CAMBRIDGE LETTER
The State on the defensive
BILL KIRKMAN
|
Bowing to public pressure, the Labour government takes a U-turn on key issues, yet fails to gain PR mileage out of it…
|
There was a huge public fuss about the government’s plans to introduce compulsory ID cards. Now Alan Johnson, the new Home Secretary has bowed to the inevitable and announced that the ID card scheme will in fact not be made compulsory. He has a
lso reduced the scope of a trial of ID cards at Britain’s international airports. The idea of making cards obligatory for everyone working in areas of sensitivity in all airports has been changed; the trial will now apply only to two airports — London City and Manchester — and will not be compulsory even in those.
Most of those of us who remember the Second World War are not greatly excited by the idea of ID cards. We all had them during that war. Systems for recording and retaining data were, of course, far more primitive than they are now, but the cards were compulsory.
The feelings are different now for several reasons. For one thing, we are not engaged in a war for survival. For another, many people are deeply suspicious about governments’ intentions for using personal data about citizens — the intentions of governments generally. And then, of course, the sophistication of modern technology means that data can be more easily used — and misused.
One could reasonably make the case that the State holds so much data on all citizens — driving licences and passports, to take just two examples — that the introduction of ID cards would not make much difference. The case can be made, but the fact remains that public objection to compulsory cards has been extremely strong.
Lost opportunity
In these circumstances, it is interesting to observe that in making its recent decision, the government has missed a public relations trick. It would surely have made sense to make a big thing of the decision, and to say: We have listened to our citizens’ views. We take them seriously, and we are therefore dropping the scheme.
As it was, the opposition made the running, with Mr. Johnson’s Conservative shadow describing the decision as “an absurd fudge” and “symbolic of a government in chaos”.
A similar failure to make the best public relations opportunity out of a policy decision came with another U-turn, this time over postponing plans to part-privatise Royal Mail. Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, said that the part-privatisation Bill was being “jostled for space” in the government’s legislative programme.
That is doubtless true. It is also true that the financial problems facing Royal Mail, and specifically its pension scheme, are enormous. Nevertheless, it was left to the trade unions to make the public relations point. The General Secretary of the Communication Workers Union, welcoming the postponement decision, said: “The government has not only looked at market forces but has listened to the British public. Privatisation was a deeply unpopular suggestion.”
It was, and how much more sensible it would have been, surely, for the government again to say: We have listened to people, and taken your views on board.
One of my memories as a boy of eight is listening to Winston Churchill telling people, on the radio (or the wireless, as we called it then), about the fall of France. He said: “The news from France is very bad.” Modern politicians, I feel sure, would have covered their announcement in fudge: “Because of unprecedented international difficulties we have decided to delay the implementation of plans for European co-operation”.
Saying it as it is
When I listened to Churchill, even at my age I was immediately aware that the situation was extremely grave, but I was also aware that telling it as it was was a consummate piece of public relations — and incidentally and paradoxically a good boost for morale.
Many years later, at a much more trivial level, when I was head of the university careers service and we found that a particular policy which we had adopted in our dealings with employers was not working, I sent them a letter which began: We have done a U-turn. It produced a universally favourable response.
There are bound to be occasions for any government when a U-turn is necessary, or a difficult situation has to be faced. The reasons will be varied, and commentators and other politicians will obviously want to make capital out of them. It must surely make sense, on pretty well every occasion, to announce the decision clearly — and, if it is a decision reflecting public opinion, to make of that a virtue rather than a weakness.
Bill Kirkman is an Emeritus Fellow of Wolfson College Cambridge, U.K. Email him at: bill.kirkman@gmail.com
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
