NEWS: Why PR can learn from the marginal appeal of Goldsmith

Frankly, I object to billionaires who exile themselves to a French

chateau and represent a French constituency in the so-called European

Parliament in Strasbourg telling us how to conduct our affairs. It is a

monstrous arrogance.

For this reason, Sir James Goldsmith is unlikely to appreciate his

fundamental PR problem: convincing us that his Referendum Party is

really concerned to preserve British sovereignty in Europe. He confirms

this by embracing ex-Tory treasurer, Lord McAlpine of West Green, who

lives in Venice, and hostess Lady Carla Powell who comes from

Domodossola in Northen Italy. This is not to mention Taki

Theodoracopulous, the Greek millionaire columnist who describes himself

as an ‘ardent’ Referendum supporter.

If Sir James had resigned from the Euro-Assembly, sold his chateau,

moved to London or, better still, Yorkshire and volunteered to subject

himself to the British tax system, we might be inclined to take him more

seriously. As it is, large numbers of solid British citizens, like me,

wonder why they should take a blind bit of notice of the much-advertised

concern of himself and his fine bunch of British patriots for our

ability to govern ourselves.

This is why Goldfish, who is clearly enjoying swimming in his bowl, will

have only a marginal effect, if at all, on the general election next

April. I say ‘if at all’ because it is by no means clear which party -

Labour or Tory - will be hurt most or whether the Goldsmith effect will

cancel itself out.

But PR people have to take marginal effects seriously. After all, the

quality of their work can be crucial in marginal situations. And, as

things stand, the most likely outcome of the General Election is a

narrow victory, one way or the other. So, leaving aside the preposterous

notion of Sir James riding to the defence of this island race, we need

to examine his other appeal.

Superficially, he has a lot going for him. He plays on ‘five principal

fundamentals that define an independent nation’: to make laws which are

supreme in our own country; run our own economy for our own benefit;

decide our foreign policy; determine our national security; and control

our own frontiers. All these are to a greater or lesser degree now

compromised.

So Sir James wants ‘a full referendum on Europe’. But he doesn’t tell us

what the question would be. Nor does he explain what the alternatives to

Europe are - obstinately in, heroically out or the 51st state of the

USA? And, much as I object to the way Europe is going, he studiously

fails to point out that sovereignty is a relative condition in the

modern world.

Sir James and his Referendum Party are nobbut a stunt. A suitable case

for Max Clifford.

This article was first published on Marketing