A question of leadership: Cameron, Crosby and Blair

David Cameron will be breathing a small sign of relief that the royal baby has finally decided to make its way in the world. Not because royal line is secured but because hopefully people will stop asking him awkward questions about his election guru Lynton Crosby and the influence of said guru on government policy.

Now, regular readers will know that I have a particular view about lobbying. I think it is fine, indeed more than fine. I think that lobbying is part of a mature democratic process. I want policy decisions to be taken on the basis of evidence , of fact. Engaging with a wider range of people and organisations helps inform decision-making. Lobbyists have a role to play in that process. A good lobbyist, a professional lobbyist will help her/his clients marshal their arguments, put together compelling evidence and advise on how that is communicated in a way that is likely to engage the attention of key influencers and decision-makers. A good lobbyist will not take the “if you scratch my back” approach, using personal relationships to buy favours.

From what I have read, I have no problem with Crosby Textor, Lynton Crosby’s firm, giving advice to private healthcare providers. That is what lobbying firms do and there does not appear to be any evidence that Crosby doing anything untoward. Unpalatable to some but not untoward. In these circumstances, it seems perfectly reasonable for Mr Crosby to use his skills and experiences to earn a crust.

I am a more than little more concerned about the allegations that it was after a chat with Crosby (whose firm has worked for tobacco giant Philip Morris) that the government decided to shelve plans for cigarettes to be sold in plain packets. Cameron has denied Crosby influenced the decision but has repeatedly dodged the question of whether they discussed the policy.

But what has really made me even more concerned, actually I would say furious, is a comment the Prime Minister made to ITN last week when pressed on the issue. He said: “Tony Blair is a good example. Tony Blair is someone who does lobby me from time to time on things like the Middle East peace process. Do I have to know who all Tony Blair's other clients are? If I did that, I don't think I've got enough paper in my office to write them on."

What? Did Cameron really compare the Middle East peace process to the tobacco industry? Does he really think the Middle East is one of Tony Blair’s clients? Seriously?

It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that Blair’s role as the Middle East envoy is on a par with that of a lobbyist.  I would have thought that it is requirement of the role (for which I am pretty sure he does not get paid) that Blair reports on a regular basis to the quartet that appointed him, namely the UN, EU, US and Russia. Last time l checked we were still part of the UN and the EU and a pretender to the title of world power so on that basis alone I would have thought the Prime Minister of the UK would welcome an opportunity to discuss the process to the man that is tasked with helping to sort things out (I imagine his brief is a little more detailed than that).

Has DC taken leave of his senses? I don’t think so. I think he thought that by trying to bring TB into the row it would be defused. Well he made a serious misjudgement. Not just about defusing the issue but about comparing the Middle East with fags, an issue of global political and economic consequences with a tawdry local political row. So no, he hasn’t taken leave of his senses. He just needs to take better advice, probably not from Crosby, and start behaving like a world leader.

DC, EJS and the HLP

David Cameron was in Liberia on Friday on the last leg of his African tour. While in Algeria and Libya his focus was how Britain and the international community deals with extremism, in Liberia it was poverty which I would argue is a greater threat to peace and stability, not just in Africa but across the world. Poor people are hungry people, people without access to education, clean water, health care, people who see their children die of diseases which wouldn't kill them if they lived in the West. Extremists of any persuasion like poor people because they are easy pickings. We have to do something to tackle global poverty. And that is what Cameron was doing in Monrovia.

He is co-chair, along with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Liberian President Ellen Sirleaf Johnson (ESJ) of a high level panel of "eminent persons" (HLP) convened by UN Secretary General to agree the global development priorities to succeed the Millennium Development Goals.  

The theme of the Monrovia meeting was putting in the national building blocks for sustained prosperity. In Liberia and indeed most of the rest of Africa this means short- and medium-term foreign support so that long-term Africa can stand on its own two feet. Because no matter what those opposed to the concept of international development would have you believe, no African country, or in fact any country, wants to be aid-dependent.

This is why it is significant that ESJ is co-chairing the Panel. She is having a direct impact on the development priorities the world sets itself. She can and will ensure that the priorities of Africa and Africans are properly reflected.

ESJ knows well that countries like Liberia need help to get in place the basic infrastructure upon which its future prosperity is dependent. The civil war destroyed the national grid, the road network, the ports. Without these crops don’t get to market, children don’t get to school, the sick don’t get healthcare, goods don’t get traded. The formal economy is stifled, taxable income is suppressed, countries remain poor. Ok, I know it is a bit more complicated than that but not much.   

So Liberia needs help now to help it not need help in the future. It is doing what it can but can’t do it on its own. And why should we give help? Well I could write at length about theories of under-development and the role of the developed world in the impoverishment of Africa but I think it is simpler than that.

• We can: we can afford it no matter what those opposed to it tell you
• It will have a real impact: done effectively it is a short-term investment that will be transformational
• It is better for us: poor people are vulnerable not just to disease but to the allure of extremists and instability Africa is not good for anyone
• We should: it is the right thing to do

I hope that Cameron enjoyed his visit to Liberia. It would be great if he fell in love with it as I have, but at the very least I hope he has returned with a strong commitment to do the right thing and supports EJS, Liberia and Africa. 

One year on

Acres of newsprint and hours of broadcast time have already been spent today reviewing the first year of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government. I tried to resist the temptation to add my penny's worth but couldn’t, so here is my take on the coalition’s communications operation. In a word it has been shambolic.

I think that stung by the persistent accusations during the election campaign that he was insubstantial, Cameron took office desperate to demonstrate that he was a radical politician with a packed agenda for change. And so the call went out across Whitehall – bring out your white papers, your interventions, your consultations, even your blue sky thinking, prove to the public and more importantly to the commentariat that we aren’t light on policy. But Cameron also wanted to have a more relaxed centre so the command and control model of Number 10 established under Blair was dismantled and Departments were pretty much allowed to do what they wanted. No longer would they have to get every piece of policy signed off by Number 10, neither were they required to run all their communications plans by the Number 10 coms team. The result has been that week after week, departments have announced half-baked policies which more often that not have had to be “clarified”. Tuition fees, forests, health reforms, foundation schools, internships to name but a few. Even yesterday David Willets had to clarify himself on the issue of whether dumb people could get into university if their rich parents coughed up the full cost of tuition. Oh dear.

I can’t recall a single big announcement that has been “clean”. This has had the cumulative effect of making the coalition look incompetent. Of all his problems, this is one that is relatively easy to fix – re-establish a strong centre, check and double check the policy and the handling. This way you can avoid putting your name to the forward of a white paper which if you or one of your staff had read you would have realised was contrary to your views and breached the coalition agreement. Get a grip.

Who are you calling Great?

At his Q&A session at the University of Qatar yesterday, David Cameron was asked how he was going to make Britain "Great" again. Cameron starting banging on about Britain's universities, its inventions, its language. It wasn't his best response of the day but since he no doubt had spent the morning preparing for questions on Libya, the Middle East and football, I am not going to criticise. I am more interested in the question rather than his answer since it rather supposes that Britain is no longer "Great" and that it is obvious that we should be working to make it Great again. Well Britain is great in many respects but I am pretty sure not in the way the questioner meant. I am certain she was talking about Britain's status in the world, our place on the international stage. Now I am not saying we are now insignificant but we are kidding ourselves if we think we are still Great. Britain likes to think of itself as Great and use our permanent seat on the UN Security Committee, our membership of the G8, our "special relationship" with the US (how many acres of newsprint will be spent on as a result of the Obama state visit) this as evidence of its greatness. But just a look at our shambolic efforts to evacuate British nationals from Libya will tell you otherwise. While the Polish president was sending his official jet to Tripoli, the Montenegrins a liner and the Turks trucks to get their citizens home, we were was still scrambling about trying to find a spare plane. FCO officials have reportedly been negotiating with a supplier for the lease of a plane - I am a bit confused why we weren't able to use RAF aircraft that we actually own. The truth is Britain is no more powerful politically than France or Germany but this is only bad if we don't accept it. Equally, Britain has immense cultural power globally beating France, Germany and so many others. Perhaps Cameron wasn't too much off the beat after all.

Cameron's personal photographer - it was all in vain

For those sitting in Downing Street yesterday there were a number of reasons to cheer the announcement of the Royal Engagement, with “gosh aren’t we delighted for the happy couple?” being just one. The blanket coverage (which quickly descended into ridiculousness with the rolling news programmes grabbing anyone vaguely posh looking or who be within six degrees of Wills and Kate to hear their views on the glad tidings) meant that the settlement of cases brought against the British government by Guantanamo detainees was barely mentioned. Also scarcely warranting remark was the news that Cameron has decided that the hiring of a personal photographer and a film maker on the public purse might be sending the wrong message during this time of austerity. Yes, less than a month after news of these two appointments first came out, the Prime Minister has had a change of heart. Why he even thought it was a good idea in the first place, goodness only knows. He is not the President of the United States or Katie Price, we do not need or indeed want every moment of his day however intimate to be captured for posterity. And we certainly don’t need for it to be paid for by taxpayers’ money. Thankfully, Dave has seen the error of his ways but one has to ask why on earth didn’t someone on his coms team stop the appointments in the first place?

Disappointing Dave

So Dave is within a hair’s breadth of getting the keys to Number 10. He stands on the brink of being the first Conservative Prime Minister of the 21^st Century, Labour’s share of the vote has declined and Cleggstacy has failed to materialise. The boy’s done well – or has he? Far be it from me to be churlish or partisan but I can't help but wonder if his achievement is that great. Last year, I was huddled in various darkened rooms (ok pubs) with people from both Labour and Conservative who are paid to know about this sort of thing speculating about how many seats above 100 the Tories would get and how many terms (two or three) Labour would be out. My Labour chums were practically suicidal (though they wouldn't admit it now) and the Tories were trying desperately hard not to seem smug. Dave was the golden boy, Gordon Brown was a disaster and Clegg was a no mark. There was no way he could lose. And now? Ok he hasn't really lost but he hasn't really won either. So, you have to ask, has Dave thrown it away? I wouldn't like to say, but if I were a Tory donor I might be forgiven for wondering if I had got value for my money.

Ho hung

So after what seems like an aeon of campaigning (it was really only three weeks) the people have spoken. The only problem is no-one can quite work out what they have said. With almost all the results in, the only thing that is clear is that no party has an overall majority. So now we have a hung parliament and the leaders of the three parties have spent the morning resisting the temptation to play party politics and instead have put the national interest first. They have had varying degrees of success.

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, was to the first to set out his stall. A disappointed Clegg, who far from taking second place actually saw his party lose seats, reiterated his view that the Conservative Party had the right to form a government having won the most seats and the largest share of the popular vote while at the same time reminding Mr Cameron that constitutional reform (for which read proportional representation) was the price he would need to pay for Lib Dem support.

An hour or so later Gordon Brown read a statement in front of Number 10 which sought to reassure the country, especially the markets, that in spite of appearances the country is not in chaos. He is still the prime minister and key decisions will still be taken, so Alistair Darling will represent the UK in talks with other G7 Finance Ministers about the deteriorating situation in Greece and the euro zone. He then went on to say that he understood and respected Clegg’s position and invited Clegg and Cameron to make use of the mechanisms and facilities already in place to give them any civil service support that they might need. That said, he also indicated that he was willing to see any of the party leaders and that should the discussions between Cameron and Clegg come to nothing, and he reminded Clegg and the Liberal Democrats that he was more likely to deliver on the kind of constitutional reform they sought.

Finally, we heard from David Cameron. He too began with a very prime ministerial air. He held the hand of friendship and compromise out to Clegg reminding him of their shared views on a whole range of issues including the National Insurance rise, climate change and pupil premiums. But inevitably there was a ‘but’, on the subject of constitutional reform he was less open handed offering only "all party committee of inquiry on political and electoral reform".

This leaves Clegg with a real problem – does he go with Cameron and effectively sacrifice a core belief of his party or does he prop up Brown? I think the technical term is snookered.

Nick and Dave are speaking to each other this evening. No doubt there will be conversations throughout the weekend. If we are lucky we will know who won yesterday’s election on Monday. Sounds ridiculous? Think about the poor people of Belgium who frequently have to endure (or is that enjoy?) weeks if not months without a formal government in place.

Political porn - no, thanks

Ok, I am coming clean - I did watch Gordon's interview with Piers Morgan, well about 30 minutes of it. It was like watching political pornography. I felt dirty, sullied and guilty - indeed I still do. Yes, I completely understand why GB decided to do it and I am sure that Downing Street will have been delighted with the result - real people got a glimpse of the real Gordon and all is well. Except it is not, for me at least. I hate the Hello-isation of politics, too much focus on personality and celebrity, not enough on policy. And Gordon is not alone, this morning David Cameron featured on the front page of a free magazine distributed at London underground stations. The interview within is all about getting to know David Cameron the man, so we learn that he shops at M&S and Gap, favours Paul Smith for his suits, loves TV (Larkrise to Candleford and Silent Witness in particular) and darts. Where is the policy? It distresses me no end that politicians are wooing voters with their personal lives. I can't be the only one who wants to know what they are going do to about health, education and the energy gap. Ironically in his interview this morning when asked if there is something politics could learned from Simon Cowell, Cameron said "Politics isn't show business and shouldn't try to be". Exactly.

Lobbyist and proud of it

It has been an interest week, with David Cameron turning his attention to my industry, when he warned about the dangers of political lobbying and the "far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money". Interesting indeed. Now, I know what I am about to say will be tinged with a touch of "well, she would say that, wouldn't she?" but that doesn't make it less true. So here goes - there is nothing wrong with lobbying per se. Lobbying plays an important and fundamental part in the workings of our democracy. We lobby when we sign a petition, write a letter to our MP, go on a demonstration, or give a local councillor a hard time about rubbish collection times. In my experience the most effective lobbyists are in the voluntary sector. Macmillan Cancer Care, Royal British Legion and Oxfam - all brilliant at it, all know who to speak to and want to say to make their point, getting their funding, change the policy. And no-one objects to it - and nor should they. They are just doing their job. It is the work I do that some would have you believe is inherently wicked. Somehow, helping organisations understand how policy is made and how best to influence it, is being positioned as a bad thing. I don't agree. With so few politicians having experience of the world beyond politics, I see it as essential that organisations, be they PLCs or NGOs, help them understand the implications of their policy thinking. That is why disgraced MPs quitting the Commons following the expenses scandal like Andrew MacKay (a member of Cameron's inner circle) are being employed by political consultancies. Yes, I know there have been one or two cases of bad behaviour in the past - cash for questions being the obvious example - but in the vast majority of cases the work that lobbyists like me do is ethical, open and for the good.