “head of strategy and planning” is how out of touch he was with public sentiment and how public opinion is formed. He and co-conspirators also seemed to be blind to the dangers of being caught in the smear-game. They have just discovered that the public really detests those who stoop so low.

Moreover, as Max Mosley has persuasively advocated, public figures have a right to have their private lives – even the embarrassing bits – kept private, unless there really is a pressing public interest at stake.

The Tories deny the latest – not new – allegations. But the truth is that most of us don’t care one way or the other. It made entertaining reading in the Sunday newspapers today. But the great thing is that it did more harm to the sleaze merchants than to their intended victims.

“New” Labour was always unattractively paranoid and vicious. What is surprising is that they have been pilloried for it for ten years and more and still not got the message.

Anway, here was just another example of “New” Labour spinning (or sinning) out of control. Come election time they’ll pay the bill for this.

No related pages.

Finkelstein says innocent people are going to get hurt. The word “no” is going to get used a lot. There will be cutbacks and setbacks galore. As Finkelstein says, “it is hard to see what accompanying these tough calls with a harsh demeanour will achieve”. I would add that corporates and politicians have a responsibility to show humility and to care even when doing things that are in essence unpleasant.

That’s sound enough. 

And yet, I am not sure that Finkelstein is entirely right. He criticises Matthew Parris for believing that Gordon Brown’s air of taciturn glumness was an asset. But wasn’t Parris merely suggesting the country might welcome a certain steady realism of demeanor and even of message from CEOs and politicians? In my view, Paris was spot on. Surely, he’s correct to say that audiences prefer authenticity, and that the public is less infantile than modern marketing strategies suppose.

It was interesting to see Steve Hilton – one of the great corporate CSR guys of our time – apply himself to rebranding the Tories. Certainly, as Finkelstein says, being labelled both nasty and inefficient was bit of a no-no.  This was strikingly noted by Maurice Saatchi and Teresa May. But has it entirely helped the Tories that they are now open to the accusation of mushiness (whether behind huskies or not)?

The Tories believe in tough-love. That is their USP. They believe in it for the economy and for families and education and welfare systems. That doesn’t make them red in tooth and claw, but it really is not clear that the Tories can ever be nice. One cannot be all things to all men, not even in retail politics.

Labour’s pitch is that you can tax the economy (especially the rich, say the old-timers) and fix the problems poor people face. The Tory’s pitch is that tax-and-spend is certainly bloody awful for the better-off but not much better – and maybe worse – for the poor. That’s not a pretty message for about a third of the population, but it may be true for all that. It also appeals strongly to lots of people.

It is certainly true that a devil-take-the-hindmost Tory-ism would fail in Britain. But in the end, corporatist Toryism also failed Britain and that is why Margaret Thatcher was allowed to correct about 20 years of sloppy government. Tony Blair was an enormous success because he smilingly promised that he would be a realist – and tough.

The genius of David Cameron – if it turns out to be genius – is smilingly to say that to a large extent there is less pain all round if we don’t pretend we can fix a recession painlessly. The country half accepts that the job of Tories is to clear up Labour’s tax-and-spend messes. That requires toughness.

These unpalatable truths can only be sold to the electorate by people and parties capable of seeming to empathise with the pain involved. Firms face the same challenge. Tone counts. To that extent, Finkelstein is spot-on. If that’s what he’s saying, of course.

No related pages.

Doubtless in fact this was just a bit of good luck the Tories stumbled into. But it repositions them as a real opposition rather than as an out-of-touch Toff Tendency. How dissidence becomes a politician.

Labour is on the defensive. It is accused of and forced to deny Stalinist tactics. Perhaps they knew about the arrest in advance, perhaps not. Perhaps they sort of did and rightly did nothing. PC plod perhaps did it off his own bat for good reasons (the media and the Tories could yet be forced to eat humble pie if real crimes are proved to have been committed or were decently suspected).

This story wobbles in many directions in our imaginations precisely because we don’t know the full facts yet.

But as any author knows, nothing attracts readers (voters) like a good old ban or witch hunt against an undeserving target. Matthew d’Ancona said in yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph the arrest has transformed the Tory image from Bullingdon boys to Woodward and Bernstein (though nobody accuses the government of committing a crime, unlike President Nixon).

My gut instinct tells me that this will not end in a clean win for anybody – not the police, the Tories, the civil servant involved, or the Speaker of the House. There’s a good chance that as the truth gets told and the events chronicled as to who did what and knew what when and why, the waters will muddy.

Still, the Tories may well hang on to their PR victory. There is a huge appetite for government openness and establishment-clobbering. The fine tuning won’t matter. Damien Green is very likely to keep his trusty sword of truth and his breastplate of indignation, or whatever it was that Jonathan Aitken couldn’t quite keep hold of.

No related pages.