Does the new government communications plan cross the line?

This week the Government Communications Service published its plan for 2014/15 announcing an increased PR and marketing budget to promote messages for the government. There’s nothing wrong with that, but communicators should know perception is everything, especially in the final year before an election, so they need to tread very carefully.

As the IfG reported last week, many civil servants are concerned about how the final year of coalition will go. They fear being caught in the middle of two parties beginning to separate and wonder how this will affect their impartiality. For the 3,000 communicators who work in the Government Communications Service (GCS) any clarity now about PR messaging and marketing over the next year must be a welcome relief.

On Tuesday Alex Aiken, Executive Director of Government Communications, published a plan for 2014/15 that covers 17 departments and their arm’s-length-bodies, capturing ‘common themes and opportunities to collaborate’ in the final year of parliament.

Pulling this 52-page document together was no small undertaking and it is one of the best expressions of cross-government communications that I have seen – I don’t remember anything as comprehensive as this in 2009 or 2005 when I was working in comms at the centre of government. The plan has three broad themes:

• economic confidence
• fairness and aspiration
• Britain in the world.

But government communicators also know they need to avoid becoming the story – and some reaction to the plan suggests its authors may be falling into that trap. I do not believe that the plan crosses over the line into political campaigning, but here’s my take on why some people might think so and why extra care is needed this year:

1.The first rule of PR – timing is everything: The plan was published in the same week as coalition rows about knife crime, free schools, school meals and debates in parliament about the civil service’s impartiality. Against that backdrop it had to be clear this was a coalition plan. But there is only one name on the plan, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude. In these highly charged times, communicators need to go out of their way to show both parties are in agreement.

2.Trust matters most: The plan might have escaped the charge that it will politicise the Civil Service if it was balanced by a much bolder pledge to uphold civil service values in the way the GCS operates. There has been much said about how the new comms service will be leaner, more effective, efficient and focus on low cost campaign techniques but more could be made of its values too, at the front and centre of the plan.

3.Evaluation of public spend matters: The plan announces that the government has upped its budget for proactive communications to £289 million for 2014/15. But it is significantly lower than the £532 million reportedly spent in 2009/10. Aiken says: “It is not spending on spin, it is spending on communications that will inform, encourage and empower people to make the most of their lives.”

There are 140 campaigns and agencies could be invited to pitch for 40 pieces of work. This cost represents £4.50 per head of the population – the spend needs to be justified with evidence it will work and has succeeded, as well they know. But it’s a tough ask to get all of these initiatives implemented (especially ‘improved public confidence in Afghanistan') and prove they have achieved impact before a general election campaign begins (during which time activity will be limited). The sheer detail and ambition of the plan leaves it wide open to criticism of unrealistic, over-active communications too close to an election. So, as the plan suggests, we will need to hear a little more about evidence and evaluation as well as values.

4.The message: The plan is littered with phrases that are associated with ministerial rhetoric, leading one or two Whitehall watchers to question whether public money will be spent on political jargon. Phrases such as ‘hard working families’ and ‘rewarding those who aspire to get on and work’ might well roll off the tongue in the press office after the 100th script for a ministerial speech. But if used elsewhere in paid for communications there may be accusations of straying too far into political campaigning.

Early warning signs
Already a few sagas have thrust comms into the limelight for the wrong reasons but show how sensitive things are becoming. Only this week, as the communications plan was published, Angus MacNeil of the Scottish National Party challenged Nick Clegg in DPM questions about an alleged unpublished poll. “Your Government has actually hushed up an opinion poll from the taxpayers who paid for it at a cost of £50,000,” said Mr MacNeil. The poll reportedly shows a surge in support for Scottish independence, highlighting once again the importance of absolute trust in how communications are used.

The ‘go-home vans’ was another example. Our Year Five report cited this as a policy that wasn’t cleared across both parties but should have been and it is a mistake that cannot be repeated.

Alex Aiken has attempted to move the government communications service in to the modern world and that’s more than welcome. But the reputation of the service is by far still its biggest risk. All directors of communications have to ensure that they dot i’s and cross t’s to justify and question every penny of spend, especially in the final year of coalition.