Gemma Collins and government influencer strategy

Subscribe to the Spectator and get twelve weeks of Britain's most incisive politics coverage, unrivaled books and arts reviews, and so much more, all for just twelve pounds. Not only that, but we'll also send you a twenty pounds Amazon gift card absolutely free. As a subscriber, you'll also be able to listen to all our other podcasts ad free. Go to www. spectator.co dot uk forward slash voucher to claim this offer now. Terms apply Hello and welcome to Coffee House Shots the Spectators Daily Politics Podcast. I'm Megan McElroy and I'm joined today by Isabel Hardman, our assistant editor and Noah Hoffman, our political correspondent. We've got a lot to get through today, but let's start where we always do on Wednesdays and that's with PMQs. Isabel, it seems like we're back to talking about oil and gas. What's going on? Yeah, I mean it was kind of weird because Keir Starmer is a lame duck and he was actually facing questions about decisions he'd made, which almost suggested that he's I don't know, he's hobbling a bit less on his duck feet than um we thought. But it was about it started off with the U-turn that he announced on road tax for hauliers and uh continuing the fuel duty freeze. You you can't you can't ever put fuel duty up if you're a Westminster politician um and you just have to decide when you're going to announce that you're not putting it up. And he chose the start of this PMQs um to do that. So Kemi Badenot described us as a U-turn and then moved on to this announcement that I think we're now reasonably confident has largely been botched in terms of the order in which sanctions have been announced, but it was on sanctions against Russia around o il. And it was snuck out last night, as Kemi Baden ok said, and suggested that the government was basically lifting these sanctions entirely in part to enable the cost of jet fuel to stay lower so that Brits could go on holiday. So the whole sequencing of it was terrible and deeply upset the Ukrainians. And Kemi Bagnot went for Keir Star mer on that. She used it really to craft two narratives. One that she's been working on for a long time, which is about the pomposity and patronizing nature of the Prime Minister. And he always walks into that 'cause he just can't resist saying there was cross party consensus on Ukraine and how dare you scrutinize me, you scurrulous parliamentarian, and sort of lecture Kemi Baden ok about how she should be approaching questions. She was ready in every single return with you'll take a patronizing tone but you don't understand the policy. Where I'd say she was weak was that she wasn't actually able to explain why he didn't understand the policy on sanctions and I think he actually did give a reasonable answer about the sequencing of these new sanctions and the announcement begs the question how they managed to mess this up quite so badly. But by the end, she'd moved on to new licens es for oil and gas drilling in the North Sea and the threat that banning those poses to jobs, particularly in the north east of Scotland. And she then her second narrative that she wanted to craft was basically that, you know, because this is Ed Millerband's thing, actually Labour's problem is much wider than Keir Starmer. She wanted to argue that basically Labour's looking for a new salesman, but the the problem with the party is exactly the same. So I thought Kemi had another pretty strong PMQs this week, and I don't think it was as brutal for Keir Starmer as I expected. However, I think he really got off a bit lightly because the Tories couldn't prosecute the argument about Labour leadership drama because they would just look like massive hypocrites. So where there was a lot of opportunities for them to get some good gags in, Kemi made the correct decision not to go for it because he has the world's easiest response. Kearsama did manage to be funny at one point. Um no doubt he did not write the joke, but he did have a good gag about Zach Polansky in response to the new Green MP, Hannah Spencer, for who for some bizarre reason chose for her first ever PMQ to have a pop at the subsid ized beer in Strangers. And no doubt if she is ever spotted in there going forward with a pint, that will make for some great diary stories. But she had a go about why are we subsidizing alcohol for MPs and staff, and I should disclose journalists have access to it as well and definitely make use of it. And Keir Sama made a response about the Greens after addressing that issue thinking that Zach Polansky can walk on water. He said they can't walk on water, but he does live on water and doesn't pay council tax, which was a really good little way to get an argument in about that huge hypocrisy and that really good attack story, which any other week would have probably splashed tabloids, but because of the Labour leadership turmoil, it didn't get quite the showing that it otherwise would. There was also a moment where, in a sort of throwback to release the sausages of Labour conference. Starmar was responding to a question from Sir Ed Davy, who was trying to push him to gush about the EU and really exploit the splits in Labour over Brexit. Keir Starmer responded to a question on that by reeling off trade deals that the government has secured. And one of the countries that he said a bumper agreement had been signed with was North Korea. But he'd meant to say obviously South Korea. Later he was handed a note from a PPS um informing him he should probably correct the record. But he did do it with with some good humour. It was quite a nice moment. It was an it was a nice moment. It he kind of seemed a bit more natural than usual and and he even made a good gag about oh maybe this time I should be referred to the Privileges Committee, of course harking back to the fact that he stopped that from happening on the issue of Peter Mandelson. So it wasn't a terrible PMQs for either of them, but I wouldn't say it was super standout for the two party leaders on the other hand as well. Afterwards we heard from West Streeting, he was talking about why he resigned from government and he said I left the government because we are in the fight of our lives against nationalism. What did you make of his comments? I thought it was a very strange tact. I thought his resignation speech wasn't particularly standout, and I thought his letter was actually much better. It was an interesting spectacle. He was surrounded by a Wesnut , so a doughnut of Wes Streeting's supporters. There weren't loads, I think people counted around 20 and the chamber was quite empty for his resignation speech. But anyway, he dedicated it to trying to prosecute an argument that the country is at risk of falling to the perils of nationalism. He spoke about nationalist governments winning in Scotland and Wales. And then he also used that same nationalist argument against reform, who he said are going to well he implied are going to lead to, you know, a huge rise in division. He suggested race was basically suggesting racism and then also went for Labour's usual attack line that reform are going to dismantle the NH S and bring in a private system, which the party says is not what they are going to do. It wasn't particularly inspiring. I think he did bring up a good point about young people and how they've been completely left behind in political discourse. I don't think if I was Keir Star Andy Burnham, I'd be particularly, you know, worried off the back of that speech. I don't think it landed as well as it could have, and as well as Wes Streeting has potential to, given that he usually is a very good orator. I think the the reception to Wes Streeting's speech and PMQs today just shows that the dra ma has gone out temporarily, very temporarily, of the Labour leadership turmoil, and that is simply because we have a date for the Makerfield by election and we're just waiting for Andy Burnham to enter Westminster in his running shorts. And after that, all hell will break loose again. But for now, the Prime Minister can carry on talking about, you know, his job as opposed to actually trying to justify holding on to it, which we'll have to start doing again uh later in June. So it we're in a sort of surreal limbo now, aren't we? Um between now and then. And where streeting can try to build up the case for for his leadership, and that's obviously what he and the other contenders um who aren't Andy Burnham are are also trying to do. You try to organise MPs, um trying to charm them, Andy Burnham 's operation is very much doing that a already as as well. Um so just because there isn't quite so much drama and sort of, you know, minute by minute demands on Keir Starmer to set out a timetable doesn't mean that that's gone away. It really hasn't. The last thing we need to talk about today is Gemma Collins. She's been causing a storm in the Department for Education with Bridget Phillips and she's been brought in as part of this campaign to talk about ensuring that pupils that leave school with minimal qualifications aren't left behind. And a lot of people are really upset about this campaign because they think Gemma Collins is not a serious person to be fronting it. Um they've pointed out the fact that she's only got one GCSE. It's caused a real storm on Twitter. But I would like to make the point that perhaps there's a bit of snobbery at play here. I think that often in Westminster , just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it's wrong. Perhaps it's just not for you. I can't overstate how much of an icon Gemma Collins is among Gen Z. A lot of people have s suggested that Gen Z will be insulted by this. But I think that assumes that young people think that she's stupid. And I don't think young people do think that. I think Westminster does. What do you think as well? Yeah, I mean a as somebody who did ten years ago a programme with Joey Essex, I'm not yes, I did it it was was a What it? It was a programme, it was 2015, it was on gosh, you're so young. Um it was a programme on voting. Um because Joey Essex had never voted and he wanted some Westminster journalists to show him around. And he came to spect ator. Um I took him to Downing Street. I took him to Grimsby and we had um Fish and Chips with Nigel Farage, who wasn't speaking to me at the time actually. So there's this incredibly awkward clip of Joey and Nigel chatting . And because Nigel's not talking to me, I'm just eating. So I'm just tropping away in the background. It was great fish and chips. But it was to explain the party system, explain the importance of voting. And they did it in the run-up to the election to encourage young people to vote. So I thought this is a great thing to do because people who are not going to watch, you know, at the time the Andrew Ma show or question time even are going to watch this and it is going to encourage them to vote. And Joey Essex was he was a really nice guy. I really got on with him. Um so you know I'm I I'm very alive to the way in which Westminster reacts to this because at the time everyone was going, Oh god, he's just so awful he,'s so stupid, he revels in being stupid. And I was a bit like no, he's just not like you. You revel in being, and we've just you know, we've talked earlier about this, you revel in being pompous, and I think all of us, and you know, some people listening to this podcast may have friends who are not into politics. That hazard I guess a few people might. And I should hope so. I should hope so. Quite a few of my friends who aren't into politics really don't like people who are into politics because they seem really up themselves. And I actually think that getting people like Joey Essex and Gemma Collins who are perhaps different to the Westminster archetype is a good thing. You know, she's obviously not an academic , but she went through the schooling system too. And I think what you also say, Megan, about is she stupid? I don't think you could class somebody who's this successful as stupid. She might not be a professor, but it depends what your definition even within the education system of SMART actually is. And my view has always been that we have too narrow a definition of of SMART and it's always focused on the sort of people who are called hands-up girl at school like me. As opposed to you know very gifted people with a huge amount of business acumen or um people who have incredible manual skills, like you know, Kirst Dummer's father, the toolmaker. I couldn't agree with both of you anymore. Big fan of Gemma Collins. I mean, clearly alongside being very good at reality TV, she's an entrepreneur. She's successful. Um so very much loving her and have nothing bad to say about her. I will just talk more to this idea of influences and government comms because it's interesting quite a lot has been happening behind the scenes. And this is really niche government comms chat. So I I don't know why anyone would have really spoken about it much before. But basically within civil service press teams there is a very strong desire to engage more with people that they call content creators or what others would describe as Instagram influencers, TikTok influencers, for instance. Now, the reason for this is twofold. The understandable reason is that they want to w reach wider audiences and communicate government policies to them. And that is completely understandable. You have to go where the eyeballs are. And for a lot of young people and older people as well, that is social media. A lot of people aren't watching traditional linear TV news as as they used to. And so to communicate to them through content creators is a completely understandable aim. The more sinister side of the government use of influencers is when it is specifically to bypass journalists and to sort of save Keir Starmer's career through communication via influencer who does not understand journalism and and is not there to hold government to acco unt, but rather, as some press officers would like it, to regurgitate propaganda, so to speak. So for instance, Downing Street will sometimes hold content creator press conferences where content creators go into Downing Street, Keir Sama will come and give a speech. Before his speech, they will literally give him a round of applause, which, if you're a journalist, is just quite revolting. Um, and then the content creators will ask really, really softball questions, which is understandable because they're not journalists. That's not their job. And it's a win for number 10 because they get their videos out on platforms with large audiences and they bypass the scrutiny and the questions about Keir Starmer are you going to be Prime Minister after the Makerfield by-election, for instance. So I suspect that the Gemma Collins influencer debacle from the Department for Education perspective was just another instance of this new comms strategy. Let's get our messaging out positively and without scrutiny through someone that everybody loves. Again, understandable in terms of wanting to advertise and communicate, and Gemma Collins was apparently not paid. I think if she was paid, there would have been a lot more questions to ask. But equally, you cannot bypass proper scrutiny and just do that. So I would hope that Bridget Phillipson would have a very seasoned specialist