So what can we say about today’s electoral shenanigans? Well, putting my more partisan instincts to one side for a moment, if there is a winner from yesterday’s vote, it’s public engagement with the political system. Turnout figures have risen after declining below the psychologically important 60% threshold at the last election; the media is full of reports of queues outside polling stations, and politics is once again a hot conversation topic in office, the pub and across the kitchen table.

Interest is going to remain high over the next few days – probably weeks – as the parties horse trade behind closed doors and we wait to see what deals and unholy alliances will emerge from the bleary confusion of the early hours.

My personal favourite time of any general election is the first hour or so after the polls have closed when TV pundits and politicians have an abyss of empty air time to fill with nothing but exit polls and carefully-worded speculation. If anything else struck me from those first moments of last night’s broadcasts, it was the indecent haste with which Labour supremos started talking about electoral reform only moments after the polls had closed. Talk about  rapid repositioning! I virtually performed a comedy double in my living room take when Lord Mandelson abruptly declared that there was something  deeply flawed about the UK’s electoral system.

What this current heightened level of public awareness means is that our politicians are firmly in the spotlight and their actions today and over the weekend are going to be scrutinized fiercely. Those who behave unethically or who ride rough shod over their electoral promises will, I have no doubt, be punished by the electorate at the next opportunity. Reputations will be made and broken in this media crucible, and those who fail to behave in what the electorate see as the national interest will pay a price.

Personally, I’m with Mervyn, my paperman. He was late this morning – uncharacteristically so. “Sorry about that,” he said, handing over my copy of The Times. “It’s all a muddle, isn’t it? Be another election within 12 months.”

Wise words, Mervyn. Wise words, indeed.

Written by Adrian Beeby

"Take that, Gordo!" Jacqui Janes lands a direct hit on Gordon Brown's reputation

When British prime minister Gordon Brown recently got on the wrong side of housewife Jacqui Janes – note to self: must check I’ve spelled her name correctly! – he also got on the wrong end of one of the most famous slingshots in history: that belonging to a biblical David.

The problem for our loveable PM was that not only did he spell her deceased soldier son’s name incorrectly in some pretty atrocious handwriting, but he also ended up in a row with a grieving mother who could be described as a fairly average member of the British public. The moment anyone powerful gets into a ruck with someone either powerless or very ordinary, we have what PRs call a David and Goliath scenario, with Gordon cast in the role of the hapless Goliath.

David and Goliath scenarios are a magnet for media attention. They are the result of something small and impotent having a dispute – verbal, physical or legal – with something big and potent: a council, a corporation, a movie star, royalty, the Government, the prime minister…

And the problem for Goliath is that public and media sympathy is usually fairly and squarely on the side of David – even if David has broken the rules and Goliath has stuck by them. You see, these scenarios are not about rules, but emotion – particular David’s highly emotive displays of tears and gnashed teeth. This powerful wave of emotion and public sympathy can be enough to force Goliath to backtrack on an agreed policy or the rules as they are stated or even drop a court case. Remember Greenpeace and Shell Oil clashing over Brent Spar? (Greenpeace=David, Shell= Goliath.) Greenpeace’s argument proved powerful enough to force Shell to abandon its plans to dump the decommissioned  rig at sea even though , after the dust had settled, Shell was shown to have been right. David won the PR battle.

The problem for businesses is that they are usually cast in the role of Goliath. In Gordon Brown’s recent scrap with Mrs Janes, he was only able to trump David’s emotional plea by making one of his own, that of the grief he too had experienced when his new-born daughter died. Even David couldn’t beat that emotional ace in the hole. But most businesses don’t have that kind of card to play and very often David – the aggrieved customer, the angry policyholder, the wronged pensioner – will triumph.

Here are a few of the most well-known David and Goliath media stories from recent years:

• The McLibel case – mighty McDonalds sued two lone campaigners. McDonalds won, but nobody cared.
• Greenpeace and Shell fought over the fate of Brent Spar
• The Jaffray Case -  in 200o, 120 Lloyd’s Names dragged Lloyd’s of London into court
• Tony Blair and the WI – boy, did he pick the wrong organisation to annoy with his poorly judged speech!
• Apple tried to gag a British customer if he mentioned his exploding iPhone
• Virtually every single item on BBC Watchdog!
• Northern Rock and its customers

Any further suggestions for good David and Goliath scenarios welcome.

Written by Adrian Beeby

Uhm...sorry.

The Damian McBride email scandal rumbles on – primarily because of a quiet Easter – and Prime Minister Gordon Brown continues to refuse to apologise to the Tories. This has got me thinking about another tricky issue that PRs have to deal with: making public apologies on behalf of their organisation.

Over the years, there have been a number of occasions on which I have argued that a public apology was necessary only to find management teams swayed by the views of the legal department. Lawyers, being a highly risk-averse breed, will give the same advice: we shouldn’t apologise because this could be interpreted as an admission of liability. Unfortunately, this is usually incorrect and fails to recognise the skill with which a PR can draft a suitable apology.

Some years ago, when I worked at Lloyd’s of London, I can recall a particular minor crisis of its own making when the market’s lawyers advised that an apology could not be issued because of the risk of this being seen as an admission of failure on its behalf. But when I produced my draft of the proposed apology, they had to withdraw their comments. I’m paraphrasing, but what I wrote was essentially this: we’re sorry we upset you. Even the most hardened insurance lawyers had to admit that such a statement admitted nothing other than a failure to take someone’s feelings into account.

Corporate apologies are a valid means of communication and need to be part of any organisation’s PR toolkit. There may be rare occasions on which an apology cannot be issued, but they are far, far fewer than most lawyers would initially accept. Most importantly, apologies need to be used when the organisation has incurred the wrath of private individuals or smaller organisations – the David versus Goliath scenario. These situations are, by their nature, emotionally charged and can only be cooled by the issuing of a genuine apology. Mr Brown, take note.

PS Finally, on Thursday 16 April, Mr Brown apologised. Thanks goodness for that. Now we all feel better, don’t we.  This is how the BBC reported the prime minister’s tactical deployment of the ’s’ word.

Written by Adrian Beeby