Clement Attlee, Britain’s leader in the era of postwar austerity, recalls John Kay in the Financial Times,  was once approached by a BBC reporter who adopted the deferential style then thought appropriate. “Prime minister, do you have anything to say to the nation?” the journalist asked. “No,” said Attlee, walking on. Attlee had never heard of a focus group, and it is not likely he would have thought consulting one helpful. He and his opposition were surprised at his win. Neither side paid attention to the opinion polls, few of which predicted his victory. The world has changed, Kay writes. Politicians blog and tweet. Welcome us to their kitchens and shed tears on television. The relationship between politicians and the public has changed also. But not for the better. Politicians as a group have never been held in such low esteem. The more attention they pay to public opinion, the less favourably that public regards them. Winston Churchill, Attlee’s predecessor, explained the paradox. When an advisor recommended that he keep his ear close to the ground, he responded that the public would find it hard to look up to leaders detected in that position. Kay says it is hard to imagine [19th century British prime minister] Gladstone or [U.S. president Abraham] Lincoln on YouTube. Such statesmen did not bare their complex personality to the electorate. But wouldn’t we like to have a prime minister who is just an ordinary bloke, with whom you can imagine sharing a drink? No! exclaims Kay: when complex challenges arise most people do not want an ordinary bloke. They want Gladstone, Lincoln or Attlee. The U.S. accountancy firm Arthur Andersen showed that getting too close to the client might win business in the short run, but can destroy the whole business in the long run: if audit is not rigorous and objective, what purpose does it serve? Winston Churchill became the most admired politician of the 20th century. Not because he gave the public what the public said it wanted – it is hard to imagine a less appealing political manifesto than his promise of blood, toil, sweat and tears: but because he gave the public what it really wanted, leadership in a time of crisis. Kay writes that there is a difference between repeatedly engaging in actions you believe will make you popular, and demonstrating the qualities of leadership that prompt people to vote for you. The modern obsession with media management elides that distinction. That is how advisors obsessed with public relations have, in the end, damaged the reputations they have tried to enhance. - Financial Times