Sharpe's Opinion
Monday, 11th May, 2009
Paging Iain Dale: An Apology is NOT a PR Strategy
Iain Dale writes about Gordon Brown apologising for the expenses scandals:
The BBC is reporting that he only decided to make the apology while on the train to the Nurses conferences. It seems to have been a spur of the moment decision. It’s yet another indication that the Number Ten PR strategy is all at sea. If it exists at all.
Far be it from me to accept Brown’s pitiful excuse for a belated apology, but Iain Dale ought to realise that an apology should not be anything to do with a PR strategy. People should apologise because they understand they have done wrong, not because it’s politically expedient or because it’s good Public Relations. An apology should be a spur-of-the-moment decision, and that spur of that moment should be the very second that one realises that they’ve done something that they need to apologise for.
You know, I thought this was not just common knowledge, but common bloody decency.
To paraphrase President Obama, I am carefully considering ‘losing my cool’ in the near future.
Comments
I understood Dale’s post in the same way as Mr P did but I don’t disagree that, in principle, an apology should be more of an instinctive thing not a planned thing.
I think in politics the situation changes minute by minute so Brown may have thought at first that an apology was not what was needed but given the way the issue has unfolded he may have changed his mind.
Even David Palmer sometimes fluffs his lines.
I can go for the “changes minute by minute” argument on some issues, Blue, but the expenses problem is one of personal probity and honesty.
Something can’t be honest when you did it, honest when it became apparent that it would come to light, but then worthy of an apology after an almightly fuss broke out. It either is, or it isn’t. And much of the Cabinet’s claims were not.
Nor do I believe that he reflected further on the morality of the claims concerned and came to realise that, in fact, they had been wrong. He’s had plenty of time to do that; he only apologised when he thought that might just help save his backside and the backsides of his dishonest friends.
(Like Stu, I am keeping my coolness state under close review for possible future revision…!)
No, I still think Dale was dropping into media-luvvy-la-la-land and viewing everything in terms of what it ‘means’ – purely in terms of media reception, and not in terms of what is decent and respectful.
I couldn’t give a damn about Labour PR strategy. When a man is in the wrong he should say apologise. If he doesn’t yet have a plan he should say sorry and we’ll work out a plan. That’s a position I can respect.
It’s an interesting contrast with David Cameron, of course, who immediately said sorry and had something of a plan ready (that receipts should be published on the internet – which I would say seems to be the ideal solution). It could be that he’s just got a better ‘PR Strategy’ than Brown – but there’s at least a chance (we cling to hope) that he just understands the implications of what’s happened this weekend, where Gordon Brown clearly doesn’t, and actually understands what he should do about it.
It’s quite possible that both are true – Iain is indeed with the luvvies, but both Blue and I read his post the way we did… 
)
But yes, you are 100% right about what should be done when in the wrong. Brown’s approach was interesting; announce the plan (on Youtube) to deal with something that isn’t wrong, then reconsider, withdraw the plan, and (later) apologise…!
The point is, he no longer sees things as right or wrong, wise or foolish. He sees things purely as political dividing lines. That is why he believe that politics is a profession, it is why he managed to rise to the position of PM with no serious democratic tests on the way, and it is the fundamental reason why he is not fit to run the country.
Ooops, lost my cool. If anyone sees it, please let me know where it went.
What is worse than an apology when it is not genuine? Also, does Brown have the mandate to talk on behalf of all our politicians? I agree with Sharpe’s Opinion that the more premeditated an apology is, the worse it usually looks. Brown definitely needs a new approach.
Stu, can I check: are you implying you don’t accept Gordon’s apology, but you accept DC’s?
Not really. But whether or not one accepts an apology from DC is largely an irrelevance, really. His own expenses account is fairly clean, and it isn’t under his governance that this culture has thrived (though I don’t imagine he would have willingly put an end to it of his own accord were he elected). He personally has done very little that requires an apology, besides failing to force his cabinet to reveal their expenses upfront.
I just feel it’s an interesting contrast between the two – that Cameron came forward rapidly, expressed anger and upset at the behaviour of his own cabinet, and proposed a solution which favours openness; whilst Brown hid in his bunker for four days, denied there was a problem, then made a half-hearted apology ‘on behalf of all parties’ and suggested a solution which would make public scrutiny of expenses harder.
I wouldn’t accept that Brown is sorry. It doesn’t really matter too much whether Cameron is or not. There’s more on the Tories to come out tomorrow. The only thing left is whether Wednesday will bring trouble for the Lib Dems…
I’m not sure it’s right to distinguish too sharply (pun intended) between what’s right and having a good PR strategy. Cameron, in letting people know that he understands the difference between right and wrong (good morality, good PR), whilst doing it before the other chap so that he was seen to take the moral high ground (good PR) ticks all the boxes. (Note: it took him a few days to say sorry too. He just did it first, which is all that counts).
Brown, on the other hand, is both wrong and has a bad PR strategy. But I don’t think this is coincidence. I would argue that it’s probably untenable for very long to work with the combinations good morals/bad PR strategy and bad morals/good PR strategy as you’ll eventually be sussed out one way or the other. It took about four months in the case of Brown as PM, for instance.
“it took him a few days to say sorry too. He just did it first, which is all that counts”
I disagree. Until this morning, there were no Tories in the firing line. Cameron said his piece last night just after leaks and leaders started appearing about what the papers would contain this morning. He responded rapidly to the reports to which he needed to respond.
Cameron needn’t apologise ‘on behalf of all parties’ (nor, mind, need Brown) when his own party at the time hadn’t been revealed to have been doing anything wrong. What’s he going to say? ‘You don’t know, and I don’t know, what the Telegraph is going to report, but whatever it is we’re sorry about it and we didn’t mean it’? That’d go down well with a wronged spouse, that one, wouldn’t it. I think an earnest apology requires an understanding on the part of both the apologiser and the wronged as to exactly what the apology is for.
Apart from that, I do agree with you Gaw – surprisingly enough it appears that honesty, in the end, is actually the best policy after all!
I really don’t think you can underestimate the number of conversations, meetings and discussions that would have gone on behind the scenes before Brown said sorry.
Political media machines really do want to control everything and everyone, and I think that’s what Iain was highlighting.
Hmm. Fair point.
I read Iain’s comment slightly differently, though – that an apology is something to think over in advance, consider whether it is necessary and merited, and announce it at a suitable moment. Not just suddenly decide that things have been getting hot, best pour some water over them.
So I agree with your analysis of what apologies are for and when & how to give them, but I’m slightly less critical of Iain. It depends what you mean by a PR policy, I suppose; if everything that it produces is purely and solely in order to improve the organisation’s PR image then yes – I agree with you.
On the other hand, if the PR policy is to think through issues in advance and announce what you think is the right thing to do before the media throw up a stink about you being indecisive and PR-driven, then no; Iain was right.
patently
May 11, 2009 at 2:30 pm