Latest Edelman Trust and polling data, carried out by Populus for discussion at this week’s Tory Party Conference, confirmed a general swirl of support for Cameron (principally, for not being Brown) and a general sense of mystery about prevailing Conservative values. While Brand Dave exudes trust, Brand Brown speaks to disillusionment and disappointment. If Labour is ‘tired’ in the eyes of the voters, then the Tories are ‘confused’ – both in how they come across and in what the general public thinks they represent.

What this suggests is that what many think is the most enduring legacy of Tony Blair – the emergence of a Presidential-style of politics – may well in fact be the new reality. Popular opinion (or is that just the Daily Mail?) derides the Presidential construct for being, well, so very un-British. But perhaps we should take another look. The scale of disenfranchisement is such that some sort of new force is swelling and imminent. Better surely, for reform from within than anarchy from without, in the shape of the continued rise of ‘Others’… BNP, UKIP and ‘Not Bovvered’ included.

Blair was a man supposedly detached from his party – the New Labour project the dream child of a few modernisers whose pursuit of power (so the story goes) transcended Party values and abused its history. Cameron, meanwhile, looks set to be elected as a (social) liberal Tory surrounded in Parliament by a more Thatcherite mass, whose love for him – despite an occasional European blip – remains undimmed as long as he keeps on winning. Blair, however, chose a battle and fought one within the party to make change manifest. Clause 4 was as totemic for Labour as the European Union remains for the Tories. Yet that battle remains simmering, with an angry political violence currently suppressed. Britain is in effect being asked to vote for a President, not a Party, nor a set of known policies of values. Faith is being placed in the person, not the Party he leads.

This unspoken shift from Prime Ministerial to Presidential may be strangely liberating. In an age of chaotic networks, where a new ecology based on shared interests has been spawned by the digital age, we are learning to forge different partnerships and coalitions across the sphere of cross influence (an early model of which was developed in the original version of Citizen Renaissance) in all aspects of our lives – from personal interests to professional or political pursuits. In contrast, a combination of precedent and the Parliamentary system currently forces Party Leaders to choose from a generally shallow gene pool of vested interests in the formation of Cabinets. This is akin to swimming against the tide of networked reality. Prime Ministers, constrained by the system, end up repaying Party debts and rewarding internal political support with important public office, rather than genuinely delivering a Government of All The Talents for the common good. This has, of course, been one of the criminal charges levelled at Gordon Brown. National progress is thus impeded by an anachronistic hierarchy, out-dated precedent and the straightjacket of a two-party system.

Just as we atomise our choices surrounding TV schedules and musical preferences, surely we must now be able to adopt the same principles with our politics? For some reason, we are subsisting entirely on a diet of Political ITV and are being denied the fundamental freedom to build new coalitions in support of our trusted leaders – and to address what citizens, not a political elite, determine as the most pressing issues of our times. The fourth force of British politics is there, for sure, but currently only latent.

Moving to a Presidential system will allow the Blair’s and the Cameron’s far greater freedom to manoeuvre to improve Britain for the better. Future leaders could, for instance, mix the environmentalism of a Milliband, Ed, with the economic sanity (Mansion Taxes not withstanding) of a Cable. There would be fewer concerns surrounding the Defence post and the Health Service would hopefully be safe in someone’s hands. Fiscal prudence and social reform could become happy bedfellows once again. Not every minister would have to be party-allegiate. In an age where everyone rushes to champion the Knowledge Economy, better knowledge and best skills could be properly and more efficiently deployed.

The corollary of Presidential Britain would be a dramatic re-appraisal of the voting system and, regardless of what happens with the House of Commons, the need for an Upper Chamber that properly reflects civil society would become more urgent. Giving a political voice to the postmen and the health workers, community leaders and employee trusts, teachers and mums, would provide a compelling new framework for a more truly representative citizen democracy, to whom our Presidential leaders could be held to relevant account, and which might also mitigate some of the (often testosterone-charged) industrial friction of recent times. Such a civil framework would, of course, show no mercy for the old and irrelevant hierarchies of monarchy, as Britain regenerated on lines anew. No room, in this reality, for a President and a Monarch together – replaced instead by a coherent and properly structured constitution.

Many clichés have been spoken about the world not emerging from ‘this crisis’ with either the same tired or broken business models or values with which we entered it. The same must surely go for our political system also. The Crisis of Trust is such that there needs to be a wholesale re-think and a better system built on the reality of today’s chaos and new networks of influence. David Cameron, as with Gordon Brown before him, will be forced to do deals with opposing interests in order to form internal alliances that effectively put the polarising needs of the Conservative Party ahead of the needs of Great Britain. If the trust currently being shown in Cameron is to be properly re-paid, then we must grant our leaders real freedom to operate – away from the constraints of their respective parties, as well as from the policies dogmas of a broken two-party state.

“Despite the presence of naked protestors in our downstairs lobby and a couple of banner-wavers on our roof, it is very much business as usual at Edelman today. This is not the first time we have been targeted by protestors because of our work with E.ON. As with last time, we offered the protestors the chance to sit down (preferably, fully clothed) and engage in a constructive dialogue with us. We are happy to hear their concerns and discuss their issues. Sadly, they seem more intent on going for the headline, picture story and the sound-bite, rather than for a constructive and engaged conversation.

The bottom line is that Edelman is proud to work with E.ON, as they continue to argue that in order to reduce our carbon emissions, keep energy affordable and keep the lights on, we need a balanced energy policy that includes renewables, nuclear and cleaner fossil fuels. In the last year, Edelman has worked with E.ON on numerous communications programmes around offshore wind at London Array and E.ON’s aspirations to build new nuclear, as well as for cleaner coal with carbon capture & storage at Kingsnorth. And we very much hope this relationship will continue long into the future.

The future of PR lies with engaged dialogue among multiple stakeholders, including the NGO community. It no longer belongs to cheap stunts that don’t, in all honesty, get to the heart of the big issues of our time.”

I have posted before on Roger Steare’s ‘Ethicability‘ and the ascendancy from a childish ethos of Rule Compliance, through to more adult behaviours of Social and Principled Conscience. I used to consider myself a utilitarian (with a fundamental liberal belief in the greater good) but now I am not so sure. Increasingly, it seems that utilitarianism is offering those in authority a convenient smokescreen behind which poor decisions can be made. The tougher choices are those which demand real considerations of moral principle – and therefore courage.

In the 2009 Reith Lectures, Professor Michael Sandel observes prospects for the Common Good and calls for a New Citizenship. Much of what he says chimes with the central tenet of Citizen Renaissance – namely a prevailing confusion between consumer and civic values and the urgent need for a reversal that places ‘civic’ ahead of ‘consumer’. Sandel calls for a richer and more morally courageous public discourse to question what a good life should really look like. In so doing, he is challenging some of the rule-based dogma that has exacerbated many of the crises we currently face – economic, political and, of course, environmental.

We are witnessing leadership vacuums of historic proportions – the result of following the rules of increasingly discredited hierarchical systems in both business and politics. How often have we heard, in recent weeks, that MPs were ‘within the rules’ outlined by the Fees Office – whether in attempting to buy giant plasma screen TVs or flip their first and second homes for personal, financial gain? How many among the political leadership of Britain had the moral courage to question the rules in the first instance, rather than lamely accepting that they existed for the common good? In Business, we see limited courage within the rules of what is deemed to be legal and compliant, rather than a willingness to assert true, moral leadership in moving beyond prevailing models which can, in turn, step-change us towards a low carbon future.

Gordon Brown now clings to power within the rules of a faded and failing constitution. Bereft of both political and moral authority, the courageous decision – even one which consigns his Premiership to recognized failure and his party to extended opposition – would be to call an election and to allow an open and important debate on the shape and substance of democracy in Britain, today and tomorrow. In so doing, he could even assert a new leadership of sorts – and encourage, as Sandel does, a fundamental re-appraisal of our citizen values. Britain needs to look at itself now, as many Americans looked at themselves last autumn. We need leadership that speaks to the values of principle, not the opportunism of politics. The opportunity cost is the further rise of the BNP and ‘Others’.

Brown’s almost comic call for ‘Constitutional Renewal’ – in the best traditions of Private Eye – is matched in its moral flimsiness by Cameron’s pledge of ‘People Power’ (without any mention of Lords reform or the Monarchy). Power can be restored to the people – but only as long as it allows the political class to cling shamelessly to power. There is no real moral courage in either claim; no deep questions asked. If the old Pyramids of Authority have collapsed, here are two men trying to re-work the rules to their advantage within an anachronistic system.

Sandel’s thoughts on the role of the market within civic freedom are fascinating and deserve deep contemplation. Consumer and market values can undercut both civic freedom and, as we have seen, cause environmental meltdown. Self-interest – whether in business or in politics – cannot march unimpeded. What is needed now is precisely the richer and more morally courageous public discourse outlined by Sandel. Ordinary citizens must engage with questions on what is right and wrong within the context of a better, happier and more responsible life and society.

The emergence of organizations such as 38 Degrees is a vital first step in broadening citizen involvement. Let us now have a free market of ideas for a citizen-led revolution; because the old economy thinking is leading us nowhere but down.

The ‘Science of Sexy’ is a truly breakthrough and landmark campaign – mixing the best of Content, Digital and great Publicity. Have a look at this short film about the campaign and what it achieved.

The award comes on the back of a great performance in the PR Week Consumer League Tables last week. Edelman was also named European Consumer Agency of the Year at last night’s Sabres, making it a stunning hat-trick of good news for the team.

My heartfelt thanks and congratulations to everyone involved in these successes.

The PR Week league tables, published today, see Edelman jump two places to rank fifth overall in the Top 150 Agencies in the UK (and retaining our position as the UK’s largest  Independent Agency).  While I am fairly sanguine about these sorts of Tables and Results – it nonetheless catalogues a remarkable year of growth and achievement … and everyone in this firm should feel justifiably proud. We have all made it happen, together.

There were few optimists to be found in the audience last December when Edelman persuaded four brave individuals to gaze into their crystal balls and divine what 2009 might hold. Yet it is now clear that the pessimism quotient was far too low. Talk then was of whether the ‘R’ word might be applicable. How quickly the tenor of debate has moved on, through recession to depression and on to the length of the protracted slump into which we now appear to be heading.

While some political and business leaders – as well as the media – have talked of downturns, perhaps a more useful economic observation from a US businessman came from Steve Ballmer, the chief executive of Microsoft, who said recently that ‘What we now have is a fundamental economic reset’.

Not only does that sound rather less miserable than depression or slump, it encapsulates the need for more radical thinking than we are currently seeing to deal with the effects of the financial melt-down now reverberating around most of the world and that can, at least in part, be traced to the collapse of the sub-prime housing market in the United States.

The immediate effect of that crisis is persuading governments, particularly in the US and UK, that they must nationalise, recapitalise and chastise huge swathes of the financial sector; ladle cash into the car industry and borrow billions to do so.

Yet it was a surfeit of borrowing that precipitated this predicament. Individuals, companies and some governments just borrowed too much: we have been living in a global Ponzi scheme.

And if the UK is in a more perilous position than other countries at the moment, it is because the level of household debt is higher, in relation to income, than anywhere else in the G7 now or ever since records began. Which means that as jobs are lost, as they are being already, too many households will find themselves horribly exposed. Schemes to help people who can no longer cope with mortgage payments may only delay repossession rather than prevent it. What they certainly will not do is encourage those people to resume the old spending habits that kept the economy going.

The UK Government, however, cannot kick the habit. In the current financial year, its net debt is, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies, likely to top £87 billion and reach an excruciating £150 billion in 2009/10. As recently as March of last year the then new Chancellor, Alistair Darling, was forecasting that debt this year would be £43 billion, but then when his predecessor, Gordon Brown, gazed into his crystal ball in March 2004, he saw debt of only £23 billion in 2008/9. Forecasting is a hazardous business but that never prevented Chancellor Brown from reeling off a string of optimistic numbers as if they were certainties.

Now any pretence of budgeting has been ditched in the attempt to keep at bay the worst effects of a slowdown which is hitting emerging markets as well as most of the developed world. (In China, for instance, the air quality is said to have improved markedly because so many factories have now ceased operation. That may provide fodder for those seeking to find positive aspects to the financial misery but it will not ease the lot of the millions of Chinese who left the countryside to find work in those factories.) The next step is the launch of a bout of quantitative easing, which only a pernickety economist could distinguish from the old-fashioned concept of printing money.

What inflationary problems this may occasion does not appear to be of particular concern to the Government, anymore than the debt with which it is now burdening future generations. Why would it, since there can be few members of the Cabinet under any illusion that they will still be there after the election?

Which means that the efforts being made to salvage the situation are, essentially, short term. But if Steve Ballmer is right, then we need look beyond trying to resurrect an economic model which has been shown to be flawed and seek to implement change.

In Britain, we are now experiencing the dangers of having an economy so dependent on the service sector and, particularly, the financial sector. We need to re-establish a manufacturing base and that means going beyond the application of short term plasters to the haemorrhaging motor industry. There has to be long-term investment in the skills base but, while we wait for a new generation of science and engineering graduates to emerge, it is small, artisan-style businesses which should be encouraged, as should local food producers. Perhaps a new breed of community-based private equity fund might recycle savings into supporting such enterprises.

The ‘fundamental economic reset’ could mean that the importance of such local businesses is recognised and rewarded. For the outcry over bankers’ bonuses is, to some extent, a proxy for a groundswell of opinion which feels that the disparity in rewards for those at the top and the bottom of the pay scales has become untenable.

Whether this is a recession, a depression or a slump, we should emerge from it changed for the better.

In its write up (which you can read here), PRWeek wrote: “Edelman’s continued strength in the areas of financial performance, innovation and client relationships is what convinced this year’s judges it should receive the very highest agency honour…Edelman’s position of thought leadership in the industry is arguably unrivaled by any other agency of any other size.  As one judge put it, “Edelman continues to evolve and lead.””

While this accolade has been awarded by US PR Week, it speaks very much to the qualities we aspire to in the UK too.  As the only global independent agency, we can invest directly in our clients and our people – fostering innovation, talent, quality and insights (like the Trust Barometer).

The last few years have been an extraordinary time to be working in PR. The Digital Revolution has enabled all of us to engage more effectively and involve audiences directly in Businesses and Brands.  The Public Affairs landscape has also changed under the influence of consumer politics.

Although we all currently face a tough economic climate, PR’s time may finally have come: never before has there been a more important time for consistent communications and effective stakeholder relations.  Of all the marketing disciplines, only PR can genuinely deliver – we know that advertising can’t (I have talked and written elsewhere, including here, about the end of the 30-second spot and top down communications).  As agency bosses, we will face the same economic challenges as our clients – but we must not lose sight of how far our industry has come in the past few years as we evolve from Public Relations to genuine Public Engagement.

Michael’s thoughts can be read on SixtySecondView.

Buried within these articles are some really interesting statistics about how the working environment is making a numerical difference to our business: on cross-practice wins; on sick days; and on staff retention. Cynics may of course argue that these stats. are merely the accidental offspring of Recessionary Times – but I think not. Design is a strategy, as well as an aesthetic need.

In the Mix article, there is one particular figure of note. Ahead of our move, we conducted an extensive Filing Audit and calculated that we did not need 40% of our filing space. This equates to £80,000 per annum in (saved) Property Costs – or, expressed otherwise, the equivalent of two Account Managers salaries. Efficient and effective working comes in many different forms –  keeping the paperwork down (and out) needs to be part of responsible business governance as well as demonstrating environmental respect for clients and colleagues alike.