Ours is the first century “to value mass mediocrity over individual genius” says Richard Morrison in today’s Times 2, and while much of what he says is interesting and correct, I think his argument is mistaken. 

He titles his piece, “2008: the year when experts lost the plot” and with this, he says, they’ve lost status and credibility, and the ensuing lack of deference is what, he believes most differentiates the 21st century from its predecessor.

However, his basis for these views is what’s seen and read in the generalist on-line, broadcast and print media.  And the point surely is that generalist media is inherently unfriendly to expert views. 

Experts in generalist media can rarely communicate their specialised views effectively in a soundbite-sized slot and, given this it is true, they are not automatically respected.  We like them best when they have charm, time and great production values, hence the popularity of Simon Schama’s TV series on “The American Future: A  History”.

Every business person who has been in a crisis and every PR person who has managed one knows the importance of the technical media in the relevant subject area.  Not getting the railway press immediately on side during the Potter’s Bar rail crash was a key part of Jarvis’s catastrophic coverage.   

So the Sergeant Syndrome  isn’t a symptom of societal decline.  Rather, it’s just how we get our entertainment.  As AA Gill says in this week’s Sunday Times Culture, ” “Strictly Come Dancing is not a dancing competition.  The X Factor is not a talent contest.  ….Dragon’s Den isn’t real venture capitalism, and I’m a Celebrity … Get Me Out of Here! isn’t a real jungle or, indeed real celebrity… You are not on television because you are experts or gurus.  You are there because you are either funny, hateful or shaggable, and if you are in any doubt which, it’s not the latter.”

Steve Richards’ piece in today’s Independent (“The recession has forced Cameron to revive the failed policies of old”) argues that Cameron will take his tactics from the last election fought in a recession.  As such, Richards argues, Cameron will adopt new-look Chris Patten approach emphasising “Labour’s tax bombshell.”  

But what if Cameron strategy on tax is more reserved than that?  What if his approach is not so much to adopt the Conservative tax-attack of 1992, but only not to emulate that year’s government-in-waiting budget put forward by John Smith? 

The tactical lesson from 1992 is as much how the Conservatives won it, with it’s Double-Whammy tax and prices slogan, as how the opposition lost it by showing their hand too early. 

Labour had worked hard since 1987 to manage its image as an old-school ‘tax-and-spend’ outfit. Under Shadow Chancellor John Smith, spending commitments had been kept to a minimum and Labour hoped to be able to persuade the voters that it could be trusted at the helm of the ship. 

As a result party policy proposals were fully costed with the aim of giving the Conservatives little scope for scaring the voters with the claim that Labour would put up their taxes.  The reality turned out to be quite different.

The detail, which Labour also thought necessary to establish its credibility as a party of government, proved to be Labour’s unravelling.

Labour’s response to the ongoing Saatchi  “Tax Bombshell” poster campaign, launched earlier in the year, in which it was claimed Labour’s plans would mean tax increases of more than £1,000 for the average voter, was to present a costed-alternative strategy. 

A courageous move, as Sir Humphrey would say, but tactically unnecessary.

Labour produced its own Shadow Budget setting out in detail its tax and spending plans. This was presented just six days into the campaign and seven days after Chancellor Norman Lamont’s real Budget had been presented to the Commons.  Labour’s “Shadow Budget” proposed, crucially, an increase in the top rate of tax from 40% to 50% and the removal of the exemption from 9% National Insurance contributions on high earners.

At a stoke Labour exposed themselves as the enemy of aspiration and, by implication, middle England.  Labour lost the election, despite the endorsement of the Financial Times – amongst others – and an expectation that they would win. 

So, what does this mean for the here and now?

Labour’s tactical game at the moment is to flush the Conservatives out on detail. 

But detail lost the opposition the election in 1992 and detail - as Tony Blair showed by hiding his party’s hand right up to the last minute in 1997 - played second fiddle to the message of ‘change.’

For this blogger, my view is that Cameron could be changing tactics away from a ‘government-in-waiting’ approach of detailed policy announcements – some of which exposed his party to real and suastained criticism from Labour in the last few weeks - to a couple of simple, repeatable messages:  lower taxes and change.  There’s no need to match Labour’s spending commitments, as Cameron realised this week. 

Knowing that the government will have to balance its budgets in the long and medium term to pay for the expensive ‘fiscal stimulus’ expected in the Pre-Budget Report on Monday afternoon, Cameron can afford to play the waiting game, simply arguing that higher taxes are an inevitability under Labour.

Calculating that voters hit by recession will not thank Brown - or Labour - for the fact that their personal finances situation might hypothetically be worse had he not acted with his ‘fiscal stimulus’, they will certainly have opinions when faced with new tax bills landing on their doorsteps in years to come. 

The Tories, the argument goes, unsullied by policy critiques and with a told-you-so track record of warning of higher taxes hope to reap the dividend.

The challenge for Cameron between now and then is to keep the detail away from prying eyes.

Blimey. Within the margin of error.

A new MORI poll has the Conservatives on 40%, with Labour just 3 points down on 37%. Gordon Brown, were he so inclined, would be dancing around Number 10 with delight.

There are a number of obvious factors at play here. The political world is now a topsy-turvy one, where nothing is set in stone. As nobel laureate Paul Krugman wrote last week: “The usual rules…no longer apply. Virtue becomes vice, caution is risky and prudence is folly.” Of course leads are never unassailable in politics, nor are victories ever inevitable, but today’s political context is more febrile and ungrounded than at any time for decades.

There seems to be a negative correlation between the public’s perceptions about the state of the economy and Gordon Brown’s competence. As things get worse for workers, homeowners and small businesses, things can only get better for the PM, who is still doing a passable impression of a superhero successfully fighting off threats to the global economic system.

Allied to this is the Conservatives’ recent indecision and confusion on the economy, coupled with the party rediscovering its traditional pastimes of backstabbing and infighting. George Osborne’s recent wobbliness, and the pressure placed upon him by his parliamentary colleagues, will have done quite a lot to contribute to today’s poll findings. The beleaguered shadow Chancellor will be reading today’s numbers with something approaching fear for his political future.

This having been said, it is very possible that David Cameron’s important announcement on tax and spending this morning – which may represent a complete realignment in British politics – will drastically alter the economic narrative. Today’s figures may then just turn out to be a chronological aberration.

And two further words of caution to any excited Labour supporters out there.

First, Labour’s poll numbers usually tend to be overstated, for various technical and methodological reasons, and there is some evidence that the poll which shows Labour in the worst position at any given time is the most accurate one. Therefore, David Cameron will be anxiously hoping that Sunday’s ComRes poll, which has the Tory lead at 12%, is a more realistic approximation of the nation’s voting intentions.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, I would urge any Labour supporter to think back about 14 months. Gordon Brown looked like the saviour of the nation, Labour surged in the polls, and excited chatter about an early election reached a fever pitch. Then came the bottled election and a disastrous year for the PM. Surely – surely – lightning can’t strike twice. Can it?

Some further evidence of the ‘Brown Bounce’ in the weekend’s polls, as reported by the Sunday Times, with the Conservative lead cut to 5%.

Labour, as Nick Robinson reports, smell blood over what they see as Osborne’s over-shrill warning over a possible ‘run on the pound.’

Sensing too that the Government has the upper hand over George Osborne on the economy, snipers from within Tory ranks, the press and the Conservative blogosphere seem to have started questioning their one time saviour - with many mooting the return to the front benches of Ken Clarke MP.  This has lead to quite a furious rearguard action by blogger Iain Dale and others to defend Osborne’s record.

But could Cameron possibly ditch Osborne for the popular and centrist Clarke? 

Let’s consider that proposition:  Clarke is undoubtedly a ’big beast’, a household name and a figure who plays well with the moderate/centrist vote.  Adding Clarke to the ticket would no doubt add weight to Conservative frontbenches in their attempt to challenge the government on its economic record as we approach the recession.  Clarke’s pro-Euro and EU views would also squeeze the Liberal Democrat vote further in key areas as we approach an election more polarised than any previous one since 1997.  His ‘no nonsense’ Nottingham credentials play well in the crucial Midland battlegrounds and even in parts of the north, where Labour has undergone a real revivial of late and Cameron has never played well.

Whatever the political advantages of a return for Clarke, this blogger this it unlikely.  First, Cameron is keen to don the Obama mantle see himself as an ‘agent-of-change.’  The presence of a 1980s bruiser like Clarke  ultimately undermines Cameron’s stature as leader as well as any bid to be seen as a new, or transformational.  It would also play into Brown’s wounding jibe that “it’s no time for a novice.”

As Sky News’ Adam Boulton writes, the personal ties between Osbourn and Cameron are “beginning to seem yolked together in a similar S&M dependency to that between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.”  Cameron would have to cast these away if he chose to sideline Osborne, and as former Special Adviser to Norman Lamont - onetime campaign chief for John Major and later sacked by him - he knows that while long term friendships and high office don’t necessarily mix, leaders can seriously weaken their authority by respondinf precipitously to the mob baying for blood.   

Clarke is also still a very divisive figure on the Conservative right and the last thing the Conservatives want is to reopen the Europe debate 18 months before a possible election - or in advance of the European elections where they are looking for results to bury any Labour comeback. 

His maverick tendencies would ensure Clarke cut an odd figure in a Cameron (shadow) cabinet so for whatever the political advantages of the Return of the King, Cameron - while he maintains a lead in the polls - will stick with the on-message Osborne.

According to the latest survey to achieve healthy coverage in the Daily Mail, the most common grammatical error is the misuse of apostrophes.  The research in question highlights a number of common punctuation mistakes, ranging from its vs. it’s to their vs. they’re.

It’s an odd sensation to agree wholeheartedly with an article in the Mail, but in this case I found myself wanting to scan the piece in question and email it to everyone I know in the industry. 

Why?  Because the survey tested a number of people from all walks of life to see how their grammatical skills held up.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, teachers came top.  PRs and journalists came second, which some might see as a good result.

But actually, it isn’t.  We are professional writers.  The fact that journalists and PRs failed to top the list should be seen as a massive failure on our part.  It’s like Marco Pierre White coming second in a cookery contest to a Home Economics teacher from a South London comprehensive.

There have been a lot of calls for higher standards in PR, mostly from people who don’t really understand what we do and how we do it.  But a call for higher standards of copywriting should echo from every consultancy in the land.  And the next time this survey is carried out, let’s make sure we come first.

Labour’s surprising by-election victory in Glenrothes last night is the first indication that Gordon Brown’s political fight-back is beginning to work. 

The Party – which only a few weeks ago looked set to lose the seat in spectacular fashion – defied the odds and romped home with a majority of 6,737.  

The candidate, Lindsay Roy, proved to be an excellent campaigner too. A street-fighter with impeccable local credentials and a strong grasp of the issues, Roy proved adept at winning over sceptical voters and shoring up the base.  

And on this occasion, the Prime Minister led from the front. Defying convention, he visited Glenrothes twice during the election campaign and Sarah Brown visited over seven times. The victory will be a boost to their morale.  

Labour opted for a long campaign. This proved an effective strategy. The Party, which had suffered in Glasgow East because of poor organisation and low voter identification, had time to organise effectively. As we have just witnessed in America with Barack Obama’s victory, the importance of grassroots organisation should never be underestimated. 

Secondly, Brown’s handling of the economic crisis undoubtedly played a part. Of course, it helps that he is a local lad, but voters recognised that in an economic downturn what they wanted was a safe pair of hands and Brown has proved adept and assured.

Labour activists on the ground said from the start that the mood up in Glenrothes was good. Party campaigners outweighed SNP activists by a significant margin. The mood and the atmosphere was all good for Labour and attempts by the SNP to work Obama’s message don’t seem to have come off.

What does this mean for Labour?  Well, as Nick Robinson’s blog notes, today politics is all about momentum.  Labour’s victory has given Brown a huge boost. It has given the Party north of the Border a huge bounce.

Could the ‘Big Mo’ - as the Americans call it - be with Labour again?

Against all expectations, Labour have not only won the Glenrothes by-election but retained the seat with a majority of more than 6,000 votes. The result will lead to some worried faces both north and south of the border.

The biggest concern will not be that Labour won - after all this was a safe seat - but the re-emergence of the ‘wall of silence’.  Pollsters, pundits and politicos were all calling the seat for the SNP.  Friends in both the SNP and Labour who were on the ground campaigning all said that it was too close to call. Yet on Election Day Labour stormed the seat – proving that the only poll that ever really counts is the ballot box. The by-election win is the first time Labour has succeeded in halting the SNP juggernaut ince the Scottish elections, which culminated in the loss of Glasgow East in July this year.

So, is it possible that we are seeing is a return to 1992?  This is when pollsters would be met with silence when asking voters of their intentions and as a result underestimated the support for the Conservatives? 

At the time the most significant answer which people would give was over the question of economic competence.  Major’s Government consistently scored above Labour on this measure and as a result won.  If, as it appears with Glenrothes, that people are too embarrassed to say that they will vote for Labour then we have to look more carefully at people’s opinions on the respective party’s economic competency. 

Of course it is likely that there is still a long way to go to the General Election but the most recent survey that sought to understand voters’ opinions on the economy was the YouGov poll on 31 October. It asked who people trusted more to look after the interests of ordinary people during the present crisis. 33% said Labour to 28% who said the Conservative.  

As the economy sits firmly at the top of the agenda, and it may very well decide the outcome of the election, unless this gap narrows Labour will be quietly pleased. Maybe the ‘Brown Bounce’ isn’t that of a dead cat after all?

Mandate Communications follows political developments across the UK, here Andrew Scoones author of Mandate’s Scottish Report, flags up what’s hot north of the border: 

The polls are open in Glenrothes where Labour is defending a 10,664 strong majority. The seat borders Gordon Brown’s Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency. There are 8 candidates, but it will most likely be won by the Labour candidate Lindsay Roy or the SNP candidate Peter Grant. It was thought it would be an easy victory for the SNP until Labour’s recovery on the back of the economic crisis.

The result is now far harder to predict.

In a change to his position during the Glasgow East by-election, the Prime Minister and his wife have been to the constituency on the campaign trail and will be closely associated with the result.

In a statesman-like stance, Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond has sent his congratulations to the President-elect of the United States, Barack Obama. In his message he reflected on Mr Obama’s little known Scottish roots and invited him to come home:

“The American public have chosen another President of Scottish descent, and your message of support for the Scotland Week celebrations in the US this year was greatly appreciated by Scots at home and abroad.

2009 is Scotland’s Year of Homecoming - celebrating the 250th anniversary of the birth of Scotland’s national bard and international cultural icon, Robert Burns - during which we will welcome to Scotland people from around the world with a connection to and love of our nation.

“It will be a fantastic year to come home - for Presidents and citizens alike - and I extend an invitation of warm Scottish hospitality to you during this special year.”

In other news, Donald Trump’s golf course has got the go-ahead and the Scottish Parliament has announced that it will mark 10 years of devolution with a special programme of engagement activities culminating on 1 July 2009. Guided tours of the Parliament are also to be provided free of charge from next year.

Even for the most cynical of observers, that was quite a special night, with the freshman senator from Illinois winning a comprehensive victory in the electoral college and popular vote to become the first black President in US history (I’d urge you to read our Insider breaking news and analysis from our Washington DC office, particularly if you’re a Simpsons fan).

President-elect Obama is already trying to manage the sky-high expectations of his Presidency, but there is a real sense of change dawning across America this morning. And so, in the true spirit of campaign post-mortems, here are the top ten reasons why the result ended up as it did (and no, Sarah Palin isn’t one of them…):

Economy - economic gloom made the race very difficult for the incumbent party, no matter how far John McCain tried to run away from George Bush. Regardless of the campaigns, this was always going to be a near-impossible cycle for any Republican candidate (as borne out by the exit polls). There may be lessons here for the next UK general election.

Change - the promise of a radical departure from the last eight years proved compelling to the vast majority of voters. George W Bush is ending his two terms with record low approval ratings, a legacy of economic collapse, a huge budget deficit and an unpopular war. Successful positioning of the contest as change versus ‘more of the same’ was crucial.

Judgement - who was the candidate with the lifetime experience of public service, and who was the wet-behind-the-ears freshman senator? On all the big decisions of the campaign (picking Palin, ’suspending’ his campaign to deal with the economy), McCain’s judgement looked panicky and erratic, making it much easier for Obama to appear cool, calm and presidential.

The shifting centre - in 2000, the Republicans were able to reignite the winning Reagan coalition of the right, centre right and political centre. After eight years of unpopular right-wing government, the GOP may have pushed the centre ground into the arms of the Democrats. The reduced importance of social wedge issues this year (exemplified in Sarah Palin’s high negative numbers) may explain quite how uncomfortable the average American has become with the politics of the right.

Race - the much feared (and probably fictitious) Bradley effect did not come to pass. The controversial issue of race was, by and large, dealt with pretty maturely throughout the campaign, with Barack Obama’s nuanced and insightful speech on the issue a real highlight. Much credit here must go to Mr McCain - although this was not a campaign free from smears or personal attacks, the Arizona Senator’s refusal to play the race card through Obama’s links to Jeremiah Wright made this a less divisive election than it might have been.

Organisation - the entire scope of the Obama campaign impressed pretty much everyone this year. At the grassroots level, the extraordinary numbers and tirelessness of volunteers, and their creative campaigning (from facebook to Obama ads in video games), must have been worth millions of extra votes. And at the centre, the campaign (and candidate) did not lose control of the message or the story for one minute throughout the entire process, in stark contrast with the McCain team. Impressive.

Cash - Barack Obama’s decision to reverse his position on accepting public funding was pretty immoral, and perhaps would have been criticised more by a less sympathetic media. It was, however, the right choice as he was able to raise an unprecedented amount (around $650m), outspend his rival by around 3-1 in the key battleground states and put McCain on the back foot by forcing him to investing heavily in some red states.

The Heineken Effect - put simply, Obama was able to reach parts of the electorate that previous candidates simply have never been able to turn out. Record breaking registrations and turnout among young voters and African Americans helped tip Obama over the edge, and were the deciding factor in states such as Florida and Ohio.

Age - many were expecting prejudice to have a decisive effect on this election, but it may have been a different form of prejudice than Obama’s supporters feared. In a phenomenon that may have been imported from the UK (remember Ming?), perhaps American voters did not want to trust a 72-year-old, with his old-fashioned rhetoric and worn features, with the most important job in the world. The exit polls showed that Obama, a vigorous and youthful 47, may have been the beneficiary of what some are already calling the ‘Grampa Simpson effect’.

Hope and history - wading through all the cynicism, it is easy to miss something a little more uplifting. In these difficult times, it does appear that Obama’s message of hope (symbolised in the candidate’s own demography) was a powerful driver in his victory. Many voters would have wanted to be on the side of history - imagine telling your grandchildren that you voted against the first black president - and there was a real desire to be part of the moment. And what an exceptional moment in American history it is.

Most of us at Mandate Towers are getting pretty excited about this evening’s political geekfest / historic moment that will change the future of the world.

If, like us, you are planning on staying up a while this evening to watch the results come in, here are a few useful tools to help you unravel exactly what will happen tonight:

A guide to what to look out for and when, from fivethirtyeight.com’s polling genius Nate Silver

Ever wonder how the TV networks ‘call’ the winner before the results are in? CNN reveals the secrets of how it makes election-night projections.

And politico.com reminds us of the key battleground states that will decide tonight’s vote.

Happy watching, and God Bless America…