Will Alistair Campbell finally meet his match?
February 9th, 2005
bbc
-
Can Lynton Crosby really grapple with the Labour spin machine?
After more than a decade of almost total dominance of the media could the New Labour machine, now joined again by Alistair Campbell, be finally meeting its match. Is the Tory party getting its PR and campaigning act together?
In the past week or so we’ve seen moves by Michael Howard’s party that would have been unheard at previous elections. There’s the concerted attack on Campbell’s return to centre stage which seems to be designed at making the former Number 10 Director of Communications the issue. The unfortunate f*****g t**ts email received by the BBC says a lot about the style of the man and will be hard to sweep under the carpet.
There’s been the Tory PR move on the accuracy of opinion polls which Polly Toynee writes about in the Guardian this morning and was seen in last night’s Newsnight on BBC2. Much of this is based on concepts and arguments first used in discussions on this site. Whether this proves to be right or wrong the party’s communication team is seeking to raise doubts that could help them deal with any future poor ratings.
And there was yesterday’s somewhat surprising news that the Times is being sued over comments that the Tory campaign chief, Lynton Crosby, was alleged to have made about his party’s chances. Is this a shot over the bows aimed at the media generally on how they cover the Tories? On the face of it this seems an odd thing to do because it reminds people of the original story but, no doubt, Crosby has thought that one through.
These three moves are not just about now but seem designed to set the scene for the whole campaign.
The agenda seems to be to tar the whole Labour campaign with the Campbell brush; to neutralise the impact of possible poor poll ratings and to let the media know that the party won’t just lie down if stories it says are not correct are published.
When Michael Howard brought over Lynton Crosby from Australia it was clearly to do more than just set up databases of potential Tory voters. He’s presented as a political heavy-weight - but he’s got a big challenge on his hands matching Campbell.
Whether all of this will have an impact on the outcome we do not know and it could just turn voters off or boost the Lib Dems. But it will sure make the coming weeks much more interesting.
© Mike Smithson 2005
MessageSpace Advertising
INteresting Mike - but it is LYNTON not LYTTON Crosby!
Thanks Rik - amended.
Why the Tories don’t get more out of Maurice Sattchi, probably the foremost practitioner in adevertising and PR in the world I can’t imagine. It’s unlikely that Lynton Crosby is in the same league. It will be difficult useing the tactics learned in Australia with their very different political culture in the UK.
‘Bull in a china shop’ techniques such as issuing a writ against Murdoch’s Times, possibly forgetting that he controls 40% of our media doesn’t seem well thought out.
Must confess to surprise (and anxiety for the reason Mike cites) at the decision to sue the Times notwithstanding an all round loathing of the rag. But I wonder whether they suspect that Alastair Campbell might be personally involved in the offending story and thus perhaps be forced (embarrassingly) in court to give evidence. Interesting to see whether the Paper will defend the action or eventually issue a grovelling apology.
4 Interesting point - could Campbell be behind it? In the normal course of events it takes months or even years for these things to come to court so any appearance would be well after the election.
One theory is that they are trying to discredit the Times’s source to stop future stories.
If this libel suit succeeds (even in the sense of forcing an apology) it will be a dark day for candid political coverage.
The Campbell thing seems like a storm in a teacup. Given his style, him calling someone a f***ing t**t is just his standard patter and doesn’t really have much force.
Thordarson called the board of Stoke City f***ing t**ts after they sacked him as manager.
I saw the discussion on Newsnight about polls, tactical unwind etc. It is interesting to see that the discourse is now subject to spin. A number of crucial points were left out of their narrative, such as the extent (or indeed existence of) tactical unwind, the role of the Lib Dems, (i.e. that the only reason that the Conservatives are anywhere near Labour in the Polls is because of the Liberal Democrats - see the difference between Populus and YouGov - Conservative rating the same, Lab/LD split different), which may or may not help the Conservative Party and that there are very few if any on the site who think that they can win the next GE.
One question is whether the Conservative Party completely believe this line or whether, as Mike suggests, that it is an attempt to ‘re-frame’ the debate, whereby the polls are ‘disbelieved’ by people. A few weeks ago we were talking about being quoted or referred to in the media. We have a new game now - how many times we can be ’spun’. Expect a response from the other 2 parties soon!
If this is a case of press intimidation, maybe the Times can withhold coverage of the Conservative campaign until the suit is settled. Must protect the shareholders, you know.
6 and 9 - you are ignoring the possibility that the story is completely untrue and without foundation. If so how can it be “a dark day for candid political coverage”. More likely a blow for honesty in political coverage!
Even if it isn’t true its not really libellous - just the cut and thrust of everyday politics. I mean could Lynton Crosby really prove that he had sustained damage or distress. Any semi sane judge should throw this one out of court.
Re 11 - I think a legitimate case could be made that it damages his professional reputation, as someone who earns his living from his political nous and discretion. It also will fire a shot across the bows of a Times editor who seems to be happy to print a number of untrue pieces.
To see a national newspaper taken down a peg or two should gladden the heart of most observers.
Surely the libel action, the spin on the polls and all the rest is an attempt to reframe the ‘narrative’. The Conservatives have been portrayed as heading for another pasting. They want to change that perception. Smart politics - whether it is too late is another question.
If the Tories / Mr Crosby proceed with the writ, perhaps the Times should regard the whole Conservative Campaign as “sub judice” and forbear from covering it at all, in the interests of Justice.
The Tories would be absolutely mad to sue the Times - they’ll likely get crucified in court plus they’ll put the backs up of every NUJ member in the country. Remember how much damage Alistair Campbell did to Labour’s reputation in the media with his hissy fit at the BBC over the Nolan report? It looks like the Tories are trying to turn the Labour party back into the journalist’s friend - bizarre.
As for AC’s ‘blackberry’ incident - I heard his rebuttal on Newsnight - ‘the biggest storm in a teacup - since the last biggest storm in a teacup’ - a masterclass in how to do it.
Re 14, Well, judging by the “coverage” (sic) by the rag so far, such a prospect might well be regarded as a blessing by Central Office.
the problem with campbell being of course that he creates multiple storms in multiple tea cups…
If the Times report is untrue, then Lynton Crosby will win, and probably be awarded significant damages.
I doubt if all journalists will be united behind the Times in this. I daresay quite a few of them would find it amusing if the Times lost.
RE: 12 Surely an equally compelling case could be made that Lynton Crosby’s reputation as a political analyst would be severely damaged if he hadn’t told his client privately there was no chance of them winning!
Surely if a pejorative story about the spinning of a spin doctor can be thought to have brought ‘hate contempt and ridicule’ on that person then they are in the wrong business? And how has Lord Rees-Mogg got away with his thoughts on Alistair Cambell’s integrity for so long?.
I think rather like prostitutes in the era of Christine Keeler spin doctors reputations don’t have much value
And if I was a lawyer for the Times I would have a wonderful day in court going over Mr Crosby’s history as a spin doctor for Australia’s Mr Howard. Or if it happened before the UK elections Alistaire Cambell would give his right arm to feed the Times lawyers some interesting questions!
I think the odds of Mr Crosby taking this to court are equivalent to Charles Kennedy’s chances of becoming PM in May!
Isn’t “Don’t mess with the press” pretty much an article of faith for politicians?
With “…secret Whitehall documents about John Major being leaked ‘by mistake’”, how politicised has the Civil Service become - and how much will Mr. Campbell be manipulating it?
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/16474105
I would be astonished if this made it to court. It is a bit risky, but on the basis that the squeeky wheel gets the grease, I imagine that Crosby thinks that a bit of publicity is no bad thing, and that it will probably make the press a bit more diffident in similar circumstances.
Re: role of Maurice Saatchi- I have never beleived that an advertising creative was the right guy to head up campaign strategy. Given the repeated stories of bust-ups in CCO between Fox, Saatchi and Crosby I imagine the temperature above Starbucks is now quite high.
Re 23. Isn’t this story part of the new Tory spin offensive? They figured that difficult material on the ERM crisis could come out under the Freedom of Information Act and they’ve got their retlaliation in first. The story is now about Labour dirty tricks - not the ERM bungling in 1992.
We are so used to the Tories being totally inept at this sort of thing that people don’t realise what they are now upto.
The Tory tactics as regarding the Times, are actually quite clever. The case will never go to court, and I doubt that any damages will be paid. What the proposed libel is trying to do, is to stop the the Times publishing widly speculative and damaging stories about the party, such as one that said it was basically bankrupt recently along with others. It also seeks to damage the paper’s relations with new labour and particularly their reliance on AC. After all remember that 40% of Times readers will vote Conservative at the next election (according to polls). They don’t want that support to ebb away due to a series of speculative and incorrect stories pouring damage onto the party. By the way it has already had an effect. Today they had a piece by MH on asylum. Personally I suspect Murdoch will find it quite amusing and be surprised at the party’s fearless (or foolhardy attitude).
On a more general point, the Times is falling into the same trap (or boon) as the independent, failing to distinguish between fact, opinion and speculation. I enjoy reading it, but it is difficult to take all their stories seriously. For proper news coverage you can only really rely on the Telegraph and the Guardian these days.
Another point about the Times libel. The paper is also in the habit of publishing letters from voters who say they would never vote Tory again and Tory party members resigning. I doubt CCO likes this or thinks they are behaving in apolitical way on this. These letters are not particularly significant and are used to damage the party politically.
Interestingly enough the Sun has moved noticeably to the Conservatives over the last few months. After the Leicester South by-election there was an article suggesting the Lib Dems would allow 10 year olds to watch porn and crack cocaine be sold over the counter. Agree with you on the newspapers Andrew even though Mark Steyn makes me want to vomit when he is in the Telegraph.
I think the Sun will formally endorse Labour at the election, but at the same time be reasonable to the Conservatives.
I always find Mark Steyn invariably funny, even if I don’t agree with him. He is the only real humourist on the right with the exception of Boris’s turns. At least though Steyn is in the Comment section unlike Baldwin who is in the News section. The Sun will still back labour but less heartily than last time as some of its readers are moving back to the Tories.
Jeremy Clarkson is pretty funny and something of the right?
I always think of the Times as very pro-Tory and equally anti-Labour. It just shows that these things all depend on which angle you view things from.
Exactly Roger 32 - they support Tony Blair.
Pj O’ Rourke though American is humorous, but I think we are back to IA’s point about division of labour by political leaning virtually all stand up comedians are left wing. Jim Davidson is another one that springs to mind although like Clarkson I think the funny bit is very debatable.
Sorry by though American I meant up until then we had been discussing Brits not that Americans can’t be funny!
Moving back to the original point of the thread. Mike appears to be on to something. The right, with both Crosby in Australia and Rove in the US, have been very into the idea of ‘framing’ the terms that an election is fought on. The strategy appears to run along the lines of ‘if the media’ use our terms of reference then it limits the ability of others to concentrate on our weaker areas’. This of course is smart politics - what used to be called controlling the agenda.
The potential problem for the Conservatives is that they are trying to do this late in the day. Both Bush and (John) Howard were coming from positions where they had themselves been in control of the agenda and the framing of the debate for some time. They sought not to redefine the terms of reference, rather reinforce them. It was, therefore, the Democrats / Labor who were in the role the Conservatives find themselves. Moreover, those two opposition parties had stronger themes with which to bash their incumbant opponents with i.e. Opposition to The War in Australia and the War and the Economy in the US. The Conservatives ‘own’ neither of these issues at present, and are forced to seek out other campaigning issues (i.e. to try to put immigration on the agenda). Labour appear to be playing a ‘waiting game’, merely defending the attacks. It must be assumed that the counter attack will come in the form of a budget bonanza.
Countries with authoritarian regimes used to have the paper which was closest to the government and usually reflected its views, referred to as ‘the semi-official xyz’ by the London media. Does anyone still regard the ’semi-official’ London Times as an impartial paper of record ?
I too find The Times a bit too New Labour for my tastes, but some of this discussion does show up how relative a concept media neutrality is - the right takes for granted bias towards it in newspapers (as the left does with the BBC). I remember the (fairly recent) time when The Times was regarded as a conservative paper, but certainly not as “impartial”!
The Times used to be thought of as the Establishment paper and the current thing that calls itself the Times has delusions about its current position in the firmament.
So as new labour is likely to be in power they are rallying to New Labour.
Like Bush and Berlusconi, Murdoch is backing Blair anyway, so what has Howard to lose?
I think Murdoch uses the Times and the tabloids in different ways; the latter to push Blair further right, into the kind of racist nationalism which precludes any questioning of Washington rule (as opposed to ‘Brussels rule’).
I am a lifelong anti-Tory now contemplating a ’strategic Tory’ vote IF there’s a chance of a balanced parliament.I remember the day the Times came out with that story and a poll sowing quite a small Labour lead, spun as a hopeless Tory failure to close the gap. I had just been studying the huge Labour leads of around 17 in the corresponding period leading up to the last election. I was appalled at the sheer unfairness of the Times (naive, I know) and my doubts about which way Murdoch would be betting this time were instantly clarified.
Les
Les. Being one of the more wordy contributors myself, don’t take this to heart, but is your nom de plume a double joke? Should you not be Morris More
I thought people were saying that rags like the Sunday Times were looking quite Tory, and that there was a possibility of Murdoch spliting his newspapers. Remember that Murdoch invited Howard to Mexico to try and persuade him to switch to the tories.
I assume that with this writ there is no hope of Murdoch even being nice to the Tories in the near future… I saw the Sun front page yesterday which was very pro Blair. I guess they are within their rights to, whatever the outcome, run negative anti-tory election campaign coverage.
The Sunday Times takes a different stance to the Times in the week. I’d be surprised if it endorsed labour. It may well endorse no one at all. The Sun has been much kinder to the Tories in the last four years than under Hague. Some Sun readers are switching from labour to the Tories and a few to the Lib Dems. However about 40% still back labour, and the newspaper is not foolish. It will back labour guardly.
Re. 15, the Vassall Tribunal (and the jailing of two journalists) explained much of the press firestorm re. the Profumo Affair.
Re 15, I was pleased to see Tom Baldwin arguing that Labour will benefit from this row because it shows they’re using the latest technology!
The Sunday Times, if I remember rightly, endorsed the Conservatives in 97 and 01. Witherow’s by far the most conservative of Murdoch’s lead editors. No prospect of a change there.
40 - what do you mean by ‘balanced parliament’ Les?
Campbell’s credibility went out of the window as soon as he “allegedly” sexed up that dodgy dossier.
I have read with interest your piece on Crosby and his legal notice to the Times and the subsequent comments. I worked with Lynton on campaigns in Oz and he often (I mean weekly) fired off complaints during the campaign to the ABC on biased coverage and to the Broadcasting Commission on Labour advertising etc. These are not new tactics in this country, perhaps such tactics are new in the more gentrified world of UK politics? In politics you play to win and thats Lynton’s motto and who can fault him for that? Not I. Also, putting resources in the marginal seats is politics 101 surely (why do I see this being discussed at length like its controversial). It pisses off sitting members and candidates from other seats who think they are deserving of support and funds but so what……
Simon — how do you rate Crosby? Is he capable of single-handedly turning round a party’s struggling campaign? Anecdotes please!
doggy step…
doggy step I stray’d thursday-night to say that string-band doggy step is once again the most premonstratensian nation and the No. They were originally known to Rhapsodies in four cheese-pots, the fourth coexist…