What politicians can teach you about communications

We can learn a lot about communication from politicians. How do they address the three essentials in good comms: Transparency, Honesty, Relatability (“I can relate to that!”)?

If a person has those qualities, in business, in the family, and in politics, we can often accept them even if we disagree on many issues.

And then of course there are the 3Cs: Clear, Concise, Consistent.

Simplistic? Yes. Is it a useful guide for leaders wherever? Also yes.

Pauline Hanson

On message: Pauline Hanson featured in the first episode of Karl Stefanovic’s new podcast

Pauline Hanson, with a 26% approval rating in one poll, has the advantage of having been in politics for 30 years.

But never in government, so she can use values-based comms, and cut through with clarity. She keeps her messaging to three main ideas: immigration, government spending/balanced budgets, and an energy policy that works for householders and business owners.

And when she says, “young Australians will be the ones paying for these bad decisions in the future”, she’s embracing a powerful political message.

Enjoying Mumbrella? Sign up for our free daily newsletter.

With One Nation’s polling reaching into the 20s, Hanson has held the same views for three decades, and a portion of the electorate likes it. Her gain also reflects the failures of others.

So, on the three essentials above? Yes to all three. And on the 3 Cs: clear, concise consistent? Yes.

I would add that coming across as cold and divisive — which, for me, Hanson does — are negatives.

Sussan Ley

Sussan Ley

The Liberal Party was founded on “values” – the individual, the family, the home, hard work, etc.

The high-order leadership of a Menzies or Howard is not evident when Sussan Ley speaks. Her comms focus has been on a factional spat between conservatives and progressives.

This is not her own making –  Ley was strong on values in the wake of the Bondi massacre in December.

But then she became bogged in the legislative response – are these hate laws, antisemitism laws, anti-terror, anti-extremism, anti-religion laws? This should have been the government’s headache, not Sussan Ley’s.

So on the three essentials above? One out of the three essentials, honest. And on clear, concise, consistent? Zero.

David Littleproud

David Littleproud (ABC News)

It’s a dicey communications strategy when you throw your toys out of the cot and say you won’t communicate. When David Littleproud broke the Coalition and refused to discuss the situation, only saying there can be no team until the leader changes, it’s not the kind of leadership Australians can relate to.

Littleproud has the added pressure of being part of the Coalition’s abandonment of the 2050 net-zero emissions target, when a large majority of voters want it.

We know what and who Littleproud doesn’t like. There’s no cut-through on what he likes.

So, on the three essentials above? Zero. And on clear/concise/consistent? Zero.

Barnaby Joyce

Barnaby Joyce

He has a political brand based on his unique communications style, using down-home examples to illustrate macro policy issues.

He’s been tagged a “retail politician”, because, whether you love him or loathe him, he has the first three essentials: what you see is what you get, and he speaks what a lot of people think.

However, he has been hamstrung by a taint of hypocrisy: having held Ministerial portfolios, including Deputy PM, he fails on loyalty. Aussies don’t like disloyalty, and that spills into his personal life.

So, he has all three of transparency, honesty, relatability, but only two of the 3 Cs (clear and concise): he is seen as erratic (a fail on consistent).

Anthony Albanese

Anthony Albanese (Kiis)

The Prime Minister is not a perfect communicator, but he has the discipline and wisdom to “shut up and take the win”. As the Opposition factions fight, the PM stays mum, although with a new sitting week we’ll see if he stays out of it.

Still, Albo has made some big communications mistakes: pursuing The Voice when bi-partisan support was a prerequisite was a clear fail, with the added negative of a divided indigenous voice.

And his chain-dragging on an antisemitism Royal Commission and the confusion about “hate laws” are also fails.

In these situations: What do you stand for, Albo? It’s confusing.

Albo is not a strong communicator like Hawke, Keating and Howard, and he is not articulate like Rudd or Abbott. But he is likable. And not threatening, and Australians generally don’t like conflict.

So on the three essentials above? No to being transparent and relatable on some big issues. And on the 3 Cs? Not so clear, or consistent.

Jim Chalmers

Jim Chalmers (ABC)

The Treasurer is very good at excising himself from anything to do with divisive politics like Israel or Gaza. He’s disciplined, clear, concise and consistent. Is he honest in trying to talk inflation down or the economy up? Does it often sound like spinning a silk purse from a sow’s ear?  Especially when Michele Bullock, the other voice on the economy, is an excellent communicator. To me, Chalmers can give the impression of being less than honest.

So, on the three essentials above? Two out of three. And on the 3 Cs? Yes.

Conclusion

While I don’t think it’s fair to conclude that our politicians are solely responsible for the divisions in Australian society, they certainly amplify them. Poor communication is part of the cause of the divisions on our society, and it’s logical, I believe, that excellent communication is part of the solution.

Aussies are by and large tolerant — but transparency, honesty, and relatability are must-haves.

Peter Wilkinson is chair of Wilkinson Butler and a crisis communications expert.