When does reputational damage become real damage?

Nash

The other way of looking at this is Gordon Brown's poll ratings. GB ruins the UK occupational pension system (essentially "steals" the private sector's secure retirement), sells our gold reserves cheaply, underfunds the military, creates an Enron situation with regard to the UK's debts, tells untruths without finesse so that he is easily caught out.

The fact that he is above zero in the polls tells you that what PR Weekly says is a lot of rubbish.

wrinkled weasel

I am not a Tory supporter or an apologist for them, but this Ashcroft business is a storm in a tea-cup.

Right now, I am more concerned that people in Government are getting away with theft from the public purse and no one is doing a damn thing about it except finding a few low-level scapegoats who they wanted rid of anyway.

Jon Rosenberg

Shocking but not surprising. That was my feeling listening to the World at One. To have the day's news dominated by yet another round of Ashcroft bashing was shocking, after we have had the prime minister admit he's a liar, who has underfunded the army during a time of not one but two wars and the release of record figures for government borrowing, it's business as usual. Yet another trumped up process story all but overshadowing any other news on the BBC. Ridiculous, but normal. Shameful, disgraceful, and clear evidence of political bias by our public service broadcaster, but par for the course.

luke

I think its a little naieve to assume that the reputational damage from these kinds of stories immediatley translates into polling.

That isnt really how brands and perceptions work - except for really striking stories that cause you to completely dismiss what you previously thought about someone or something and reassess.

The Ashcroft thing is far more likely to not immediatley affect voting intention, but instead colour people's willingness to listen to certain tory messages. So the next time cameron tries to claim he will clean up politics, people will be more sceptical. The next time he is expecting people to take something on trust (e.g. ill protect the NHS) people will be that little bit less believing.

RJ

Step forward Piers Morgan. Not.

Vulture

Jon Rosenberg:

Totally agree; the BBC are more or less openly following Downing St's agenda to cover up Bruin's lies, which - lest we forget - are costing the lives of British soldiers on an almost daily basis with a blizzard of fluff abt Ashcroft.

IT's sad when the Speccie dances to the same tune. No voter gives a monkeys abt Ashcroft; and all Tories should thank the Lord for his largesse which may actually win some marginal seats.

Moriarty

I've reached the conclusion that my licence fee is being used in the attempted re-election of this shower of charlatans.

Well not any more it isn't.

Peter From Maidstone

This looks like you are just spinning a non-story here. The poll asked if the reputation of the Conservatives had improved, it says nothing at all about whether anyone thinks it has gone down, indeed half of the respondents think it might have gone up. Now since only a proportion of those in the No response will think it has gone down then the majority must think it has gone up, be not sure if it has gone up, or only think it has stayed the same.

So why is this spun as another story about reputational damage when it says the complete opposite?

Peter From Maidstone

If I amy post another comment. So 42% of people do not think Cameron will clean up politics successfully. Surely this is another non-story. i don't expect ANY current politician to clean up politics but will still probably vote Conservative, and it is unlikely that Labour and Lib-Dem voters will say that they think Cameron is the great hope for the future.

So what does the 42% figure that you seem to find so worrying actually show? Only that there are 40-45% of people who will be voting Labour or Lib-Dem, or will be voting Conservative but don't rate Cameron very highly.

How is this a scoop?

Matt

The BBC has been the chief accomplice of the New Labour project from the start. I am always amused to see the horror BBC journalists profess about public cynicism with politics when in willingly propogating Labour spin they have played such a major role in bringing about this state of affairs in the first place.

AF

Even Davis(radio four) shrill as ever was badgering away at William Hague and couldn't accept that the whole episode was then put before Tony Blair at No 10,hardly a Tory secret back door deal,why you may ask it wasn't Knocked back there and then,perhaps Labour stood to lose more than the Tories.In retrospect they failed to appreciate how capable Ashcroft would be.So now its sour grapes,and to try and turn a side show into a main event,courtesy of a gullible media,especially the BBC.

AndyinBrum

58% of people thinks he is up to the job.

What's your point?

Bert

The BBC must believe it's untouchable. I wonder why?

toco

What has decided this election is the fact that Unite owns the Labour Party and taken together with others trades unions contributes around 95% of its funding.No sane person wants the brothers back and the fact that close friend to the dysfunctional Brown is none other than Unite's Charlie Whelan one of the 'Smeargate' three only adds to the overwhelming belief Labour has become unelectable.

Natasha

More damaging than any of this are the ongoing doubts about the judgement and competence of Conservative Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne.

Evidence for the prosecution includes:

- Today's announcement of lower than expected borrowing figures, vindicating the Government's Keynesian response to the banking crisis. When inflation is zero, a fiscal stimulus can revive economic growth, which then generates the tax receipts required to reduce the deficit.

- The continued stubborn refusal of rating agencies to reduce Britain's credit rating (one having gone so far as to describe it as "secure" this week), despite right wing hysteria that we are about to go bankrupt.

- The recent sterling rally, despite continued evidence of the possibility of a hung parliament.

- The weird decision of George Osborne to co-author an FT article on fiscal policy with Jeffrey Sachs, the architect of Yeltsin's failed "shock therapy" treatment of the Russian economy in the 1990s.

Let's face it: George Osborne is economically dogmatic and politically clueless. No wonder Cameron has had to give Clarke a more prominent role to avoid frightening the horses.

If the Tories win the election, it will be because of their social policies and stance on individual liberties, not because they will have secured a mandate to slash public spending.

- the failure of sterling to collapse as so confidently predicted

Dorothy Wilson

The BBC's coverage of the Ashcroft non-story has been little short of a disgrace. This morning there was Nick Robinson and Evan Davis on the Today programme followed by Martha Carney on the World at One. And that's not counting the telly. Carney's script could have been written by Labour's spin machine. Was it?

And, of course, whilst Brown's lying to Chilcot was mentioned it was almost in passing.

So BBC which is more important? A Conservative donor balancing the funding Labour receives from the Unions and the way it manipulates government spending to its own effect? Or alternatively it might just be Brown's attitude towards the armed forces that has put soliders' lives at risk. Indeed it has cost the lives of some of them.

Come on Robinson, Evans and Carney let's have your justification for chosing the first option.

ajs

Great God, Natasha! you want a WORSE collapse of sterling? isn't what we have a collapse of dreadful magnitude already? But, no doubt you had or now have your assets in other currencies.

Nicholas

Natasha says:-

"Evidence for the prosecution includes:

- Today's announcement of lower than expected borrowing figures, vindicating the Government's Keynesian response to the banking crisis. When inflation is zero, a fiscal stimulus can revive economic growth, which then generates the tax receipts required to reduce the deficit."

But Capitalist At Work says:-

"The Government borrowing for February is out today and the BBC et al have seen fit to say what a wonderful day it is as the numbers are not as bad as expected.

It seems that the number is about £3-4 billion better than was expected. Don't be fooled though, Jan and Feb 2010 are the WORST EVER borrowing numbers for these months - historically they are months in surplus as tax is paid.

In fact, this is why the number has bounced, the Supertax on bankers bonus's and the late payement by private individuals struggling with the finances.

No doubt there will be crowing in the lefty media about the so called 'improvement'; which is nothing of the sort."

It is a matter of great regret when the BBC abandons all pretence of impartiality and objectivity to support a Leftist camp which now has nothing but spin and the twisting of the truth to offer the public.

Shame on you Natasha for joining in.

Coeur de Lion

I can produce a positive pro-Labour Beeb story about borrowing being 'better than expected' any time. Just expect high.

Boudicca

Both the Tories and Labour have non-Dom donors.

If we must have Party-sponsored 'Lords' (and I don't think we should) I really can't see a ha'porth of difference between Lords Ashcroft and Paul.

Ashcroft has donated his own money to the Tories. What exercises me far more is the money Labour is receiving from Unite.

£11 million has gone from Unite to Labour. At the same time, £4+million has gone from the Government (ie taxpayers) to Unite for so-called modernisation. This is a simple case of money laundering. One Political Party is benefiting from taxpayers money and it should be stopped.

emil

"The story that won't go away" @BBC - who spent a whole 3 minutes on Breakfast over this mysteriously 'leaked' memo. Meanwhile unemployment somehow going down ( my A*** as Mr Royle would say) and borrowing less than expected (hoo haa). They really should start all BBC News programmes with "this is a party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour Party"

Glyn H

Not only have the BBC been running Ashcroft and his smart arse tactics for all it is worth they are now broadcasting the horribly irritating voice of Brenda Dean. She did such a huge amount of damage to labour relations a generation ago that she had her mouth filled with gold and given a title to go away. If Labour are now down to using her again to front their attack they must be a lot more worried than the polls suggest they need to be. Just as curious as that more than 30% of UK voters could consider we extend Mr Browns 13 year run of mayhem, mendacity, ineptitude and malevolence.

ryan

Both Hague and Cameron are liars, where are your morals now?

Mr L

@ Jon Rosenberg: spot on. I was amazed that the BBC was so brazen about pursuing this non-story on WatO - it was The Guardian with microphones!

Dorothy Wilson

And the BBC were still "on topic" for Labour over Ashcroft on both the 5 and 6 o'clock programmes on Radio 4.

Ryan: and what about Brown lying over funding for our armed forces? Blair lying over Iraq? Mandelson lying on his mortgate application - a criminal offence? Byrne lying over Labour's tax plans? Virtually the whole lying over the state of the economy? So where are Labour's morals now?

Oh sorry! I forgot. Labour lies do not count do they?

Andy Leeds

I still want to know why special conditions were applied to Lord Ashcroft when he received a peerage and have not been applied to other - Labour Peers. We all know why.

Nicholas

The BBC has abandoned all pretence at impartiality and objectivity. I suspect the trendy lefty power breakers behind the scenes are sharply focussed on their likely fate when the Bad Ship Brown finally sinks without trace.

Dorothy - au contraire - most Labour lying seems to involve counting on a huge scale - as well as counting on a miracle. The position of the minus sign in the government's accounts now also being a matter of party political tribalism rather than good governance.

As for ryan's morals. Four words in response: Brown, moral compass, Chilcot.

The Masked Marvel

Only the BBC cares about Ashcroft. Nobody else thinks it's a big deal, certainly not voters in marginal seats. If the BBC was an honest news broker and not a Labour organ, they wouldn't spend so much time on this story, and would spend a minute focusing on Gordon Brown's lies about defense spending. That shows you which issue is actually more damaging to whom, I'd say.