There is an excellent article about Lynton Crosby in The Telegraph that explains why int he UK and here in New Zealand Labour goes out of its way to attack both Lynton Crosby as well as Mark Textor. Simply put it is because they are good, and way better than anything they can put up.
There is a dirty little secret at the heart of the âscandalâ surrounding the Toriesâ political strategist Lynton Crosby. But itâs not a conspiracy of silence at the heart of No 10, nor is it a tale of undue influence exercised over politicians to gain advantage for commercial clients. Itâs the plain fact that Crosby is actually pretty good at his job.
Just look at how he defused the furore around the Governmentâs decision not to proceed with plain packaging for cigarettes. Crisply, clearly and definitively, he ruled out any suggestion he had exerted influence; he ruthlessly drew a line under the crisis. What a contrast with David Cameron, whose carefully constructed denials of conversations with Crosby reeked of evasion. No 10 are sticking to the line that the Prime Minister did not want to get into a frenzied scenario in which his every statement was met by journalists with another question. No doubt that was the main motivation, but another one will have been the view that this was another crisis that could be muddled through. The result? A growing sense that murky answers meant mucky business.
The first rule of crisis management is full disclosure. The truth may not set you free, but nothing less gives you a chance. The second rule is that if the facts are going to come out, get them out in one go â donât let them be dragged from you. No 10 failed, and forced Crosby to give them a masterclass in effective communications,
Has the affair damaged the Australian strategist? Back-room operators are meant to have a low profile, leaving the public stage to their principals. Indeed, it is often said that if they become the story then they have to leave the show. A swift exit means a swift end to a story. This has prompted a change in political attacks. Opponents have calculated that if they can force an effective staffer or consultant out into the open then that person will, in the end, have to go. Â Read more »