Waitrose suffers a PR meltdown

The ADgenda: This week's worst advertising decision

Waitrose suffered a PR meltdown this week. The supermarket chain known for its squeaky clean image took a bit of a dive in the reputation stakes when Greenpeace launched a campaign calling for Waitrose to "Dump Shell". The campaign's main objection is that the oil giant has a track record for irresponsible drilling in the Arctic and that Waitrose, as a brand that prides itself on promoting green values, now seems to be jumping into bed with the enemy, namely by placing own-branded cafes at Shell garages across the country.

Environmental campaigners decided to make their feelings heard through the Waitrose Facebook page, commenting on dessert recipe links with their own take on the matter "Where's the recipe for Baked Alaska?" and "Help, my dessert has gone wrong, the edges of my arctic are melting" were just a choice few. To which Waitrose responded with a resounding "Delete". Don't like what someone's saying about you? Wipe it from the records.

This must have seemed like a quick and easy solution, and a collective sigh of relief probably went up from the Waitrose headquarters as all that bad press was removed with one effortless click. But these things do have a habit of coming back to bite bums, and the response from the commenters was a renewed scattergun approach, doubling their typing efforts to denounce the Waitrose brand. In fact, all the deletions did was to stoke the fire - encouraging ever more Facebook users to weigh in with their tuppence worth.

Did the Lord McAlpine Twitter debacle teach this PR lot nothing? Just as knee-jerk tweeting can come back to haunt you, reactionary deleting is never going to go unnoticed. In an online world where everything is archived you can't just click your way to a spotless brand reputation.

"Where's the recipe for Baked Alaska?" Photograph: Getty Images
Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Autumn Statement 2015: George Osborne abandons his target

How will George Osborne close the deficit after his U-Turns? Answer: he won't, of course. 

“Good governments U-Turn, and U-Turn frequently.” That’s Andrew Adonis’ maxim, and George Osborne borrowed heavily from him today, delivering two big U-Turns, on tax credits and on police funding. There will be no cuts to tax credits or to the police.

The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, in total, the government gave away £6.2 billion next year, more than half of which is the reverse to tax credits.

Osborne claims that he will still deliver his planned £12bn reduction in welfare. But, as I’ve written before, without cutting tax credits, it’s difficult to see how you can get £12bn out of the welfare bill. Here’s the OBR’s chart of welfare spending:

The government has already promised to protect child benefit and pension spending – in fact, it actually increased pensioner spending today. So all that’s left is tax credits. If the government is not going to cut them, where’s the £12bn come from?

A bit of clever accounting today got Osborne out of his hole. The Universal Credit, once it comes in in full, will replace tax credits anyway, allowing him to describe his U-Turn as a delay, not a full retreat. But the reality – as the Treasury has admitted privately for some time – is that the Universal Credit will never be wholly implemented. The pilot schemes – one of which, in Hammersmith, I have visited myself – are little more than Potemkin set-ups. Iain Duncan Smith’s Universal Credit will never be rolled out in full. The savings from switching from tax credits to Universal Credit will never materialise.

The £12bn is smaller, too, than it was this time last week. Instead of cutting £12bn from the welfare budget by 2017-8, the government will instead cut £12bn by the end of the parliament – a much smaller task.

That’s not to say that the cuts to departmental spending and welfare will be painless – far from it. Employment Support Allowance – what used to be called incapacity benefit and severe disablement benefit – will be cut down to the level of Jobseekers’ Allowance, while the government will erect further hurdles to claimants. Cuts to departmental spending will mean a further reduction in the numbers of public sector workers.  But it will be some way short of the reductions in welfare spending required to hit Osborne’s deficit reduction timetable.

So, where’s the money coming from? The answer is nowhere. What we'll instead get is five more years of the same: increasing household debt, austerity largely concentrated on the poorest, and yet more borrowing. As the last five years proved, the Conservatives don’t need to close the deficit to be re-elected. In fact, it may be that having the need to “finish the job” as a stick to beat Labour with actually helped the Tories in May. They have neither an economic imperative nor a political one to close the deficit. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.