David Beckham - master of the PR stunt

Is it not strange that desire should so many years outlive performance?

Henry IV, 3.4.283


Goodbye, David Beckham, master of the PR stunt and first modern global English sporting brand. From Goldenballs to golden locks, tattoos to missed penalties, you will be missed on the pitch. Yet, off the green grass, things will be strange only for their familiarity.

Brand Beckham is well publicised and SFX, then Simon Fuller, have helped the Beckhams create a niche market in happy family sporting icons; a brand not reliant on sporting success but shrewd endorsements, CSR and choosing the right moment, be it the 2012 Olympics or when not to put your name to a doomed musical.

This will undoubtedly be Beckham's epitaph, his gift not to the game but to the individuals who followed him, From Wayne Rooney to the next big thing, he has made English footballers a market force again, something not seen even with players of a higher quality, such as Gazza.

So why has Beckham's PR been so successful? Firstly, he understood the power of pictures to move around the globe faster than words. Not one for naval gazing interviews, his team knew when and where to ensure the right picture was taken. The finest example of this was when a local Manchester photographer who had always been respectful to Beckham was, allegedly, given a tip-off to be at a certain place and time one deserted Sunday morning. There he happened to get the shot of Becks with a rather large plaster on his forehead, following a heated row with Sir Alex. The photographer was rewarded with a shot that would be sold around the globe and Beckham said everything he needed to about his relationship with the manager, without ever uttering a disrespectful word.

One gets the sense Alex Ferguson would somehow have appreciated the gesture, he himself often using the silent but deadly approach to getting his point across - most recently demonstrated with Wayne Rooney being benched against Real Madrid.

Beckham never relied on this understanding and marketing team, though, he always worked hard. Gary Neville, his closest ally, often commented on his after hours practice and relentless approach to self-improvement.

What he showed was that even though his performances had long deserted him, Beckham was able to sustain a place at the top of world football for ten extra years through sheer desire. A desire to win, to build his image, to be remembered.

In the end, it was this lofty ambition was marked him apart. A gentleman, a fine sportsman and a good-looking man with an eye for a PR opportunity.

David Beckham won his place at court by seducing those who mattered. He gained glory in battles, despite not actually winning the fights himself, such as his 'redemptive' penalty against Argentina in the 2002 World Cup.

Yet desire is more than most can apply to their careers and it carried him through to win the game almost single-handedly against Greece in 2001. It was a performance fitting of the man, through its drama through to the conclusion.

People mock Beckham, they are foolish to do so. He has opened the door for many young men from poorer backgrounds to market their modest abilities and achieve superstardom in modern pop culture.

For all this is good, bad, and indifferent, it could not have been achieved without a unique desire.

Goldenballs always had balls.

Ed Miliband's 'new settlement' is a direct response to Tony Blair but it's Lord Heseltine he should listen to

Ed Miliband's call for a 'new settlement' is a direct response to criticisms from Blairites this week and shows that the Labour leader is clearly worried about the damage caused by those who have accused him of turning Labour into a protest party.

Today's proposals tackle employment, tax, housing and regional businesses. It's an attempt to re-light the Labour flame after Ed Ball's poor ratings and the intervention of the former PM which has caused Labour to become weird and introspective while the Tories have handled the death of Baroness Thatcher with aplomb. It says a lot about the state of Labour that Polly Toynbee warned this week about Blair 'making the same mistake' as Thatcher in interfering with the leadership after he has left.

Out of the policies it's the talk about regional banks which I would look to focus on if I were Miliband. I've mentioned before about Lord Heseltine's regional regeneration strategy and today he's urged LEPs to 'revolt' against central Government to demand finances and power. For me, these can have a greater impact than regional banks which will undoubtedly face regulative and trust issues.

As small business lending fails to take off, LEPs will fight the regional battles and gain traction with their regional media and public. Talk of a regional fight is exactly what people want to hear, they care little for devolution or credit ratings in the whole (the issues are too complicated for many voters), they are concerned about the local economy, jobs and prospects for their families and children.

I've been working on a project in work with YouGov, looking at how people view their communities, and there is massive appetite for getting disadvantaged people into work locally, sharing expertise and injecting cash into local communities.

Nationally Ed Miliband might not have time to become as popular as he needs to be, and to do so he's probably going to have to play yet more personality politics. But if he wants to truly impact Labour's vote regionally he could do worse than side with Lord Heseltine and start asking Ed Balls to talk more serious regional economics. It means Labour can build localised policies and not get caught up about the national 'who cuts what, how fast?' picture.

The irony that I'm referring to Lord Heseltine leading the way for regional economic policy in the week Baroness Thatcher's funeral was held, is not lost on me. Yet Labour could do worse than follow the old war horse's lead in this instance.

Margaret Thatcher's death leaves gaping hole in politics

I was born and bred in Liverpool. So the news that Baroness Thatcher, Britain's first woman prime minster, has died brings up a raft of emotions. Many will discuss her career and legacy in great detail and frankly I'm not adding anything to that debate, but I'm going to side-step the politics and think about why she had the impact she did.

What I do remember, vividly, is being about seven years old and the playground on fire with Chinese whispers that 'She's quit!'. That was in 1990 and we didn't talk about politics much on the playground, and I don't remember her being in Top Trumps - yet everyone knew about 'Maggie'.

From Right to Buy and The Falklands, to the closure of coal miners and denationalisation, her legislative programme was bold, divisive, relentless and created a divide between London and the rest of the UK which has since grown at pace beyond wildest expectation, the City becoming the Emerald Castle to the rest of Oz.

What marked her as a politician though, was character, she was 'not for turning' and she galvanised the Conservative party in a way which transcended in a way not seen post second world war. And she did this as a woman, a trailblazer for the modern boardroom and a shatterer of glass ceilings. It's no coincidence that many accused her of having blood on her hands, Thatcher echoed Lady Macbeth's unrelenting ambition, right up to the point of her career's end and the ghost of Heseltine.

Compare her no-nonsense style, her cut-glass tongue and merciless march of capitalism, with the bland  'middle ground' of today. Standing next to her, Cameron, Clegg and Milliband resemble the Spitting Image caricature of John Major. Ironically, this too is because of Thatcher. Her unpopularity in the North, the divisions that remain in the Conservatives to this day, all acting as a lesson that to survive beyond Thatcher a leader had to walk the middle ground. John Smith's death arguably denied Labour its modern era equivalent and instead New Labour is now the template for gaining and retaining power.

She's still being attacked for decisions she made in 2013, yet hundreds of other politicians since have made unpopular and unwise decisions and hid behind civil servants, the media, or special advisers, deliberately alienating themselves from the aftermath of their work. In many cases it's unclear whose policies belong to who.

I'll miss Baroness Thatcher. The fierce hate her name provoked in some, the tales of how her policies destroyed towns, the loyalty and free market leader others declared her to be. She defined her principles and she acted upon them, so be damned those who disliked her way of doing things.

You knew where you stood with Maggie. Even a playground of scouse kids. if David Cameron visited the school it would no doubt be a bland stage managed photo.

We'd have egged Maggie's car -and she would have shut down our school. Those were the days.

RIP Baroness Thatcher.

'Where Are We Now?' - David Bowie's unfussy single launch is perfect PR

It is all about Mr Bowie at the moment so I have penned a short note for The Drum on his perfect PR - do have a gander...

'Where Are We Now?' - David Bowie's unfussy single launch is perfect PR

AC Milan player walks off pitch due to racism

Taking a stand against racism in sport is oft-discussed but rarely practiced  so you have to respect the former Portsmouth and Spurs player, Kevin Prince-Boateng, for walking off the pitch during a football match due to racism from an Italian crowd.

If you haven't seen it yet, you can see the video here at ITV news.

It's about time a player took such action and while the game was a low-profile friendly and won't have the impact it would have had in a similar league match, the act could well serve to inspire other players to take a stand, or act as a deterrent for the idiots in the crowd.

It caps off a bad few days for the beautiful game, after a poll of professional players by Four Four Two Magazine revealed drug taking, homophobia and racism was rife in the game.

It's not the first time this year football has suffered and with the contrast between London 2012 still glaringly obvious, there's work to be done by the FA, clubs, players and sponsors to rebuild the game's wider image outside of core fans.

Globally, the racism issue is a much tougher nut to crack, and the actions of the Milan player are an important step in tackling such thuggery.

Leveson Final Report

David Cameron and Nick Clegg are at odds over today's final report by Lord Justice Leveson in a scenario which could set the battleground ahead of the next General Election.

I think this is a clear attempt by Nick Clegg to seize a march on David Cameron and signal the end of the internal cold-war which has seen the two leaders refrain from any major public policy disagreements.

His decision seems simple enough. The less-popular of the coalition partners, Clegg is attempting to tap in to perceived public disgust at the actions of the press and go against traditional liberal values in backing a statutory solution to upholding press regulation.

It's a dangerous move as for months now, newspapers such as the Daily Mail and The Sun have been running editorial against Leveson, and this could have resonated with some readers who will not want press freedom to be diminished.

There's also the danger of an accusation that this is a post-expenses opportunity for politicians to ensure the press don't embarrass them again - this is an angle which Clegg's detractors could well use against him and any other supporters of legislation.

For this reason I think the Prime Minister is sensible to welcome the findings but urge caution over protecting the freedom of the press . I believe this will protect him somewhat where Nick Clegg's motives will now be under more scrutiny and he faces yet another test of his leadership.

So while Nick Clegg has sounded the starting gun for the race to the next election, it could well prove to be a false start.

Result of the 2012 US Presidential Election?

There's 48 hours to go and President Obama and Mitt Romney are putting the finishing touches to their increasingly frantic campaigns.

I've been fascinated by coverage of the election both in the US and here in the UK as I think it draws a lot of parallels with the last UK General Election.

There's a world-wide weariness with politicians that stems mostly from the omnipotent global financial crisis (as Gordon Brown would say) but is also evident in a youth moment who have the technology to help see beyond propaganda and take a global look at local issues.

Whether it is the Arab Spring, the Russian elections, or the last Australian and UK elections, there is one common theme: voters disconnected with the ruling elite. This manifests itself in uprisings, riots, social acrimony and a blanket of online cynicism.

President Obama was meant to be  the man to smash apathy and reconnect the world. This was a preposterous platform but one born of hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign money as much as hyperbole regarding the first black US President.

Now Obama's platform has been shattered by the reality of the US system of checks and balances which squeezes the life out of each and every President who tries to take on the dual legislative system without a majority in the upper and lower houses.

Lacking the luck or legislative skill of Clinton, Obama has become distant to voters and openly disenchanted with the lack of support he has compared to four years ago.

His perceived and apparent mistakes, battles with the Republicans and disinterested first TV debate mean that even endorsements, like this from the New Yorker, are tempered with faint praise and openly criticise his mistakes.

Personally I think Obama has done a good job in the worst of circumstances. Yet there is no denying Superman has lost his cape, he is merely mortal like that famous seen when Christopher Reeve gets punched in the cafe after surrendering his powers to save Louis Lane.

Bleeding, it's up the President to embrace the global apathy and seize the opportunity to over-deliver in a second term which would have significantly reduced expectations.

Yet to do this he has to overcome the overbearing reality which strangled the message of 'Hope' before it was even truly born.

It's going to be compulsive viewing.

An idiot's guide to Ed Milliband's conference speech

I don't know about you but I find that analysing conference speeches can be a bit long-winded. So here's my idiots guide to Ed Milliband's conference speech in Manchester:


- I went to a comprehensive school, I'm normal - not like the Tories

- I understand why you ditched Labour - but the Tories and Lib Dems have let you down

- We're the new One Nation party

- Gove is ruining your children's future

- Cameron lied to you on the NHS

- I love my family, David and I are great mates

- Did I mention One Nation?


Clearly this speech was to launch Labour's One Nation land-grab of Disraeli's old mantra and, secondly, to help people 'get to know' Ed and improve his reputation among the fabled 'ordinary voters'.

In some ways the speech was frustrating as Labour have learnt from David Cameron's 'who needs policy in opposition'  success, meaning the quality of debate will be stifled until nearer the next election.

I don't blame Ed for this though, as he clearly wasn't reaching the 'squeezed middle' he talked about last year, and his more relaxed and less geeky style today certainly will have reassured many Labour members who were nervous they backed the wrong horse.

Out of all the above points there are two attacks Labour will need to focus on for the One Nation campaign: education and the NHS.

Michael Gove and Jeremy Hunt, lampooned directly by Ed Milliband today, will now be painfully aware of the size of their target on their back as Ed Milliband becomes the hunter, rather than the lame duck leader he was painted as.

I bet Cameron will try and discredit One Nation as an old Tory idea in his speech  - and if he does, Ed has got him rattled.

It seems a win-win situation...but it's never that simple and Tony Blair was the master at nullifying the conference speeches of his rivals - Cameron will be looking to him just as Ed has looked to Disraeli.

Cross-dressing politics at its finest.

Nick Clegg tuition fees apology won't stem PR tide against him

Doug Guthrie, Dean of the Washington School of Business, argued that courageous and creative leadership requires an ability to admit mistakes.

This argument lies in the perceived value of authenticity, something Nick Clegg was striving for last night. It is not, however, quite as authentic to own up to a mistake a year later at a time of a record low in their approval ratings.

Nick Clegg's 'unprecedented' apology comes at a time before conference when the Lib Dems are granted a few days in the limelight, yet this attempt to draw a line under his biggest clanger will fall flat.

With a timing more cycnical than a 2am chat up line, Nick Clegg is going to seem just as desperate. He could have delivered this line before the night truly got going - or before he become patsy for his senior coalition partners.

There is, undoubtedly, a part of Clegg that belives this approach will enable him to regain trust, yet it doesn't help that in previous interviews he said he had nothing to apologise for - and he also failed to show contrition over the new £9k university fees.

After a summer of sport where the only boos came from George Osborne, Nick should thanks his stars he wasn't paraded at the Olympic stadium in such a way - there would have been a riot.

It's a shame, really, as the Lib Dems have flown to close to the sun and been badly burnt. It's going to take policy and actions, not words, to begin any sort of fightback. Thus, if Nick was really sorry, he should say it with a brave new policy idea - but it seems the think tank is empty after his failed gamble on AV and Lords reform.

So, let's just say 'I don't agree with Nick'.

Olympic PR at London 2012

This article in Time magazine is well worth a read as it sheds light on the international PR campaigns being waged by nations around the Olympic Park in London to drive tourism and business tourism.

Indeed, Switzerland is just one example of how elite sporting events are seen as perfect PR opportunities for countries as it allows them to take diplomatic risks knowing their home nations might be more forgiving than usual if they are spotted sharing the view with a non-ally nation.

Witness the risk on both sides as David Cameron took Judo advice from Vladimir Putin today.

Forget the sponsors and the fast-food, the high stakes PR at the games is underway and Syria looms large in the backdrop.

Is the press losing its influence?

Tonight I attended an excellent Gorkana PR debate on the question, 'is the press losing its influence?'

The panel really was special, the best I have seen for an event of its kind. Chaired by Greg Dyke, it consisted of The Rt Hon. David Davis MP, Andrew Neil, Sue Douglas and John Lloyd (author of the book, What The Media Are Doing to Our Politics, the subject for my MA dissertation).

Greg Dyke opened the debate with some statistics from a new YouGov poll in the wake of Leveson.

Apparently (excuse the figures I jotted them down and will check for accuracy when public) 82 percent of people think the press are out of control, 44 percent think they have lots of influence but 44 percent think they have less influence than 10 years ago - a mixed bag, perhaps indicative of the complexity of Leveson and the fallout from the hacking scandal and how the wider public understands this issue.

On that note Greg Dyke reminded us that the Daily Star is the only print title to have not seen a major decline in readership, which drew raised eyebrows from David Davis MP. (Davis has occupied a peculiar space since 2008 and it struck me many of his former Cabinet colleagues would gladly swap roles with his luxurious, not quite the tormentor in chief, position.)

Andrew Neil, the consummate performer, spoke brilliantly all night. He quickly established John Lloyd as his sparing partner, once amusingly dismissing Lloyd's statistics on the Scotsman's former readership by pointing out 'I used to run the paper, you know'.

Neil felt that digital media had actually enhanced the reach of some titles, citing the Guardian throughout as a now international brand - a point David Davis used to question why more of the press didn't invest in the brand (maybe they can see a role for us PRs, after all?)

The challenge, all agreed, was monetising this and Neil became visibly frustrated that the Alan Rusbridger has this reach yet refuses to believe a payed content model is the answer. Envy, I suspected.

The panel agreed that local newspapers were dying and didn't share the view of celebrity questioner, John Stapleton, that the trade (not a profession, we're all electricians, yelled Neil) was missing the upbringing of sitting in courts holding local government to account. As for weak nationals, Sue Douglas shared the frustration that titles which should have left the marketplace were kept on life support by investors looking for a slice of the establishment pie.

PRs, alas, didn't escape, and we drew some piercing glances from the panel when Greg Dyke pointed out that there were more PR people than journalists. Pity they didn't expand on this to discuss the challenges that make people enter this industry, but I understand time was precious.

Andrew Neil was, at least, more scornful of 'fact-free over-payed, waste of space opinion columnists, whom he felt should be replaced by investigative reporters. One for Charlie Brooker to discuss, that one.

On the subject of tabloids it was pointed out by Sue Douglas-who is rumoured to be keen to start a new newspaper- that they must embrace new media opportunities to drive commercial revenue and all agreed tabloids were at risk as diversification meant the worlds of sport and celebrity were no longer owned by the red-tops.

Sadly, the debate didn't then discuss Twitter as a serious force for breaking new ground. I felt this was a missed opportunity. For instance, David Davis claimed single story criticisms had little influence but he failed to consider what if this story was shared by influential Tweeters or bloggers. The panel claimed journalist live in an 'analogue world' well I have to say it seemed most of the panel did too, bar Andrew Neil.

The last part of the debate looked for signs of where the unhealthy press/political relationship may have started. No consensus was reached but David Davis correctly mentioned New Labour's admiration for Clinton's election campaigns.

New Labour and Cameron both came under fire but their examples were then used to show how the press was losing influence; from the 1992 'it was the Sun wot won it', to the last election where 75% backed Conservatives, yet Cameron failed to win a majority.

Phone hacking itself was defended by Sue Douglas who claimed if it was integral to a matter of huge public interest and the the journalist would be prepared to go to court, then it could be justified.

Leveson didn't sit well with the panel who derided David Cameron for creating it - although the smirk on David Davis' face betrayed his enjoyment at certain witnesses being called to account - 'LOL' said Andrew Neil, to huge laughter.

Neil finished by claiming he would like the result of Leveson to be a code of conduct enforceable by independent people. David Davis was not in favour of a statutory regulator, a point all agreed upon.


In the end Leveson nearly brought a tear to Sue Douglas' eye but, as John Lloyd pointed out, it had been one hell of an insight for the rest of us.


And, with that paraphrase, I bid goodnight - once I have set Leveson to record on Sky Plus.

Charlize Theron in front page wrap of Sunday Telegraph

A funny thing happened when I went to the newsagents on Sunday. I was looking for the headline in the Sunday Telegraph but I could only see the heavily airbrushed glistening skin of Charlize Theron, the actress I had seen the previous day in Prometheus.

The reason was that, for the first time ever, The Sunday Telegraph had allowed Dior to wrap its front cover to promote a new watch.

This struck me as odd and more Metro than a quality Sunday broadsheet.

Money, as ever, talks, and it seems as though the Sunday Telegraph's marketing team have been able to convince that the revenue from this is a price worth paying.

To my mind it seems less innovative and more desperate, there must be a high element of risk associated with such a move.

I'll be interested to see how sales fared on Sunday and whether the Telegraph received sufficient revenue and positive feedback to make this a more regular feature.

I suspect not.

Samantha Brick is attractive - to the Mail Online

Journalist Samantha Brick wrote a piece for Daily Mail Online today claiming women hate her 'for being this beautiful'.

What another piece of genius from the Mail Online.

Complete and utter link-bait, in fact they can have another one here. 

The Mail Online differs from its print sister in that it focuses on a constant stream of celebrity stories-and very revealing photographs- that provide a quick gossip hit for (mainly) women across the UK but also in America where it is now frequently drawing traffic, to the extent that it is now bigger than the BBC news website.

It shares its DNA with old Sunday lifestyle magazines such as Femail, of course, and Fabulous and it puts entertainment at the top of its agenda. Its politics remains Conservative, a one stop shop to find Britain has gone to the dogs - yet it is executed in a way that this feels secondary to the mass of consumer friendly entertainment it produces on an hourly basis.

The left hate it but love to link to it. Its columnists find themselves trending because no publicity is bad publicity and advertisers flock to it. 

If you work in consumer PR you can't ignore the Mail Online is often the best place to break a story as it understands how integrated content can make a better online story, it offers the full package.

So here's to Samantha Brick and her latest round of 'is she for real' controversy. You've earned every penny of your French retreat -  I look forward to disagreeing with you sometime soon and providing more links to help the Mail's digital advertising rates.

Google+ for businesses and brands

I recently attended the Communicate Magazine discussion on Google+ for businesses and brands.

My interest in Google+ centers around its true impact on search and I have wondered if Google+ will go the way of Google Wave or whether it will be a sort of SEO blackmail which means it simply has to be adopted.

Speaking to early adopters and power users at the event the consensus was that G+ will succeed because of this but mainly as it is leading 'social search', the marriage of old SEO and social media.

For PR people this is a great opportunity as social search means we can improve the way we channel our content and the role this plays in ethical, organic search - especially the ability to claim clients' content via rich snippets, which is very important for brand building.

I also think, and there were some good examples of this from panelist Lee Smallwood, that the ripple effect of G+ will make evaluation of social campaigns easier and complement Google analytics well. The idea of seeing where your content has been shared and how influential these advocates are is simple but presented well.

Overall I left the talk enthused about getting to grips with Google+ and I've made a Google doc with my abridged notes if anyone wants to get a feel for the conversation.

Kenny Dalglish's gaffes show managers need PR people in the dug-out

Football isn't a game anymore, it's a business. A report from Deloitte this month showed that the world's top 20 football clubs had defied the economic downturn and had grown their revenues by 3 percent year on year.

As a fan, and supporter of cash-strapped Everton, I find this statistic appalling and yet more evidence that the game has, as the Judge at the Harry Redknapp trial mused last week, 'lost its way'.

Yet this post isn't from me as a fan, I'm giving my thoughts as a PR professional based in Manchester.

And my professional opinion is that it's time to safeguard managers for their own sake and have communication professionals advise them on how to respond to controversial incidents that occur during a game.

This season we've seen managers make damaging remark time and time again, culminating in the shambolic Kenny Dalglish Sky Sports interview following the Man Utd versus Liverpool Premier League match on Saturday.

This whole process, as I've stated from the start, has been a massive PR disaster for Liverpool FC but the climb-down by Kenny Dalglish and Luis Suarez has come too little and too late.

For man of Dalglish's standing at the football club to be continually fed to the media lions during an episode that he has not handled himself well in, is unfair on the manager and damaging for the global brand of Liverpool FC.

We live in an age of 24/7 social media, a competent PRO can spot a trend at any time on any issue using a smart phone. How can the manager not have been informed of his player's mistake and the appropriate response after the game?

Yet Dalglish was left to face the cameras and embarrass himself and his club, an incident his reputation may never recover from.

If this were a matter of diet, would the football club let Kenny cook the squad's pre-match meal? Would they have him file the accounts? No, they have professionals to that. Yet, in football, communications professionals do not advise the manager during match day on the touchline - the one place they need strong counsel the most. (This isn't conjecture, I have spoken to people within the game before writing this post.)

As I write this, I imagine the uproar of sports writers lambasting a PR man for trying to kill the integrity of reaction, the soul of the game. I agree, it shouldn't be the case.

Yet the media pressure on these men is not the same as it was in the 80's and these clubs are brands now in the same way Coca-Cola and McDonalds are, you can't hide from that fact.

Reactive comments can cause damage to a club's intangible assets or, as in the case with Roberto Mancini and Carlos Tevez, to the balance-sheet. Mancini could have been advised to hold fire on reacting to Tevez after the game and a deal could have been done behind closed doors which would have seen City sell the player without the manager losing face.

The minute the whole world knew he had allegedly refused to come on against Bayern Munich, however, the club had to back their manager and endure a public depreciation of a valuable asset - one they were unable to sell at the price they wanted in the January transfer window.

There are many other examples to reaffirm the need for comms to make a move from the marketing department to the match set-up, further fuelled by media offering managers quotes from their own players on Twitter (as in Alex McLeish's case).

A football manager should make the decisions for their club and be the master of their dug out, but they deserve the best advice. And, to me, the new media pressure means that managers need one more space on their subs bench in order to protect their reputations and that of their football clubs.

Teflon David Cameron

'Teflon' David Cameron has done it again - latest Ipsos Mori poll figures show his highest ratings for the best part of two years. This is in stark contrast to the floundering Ed Milliband, wounded by a Union backlash to the Opposition support for the public sector pay freeze.

It's intriguing that the Prime Minister can continue to do well in the polls at a time when the country has faced a remarkable period of civil unrest, Union protest and rising unemployment.

Does it mean that the protesters are not getting their message across, or are in the minority?

I don't think protest movements are failing to get their messages across. They have had mountains of press coverage and real cohesion on social media, ensuring strikes like the NUT one had record attendees this summer.

Rather, it shows Cameron's skill is picking his moment to surface, letting his lieutenants fight the fires while he picks the battles the Daily Mail will support.

As to who can engage the disconnected middle ground I think it's clear that the disconnect is between those affected by the public sector cuts and those who aren't. The language of the 'middle ground' isn't pro-Government or pro-anyone, it is the language of 'working through the recession and looking after number one'. Thus as much as the protest movements are doing a good job in making their voice loud, they struggle to have that voice listened to as the middle ground isn't receptive.

It's difficult for any interest group or political party to become champion of such a difficult to define middle ground but Cameron is clearly finding more drives hit the green then Labour is. And as much mud as Ed Milliband or the protesters throw at the Prime Minister, it's just not sticking to 'Dave'.

Luis Suarez, racism and Liverpool FC's reputation

Liverpool Football Club has made a huge PR gaffe in their handling of the Luis Suarez racism charge.

The FA has not charged Mr Suarez with being racist but for providing unreliable evidence and for 'damaging the image of English football around the world'.

The Kopites have obviously challenged it so vigorously as they believe it is one man's word against another and feel they are victims of an overly harsh ban issued with no concrete evidence. A clash of cultures, they say.

Here lies the problem. This defence, led by their manager Kenny Dalglish, is so preoccupied with the defence of the player's reputation that they've allowed the club's to suffer.

With a global following unparalleled by very few clubs in the world, Liverpool FC has a duty of care to uphold the highest standards in the game and act as ambassadors for the sport. They have won many awards for their work - including racism.

By attacking the FA for attempting to uphold the 'Kick It Out' campaign, they are in effect undermining efforts to stamp out racism.

What they should have done straight away, is held their hands up and issued an apology to the FA, to Patrice Evra and to their fans. They could have then explained the offence wasn't intentional but a clash of cultures. 

Perhaps Suarez could have met with Evra to launch a new programme to help foreign players coming to England understand the culture and here and educate them. This would have shown a level of contriteness by the club and the player and could have led to the ban being reduced.

Instead, they have ended up sounding very much like disciples of David Brent, stumbling around racism so tactlessly that they give the very impression they were trying to avoid.

The club should have received better PR advice. Put the club before the man and be contrite. Then you can salvage the player's reputation and turn the situation around.

Telegraph coverage of Student protests over tuition fees

The Telegraph 's coverage of today's latest student and Union protests was a multimedia masterclass.

Although the paper's politics clearly clash with that of the protest movement, the Telegraph reports and website team managed to produce a fairly balanced and innovative live blog featuring video, live images and Twitter reaction from across the political spectrum.

In terms of accessibility, comment and links to social media platforms I'd put the coverage ahead of the Guardian's, which came across static in comparison.

This seems to be borne out by the Tweet ratio to the pages: 207 to the Guardian's 17.

A good lesson in creating a live news blog that evolves with the story, even without any dramatic twists to report on.

EU referendum vote will merely alienate voters

Tonight's debate and vote in the Commons on holding an EU referendum was terrific fun, showing the first big rebellion of David Cameron's  leadership and causing Government aides to resign.

That is of course, however, if you belong to the chattering classes and enjoy the Commons as an intellectual Albert Square. Which makes me wonder who George Osborne would be - Ian Beale? - but I digress.

Most normal voters, the type belonging to families looking for work after unemployment figures reached a 17 year high, simply do not care about this parliamentary posturing over an issue which while always controversial, isn't a priority for them.

I don't need stats to back this up, it is something I hear listening to communities around Britain and from speaking to friends and relatives more distant to Westminster. I tweeted as such before and received lots of comments from people I don't know, passionate in their condemnation of the political arrogance of those daring to indulge in a five hour cock fight while the country collapses around them.

I completely take the point that the Eurozone crisis is the next big economic threat but as Britain isn't part of the Euro, acting all little Britain now just paints both sides of the debate as arrogant, no wonder the French are hacked off.

It's about time the Commons was as busy for a five hour debate on utility prices, jobs, inflation or something that really matters to everyday voters.

Otherwise politicians are simply spitting in the wind and wondering why they are wet in the polls.

Unions strike action in November

Unions have called for a day of action on 30 November in what will be a winter of discontent for David Cameron. Or Nick Clegg. No, in fact, David Milliband.

With UK economic growth stalling the coalition and opposition are caught in a balancing act where a lack of certainty over the path to growth means that being perceived to fail to negotiate with the Unions will lead to damaged credibility to David Cameron; yet bending to them will also cause a negative reaction with private sector voters who have also seen pensions and pay cut.

I'm more interested, however, in Ed Milliband's approach. He has already reiterated at TUC Conference that he is doesn't favour action but his leadership of his party may not survive another 'these strikes are wrong' moment.

If Ed does become red then he forgoes the 'squeezed middle' ground he has tried and failed to woo thus far.

Expect to see fiery rhetoric from Ed Balls and co to try and push the Coalition to a solution with the Unions which will spare Labour this no-win no-fee decision.