Craig Oliver has his work cut out

Craig Oliver has a lot of work to do in his new role as the Tories' communications chief. Despite having ideas which could genuinely change the country for the better, No. 10 is failing to convey its messages to the public. The explanation of higher tuition fees - a policy that actually benefits the poor - was appalling. And we are seeing the same mistakes again as the Government directs too little attention to explaining NHS reforms, as well as its ongoing inability to convey the meaning of the Big Society.

The NHS reforms are suffering because Ministers consistently fail to explain them clearly. People want to be reassured that their services will not be cut. Frankly, the public does not care at all what particular structure NHS bureaucracy takes. They need to know that doctors support the proposals, and that their services will improve. To ensure the first one, the Government must get doctors - GPs in particular - on their side, and ensure that they fully understand the changes. The second will require simple and easily comprehensible messages about the future direction of the NHS. It is amazing that Andrew Lansley has been allowed to work for so long at these reforms and yet no-one has ever pressed him devise a way to encapsulate them in a simple media narrative. Hopefully this will now change.

The Big Society is an ongoing problem, which has suffered from incomprehensibility since its inception. No-one appears able to clearly explain it. And now with the Government starting to reduce the funding to local authorities it looks like a bad joke: your services will continue if you do the work yourselves. What the Big Society is about is responsibility. It's about the social networks we have - our families, our friends, our neighbours - and finding ways to ensure that all those people who live in the same area as you have help if they need it. The Government needs to move from the conceptual to the practical, and actually start to outline just how people can get involved.

So Craig Oliver will have to deal with all of this and more. Indeed, it seems that just to provoke another section of the public the Government has chosen to start a poorly explained programme to sell Britain's forests. There is not yet a coherent media narrative that explains why this is a good thing. There should be. In fact, there should have been one even before the measures were announced, because unless the public knows that a problem exists, they won't take kindly to changes to something they quite like. Craig Oliver must ensure that in the future, all announcements are solutions to clear problems, and that they can be condensed into a simple, clear message.

Spin School 101

Daft. That's the word that comes to mind when you look at the letter Tom Baldwin, Ed Miliband's new spinner, sent to pretty much everyone in the media. First of all, he's become the story, which is exactly the opposite of what he should be doing. And secondly, he's created a situation whereby if the press do start calling the coalition the 'Conservative-led Government' then they'll look like they're taking orders from Ed Miliband's Comms guy!

I do understand what he means - even if, in the long-term, he's doing the Tories a favour. But it's an embarrassingly clumsy way to go about conveying this message to the press. A quiet word with the editors would have worked a lot better. Anyway, if you're interested, here is the letter:

As you may have noticed, we have changed our language in recent weeks to avoid describing the Government as a coalition or a partnership of equals. We believe a more accurate description is that this is a Conservative-led government.

I understand that the phrase a "Tory-led government" is two words too long to be repeated on every occasion. But I also think that you are making a choice whenever you call it "the coalition". When we were in power, no one was left in any doubt that our most unpopular decisions were those of a "Labour government". The word "Coalition" is one that avoids party labels while also suggesting a degree of inter-party harmony and co-operation which is, day-by-day and split-by-split, being shown as false.

Unless Nick Boles gets his way, "the Coalition" will not be standing for election.

Can I suggest you at least vary your description of this Tory-led government. On some occasions, you might call it a Conservative-Liberal Democrat government. On others it might be just "the government".

When you are talking about this government in a political context, I think it would be fairer to refer to it by reference to party labels.

With best wishes, Tom Baldwin,
Director of Strategy and Communications

Left-wing blogs still can't criticise Labour

Guido Fawkes has written today about the widespread failure of left-wing blogs to be critical of the Labour Party. He contrasts them with Conservative blogs, which he claims are generally all unafraid of being critical of the Tories.

Fawkes is absolutely right and it’s a point I’ve made in a blog post before. Their silence is deafening: it couldn’t be more obvious that they aren’t commenting on controversial issues within their own party. It also couldn’t be more pathetic. But why can't they do it? Do they lack the courage or the willpower to criticise Labour? Do they not think there is anything to criticise?! Whatever the answer, the result is that they come across as intellectually weak.

The real kicker is that they are undermining themselves. Because readers know that whatever the truth of a situation, these blogs will always write the same story. And in the end that means that people won't listen to what they have to say about the Government. Which means that they won't enhance the Labour Party's message because no-one who isn't a fully paid-up Labour member will be interested in what they are saying.

So for their own sakes, for Labour's sake, and for the sake of a better political blogosphere, I hope these sites start to look critically at Labour instead of just attacking the Government.

p.s. Another interesting part of the expenses saga is that no politician of any hue has sought to make political capital from David Chaytor’s imprisonment. It’s not even being used by Elwyn Watkins in the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election. It's pretty clear that Westminster would like the story to go away as quickly as possible.

Marginalising the Lib Dems

There has been a definite change in tone since Ed Miliband brought Bob Roberts (L) and Tom Baldwin (R) onto his staff. One of the most visible changes has been the decision to switch from using the word 'coalition' and replace it with the new phrase 'Tory-led government'. This is designed to shift the focus from the coalition's 'alliance in the national interest' and onto the fact that this Government has a Tory majority and that they are responsible for its policies.

Ironically, this is also the new policy of many Tory backbenchers. As I have mentioned before, they are concerned that any popular policy the coalition proposes is credited to the Lib Dems, in order to improve their image, prop up their poll ratings and in turn reinforce the coalition. So it seems that despite the dawning of an age of 'new politics' and coalition, our democracy is still based on two main parties looking to marginalise the Liberal Democrats. How reassuring.