:00:06. > :00:10.Euro 2012 in Kiev. Now it is time for HARDtalk.
:00:10. > :00:13.Electoral politics is a blood sport and some of the toughest fighters
:00:13. > :00:22.in the game are the campaign strategists who hone and sell their
:00:22. > :00:25.candidates' message. Lynton Crosby is widely regarded as one of the
:00:25. > :00:31.masters of the darker political arts - he ran winning campaigns in
:00:31. > :00:35.his native Australia for former prime minister John Howard. In the
:00:35. > :00:38.UK, he twice helped Boris Johnson win the London Mayor's office.
:00:38. > :00:41.Opponents on the left have accused him of using grubby, divisive
:00:41. > :00:51.methods to further a conservative agenda. Is bare-knuckle politics
:00:51. > :01:14.
:01:14. > :01:20.good for democracy? Lynton Crosby, welcome to HARDtalk.
:01:20. > :01:24.Good to be here. You are a political gun for hire. Your
:01:24. > :01:28.business is being a political consultant but you also, it seems
:01:28. > :01:31.to me, are a man of strong political convictions of your own.
:01:32. > :01:35.Which comes first for you? Your business or your beliefs? Your
:01:35. > :01:39.beliefs always have to be a foundation for what you do. It's
:01:39. > :01:43.important in politics that people have values. I don't think you'd be
:01:43. > :01:47.finding me working for too many socialists around the world.
:01:47. > :01:50.However, business is business. What we do in politics we also do for
:01:50. > :01:54.business, for communities and countries - trying to make a case
:01:54. > :01:58.that deserves to be put forward. it's unlikely you would ever work
:01:58. > :02:06.for a socialist, but if you look at the people you have worked with -
:02:06. > :02:09.far and wide across the world - have you always felt a values-based,
:02:09. > :02:13.conviction-based connection with the people you have agreed to work
:02:13. > :02:16.for? In most cases, yes. I think it's important that people
:02:16. > :02:19.understand it when you are giving advice you're not seeking to
:02:19. > :02:23.perpetuate your own beliefs and trying to impose your own views on
:02:23. > :02:27.people. But people who you have respect for, whose views you can
:02:27. > :02:30.find similarity and comfort with, that you want to help them doing
:02:30. > :02:33.the best they can. Ultimately, they are the people who put themselves
:02:33. > :02:38.before the people. It interesting you put it that way, but you're
:02:38. > :02:41.trying to mould what they sell to the public. You do so much
:02:41. > :02:45.intensive polymer and getting into the mindset of the voter. What's
:02:45. > :02:48.the point of giving let your candidate unless you hope it will
:02:48. > :02:58.mauled, to a certain extent, what he then tries to sell as his
:02:58. > :03:01.political message? I think the important point to understand is
:03:01. > :03:05.that polling is a navigational tool. It should never tell you what to
:03:05. > :03:12.believe. If you take a poll to tell you what to believe - it will give
:03:12. > :03:17.the game away. Plenty of politicians do that. No, I haven't
:03:17. > :03:19.seen it. There is a mystique, a bit of interest about this - poll in to
:03:19. > :03:23.see what people think, then giving people what they think. It doesn't
:03:23. > :03:27.really work that way. The way I think it should work and the way we
:03:27. > :03:30.work with in my company is we say "this is what you want to do, this
:03:30. > :03:34.is what people think. This is why they hold the views they do and
:03:34. > :03:36.polling has told us all these things. Given that this is what you
:03:37. > :03:42.want to do, here is how you communicate to build community
:03:42. > :03:47.support for what you want to do to take people with you". Case in
:03:47. > :03:50.point - in 1998, John Howard, prime minister of Australia, took the
:03:51. > :03:54.view that Australia needed a new tax system and he proposed a goods
:03:54. > :03:57.and services tax. That's a brave thing to go to an election, which
:03:57. > :04:02.is what he attempted to do, promising to significantly change
:04:02. > :04:06.the taxation system. To impose a new tax. Any poll would have said
:04:07. > :04:10.that people do not like new taxes, people are sceptical of politicians
:04:10. > :04:15.and the way they spend money. Who will vote for a politician
:04:15. > :04:19.promising a new tax? But he was able to make a story, cast a story,
:04:19. > :04:23.and present that to the vote is based on his own very strong and
:04:23. > :04:28.good political instincts. He used research as well. A poll would have
:04:28. > :04:32.said "don't impose a new tax", but you can use research to help you do
:04:32. > :04:36.what you want to do. An interesting example. I am pleased to have taken
:04:36. > :04:40.a us straight to Australia because that is way you cut your political
:04:40. > :04:49.teeth as a strategist and campaigner. You said not so long
:04:49. > :04:54.ago - and this is a quote "everyone likes to sing songs together, but
:04:54. > :04:56.you need points of difference". Is it not true that in your Australian
:04:56. > :05:01.political experience you specialise in finding not just the points of
:05:01. > :05:05.difference but in exploiting people's deeper fears? Look, I
:05:05. > :05:09.think the first thing is - I didn't find too much. Candidates have
:05:09. > :05:12.their own views and they want to take it to the public. The idea
:05:12. > :05:16.that the strategies or adviser comes in and tells you what to
:05:16. > :05:21.think is misplaced, to start with.... But let's look at the idea
:05:21. > :05:25.of picking a way... Well, it's picking away - firstly, you have to
:05:25. > :05:30.hold people to a character. Elections are a choice and you need
:05:30. > :05:34.to frame that choice. When people think about how to use their vote,
:05:34. > :05:37.they need to know what they are going to vote for and what they are
:05:38. > :05:41.going to vote against. They need to understand a choice they face. It's
:05:41. > :05:47.very important that people understand a clear choice that they
:05:47. > :05:53.face. If you do not make it clear to them they can be confused.
:05:53. > :06:02.is - this is where you get accused by opponents of manipulation. Let's
:06:02. > :06:08.take one case study and armpit it a little bit. Into 1001 in Australia
:06:08. > :06:18.-- unpacked it a little bit. In 2001 in Australia there was a boat
:06:18. > :06:27.called the tampon which was intercepted by the Australian Navy.
:06:27. > :06:32.-- Tampa.... John Howard said he would protect Australia from a kind
:06:32. > :06:36.of immigration. It was done in a way that Australians saw as grubby
:06:36. > :06:40.and divisive. He sent the boat away. Many people saw that you were
:06:40. > :06:46.playing upon a racist issue there with your an anti-immigrant starts.
:06:46. > :06:50.How do you respond? Firstly, John Howard won with the biggest swing
:06:50. > :06:56.to an incumbent government in 30 years. Not all the Australian
:06:56. > :07:01.people took that view. Suddenly, the decision he took with that a
:07:01. > :07:06.boat to is one I knew about after he took it. Did you think it was
:07:06. > :07:10.the right thing to do? I definitely did, and the evidence is right now.
:07:10. > :07:20.If you go t If you go tia right now, people is represent their positions
:07:20. > :07:20.
:07:20. > :07:25.about immigration. -- misrepresent. A record number of boats are trying
:07:25. > :07:29.to get there and people are dying because they are being held out -
:07:29. > :07:32.it is being held out to them, falsely, by people smugglers, that
:07:33. > :07:38.they can pay money and get to Australia. Tragically, people are
:07:38. > :07:41.dying. In the last couple of years with John Howard, not one vote came,
:07:41. > :07:45.it yet, and this is the point I would like to make - under the
:07:45. > :07:50.coalition, the Liberal and National parties, if for different coalition
:07:50. > :07:53.to what we have here - Australia took more refugees and takes more
:07:53. > :07:57.migrants than most other countries. It's not about immigration it's
:07:57. > :08:01.about the right way to behave. my point isn't so much about
:08:01. > :08:04.questioning the importance of the issue and the legitimacy of putting
:08:04. > :08:08.the issue in the public domain, it's about how it was done, the
:08:08. > :08:14.detail how it was done. Where political campaigners sit on some
:08:14. > :08:16.of the detail. For example, it was said by senior figures in the
:08:16. > :08:21.Australian government at the time that some of those on board that
:08:21. > :08:25.particular vessel had been attempting to throw their
:08:25. > :08:29.grandchildren overboard in an effort to stymie the efforts of the
:08:29. > :08:32.Australian Navy. The defence minister at the time used that
:08:32. > :08:36.story. It became clear that the Australian navy themselves were
:08:37. > :08:40.saying that they had no evidence for that allegation. But the
:08:40. > :08:45.government officials, particularly some senior ministers, continue to
:08:45. > :08:51.peddle that story. I wonder whether you, as a campaign manager, or
:08:51. > :08:54.involved in any of that? No, and we never used that story. That story
:08:54. > :08:58.happened to break in the lead-up to the campaign but it was never part
:08:58. > :09:01.of our campaign or out that message. Are you prepared to say that you
:09:01. > :09:05.are appalled at some of the things that you said at the time, which
:09:05. > :09:09.appear, after a lot of research and investigation, to have been plain
:09:10. > :09:16.wrong? Naturally, if something is wrong and is perpetuated, that is
:09:16. > :09:20.wrong and no-one would support that. Let's not mix issues here. There is
:09:20. > :09:26.a particular incident which you are describing which, on the evidence,
:09:26. > :09:29.appeared wrong. This is in the public domain now. They didn't
:09:29. > :09:33.change their story at the time. Based on confused information,
:09:33. > :09:36.whatever the reason, it was wrong. That doesn't detract from a
:09:36. > :09:39.fundamental point that we were facing an election and people had
:09:39. > :09:44.to make a choice about the policies that each of the parties were
:09:44. > :09:53.offering. One party was offering a policy that had radically improved
:09:53. > :09:56.the way out that borders were managed. -- the way that. More
:09:56. > :09:59.immigrants and refugees were brought to the country, but in a
:09:59. > :10:04.controlled way. When the system breaks down, if a government fails
:10:04. > :10:09.to tackle it probably, then, actually, it can have the reverse
:10:09. > :10:12.effect of what you want. That was the fundamental basis of the point.
:10:12. > :10:17.It wasn't about where the people came from - there was no issue of
:10:17. > :10:22.race. It was about protecting the borders of Australia - an island
:10:22. > :10:30.nation.... Have you thought very closely and carefully, yourself, or
:10:30. > :10:33.about how far a negative campaigning him go? Is there a line
:10:33. > :10:39.that you have come close to crossing, if you now look back on
:10:39. > :10:49.your career? I can't think of a specific line that I feel that I
:10:49. > :10:56.almost - and negative line that I almost crossed. I think......
:10:56. > :11:06.true that you are long-time partner of a decade or so, he was involved,
:11:06. > :11:07.
:11:08. > :11:15.as I understood it, - push polling, is when pollsters put coke to do
:11:15. > :11:19.aim -- when pollsters claim to be doing a neutral poll, but they push
:11:19. > :11:25.negative information about the opponents in the poll. I have never
:11:25. > :11:29.used it. My partner has never used it. He was accused in 1995 of using
:11:29. > :11:33.it against a woman candidate in the 1995 by-election. As I understand,
:11:33. > :11:38.it settled out of court that he gave the woman some money.
:11:38. > :11:43.Interestingly there is a court case in Australia right now involving
:11:43. > :11:45.Crosby Dexter - my company, which my partner is a part of - we are
:11:45. > :11:49.suing a government minister for making that same claim because it
:11:49. > :11:55.is simply untrue. There were allegations made and there was a
:11:55. > :11:59.poll conducted in which some of the questions were based on information
:11:59. > :12:04.that was wrong, that was provided by a third party him conducting a
:12:04. > :12:07.poll. The thing about push polling, without overdoing it, because it is
:12:07. > :12:13.one of those things your opponents will have to beat you over the head
:12:13. > :12:17.with, push polling only works, in its theory, developed by the
:12:17. > :12:21.Democrats in the US, was to poll tens of thousands of people with a
:12:21. > :12:25.false claim, with it under the pretence of it being a legitimate
:12:25. > :12:29.goal, and then in so doing, seek to influence the outcome of an
:12:29. > :12:33.election and the way people thought about a candidate. What we do is
:12:33. > :12:36.poll, we ring up a small number of people to ask their opinion in
:12:36. > :12:39.order that we can understand... find out what they're thinking. I
:12:39. > :12:44.understand the difference. Anyway, you've been very clear - you don't
:12:44. > :12:48.do it. Never. Let's move to Australia, where you would accept
:12:48. > :12:51.that your career was controversial. I think when you play hard ball
:12:51. > :12:54.against your opponents they don't always like it. But politics is a
:12:54. > :12:58.serious business. Who runs a country - the policies they
:12:58. > :13:01.implement are important. Forgive me if there is a bit of passion they
:13:01. > :13:05.are sometimes. We like passion on his programme. I wonder why, when
:13:05. > :13:14.you brought that passion to the United Kingdom and red for the
:13:14. > :13:19.Tories in 2005 -- and ran for the Tories into 1005 and failed, why
:13:20. > :13:29.did you fail? I think the situation in 2005 - it is important to
:13:29. > :13:35.understand it understand -- important to understand the
:13:35. > :13:40.situation.... I think back then the Conservative Party still had a lot
:13:40. > :13:45.of challenges. I think Michael Howard was an outstanding leader -
:13:45. > :13:48.the leader at the time. He had been an exceptional Home Secretary in my
:13:48. > :13:52.view. He was keen to focus on the issues with which he had a lot of
:13:52. > :13:56.experience and with which - about which he had strong views. Issues
:13:56. > :14:02.like crime and immigration. Immigration, which you pushed very
:14:02. > :14:07.hard. Afterwards, you said if you had pushed immigration Hardy would
:14:07. > :14:11.have won. It is claimed that I said that. Having a problem for the
:14:11. > :14:14.Conservative Party was that people hadn't changed enough. If you don't
:14:14. > :14:19.change, if you lose successive elections, people are sending a
:14:19. > :14:28.message. Clearly, there hadn't been sufficient change. Clearly, the
:14:28. > :14:35.policy agenda had not changed That brings me to the here and now.
:14:35. > :14:40.I want to ask you what do you think that the Conservative Party in the
:14:40. > :14:47.2012 election, with its David Cannon and the party have clearly
:14:47. > :14:52.defined themselves. -- weather David Cameron. People know what
:14:52. > :15:00.they stand for. Do you think they have succeeded in that? He has
:15:00. > :15:05.faced a tough job and has done it well. He has remained principled in
:15:05. > :15:12.areas such as dealing with debt and financial responsibility.
:15:12. > :15:17.Significant reform and health and education, welfare reform. He has
:15:17. > :15:27.laid out some quite challenging areas for change and improvement.
:15:27. > :15:29.It is not easy in a coalition. Here you have two parties that often
:15:29. > :15:34.have values and principles that will be pulling away from each
:15:34. > :15:44.other. Surely it is the values that are pulling away from each other
:15:44. > :15:46.
:15:46. > :15:48.that are inside David Cameron's head. He wants to say he is a
:15:48. > :15:58.caring and compassionate conservative. He says that the
:15:58. > :15:59.
:15:59. > :16:04.green agenda is one of the greatest threats facing humanity. It seems
:16:04. > :16:14.like there are two different Conservative leaders. The few happy
:16:14. > :16:18.
:16:18. > :16:21.divided brand, it will not work. You need to understand context. The
:16:21. > :16:28.former was at a context were you did not have the financial
:16:28. > :16:33.challenge. But you cannot just jump them when times are tough. It is
:16:33. > :16:41.having to do when having a pressure of the reality of the here and now.
:16:41. > :16:48.He has not changed his beliefs. He understands that Europe remains in
:16:48. > :16:51.meltdown. People want to know that he is focusing on the big issues.
:16:51. > :17:01.Context has created the climate for he has to do with these things work.
:17:01. > :17:02.
:17:02. > :17:07.How do you deal with the being an Australian and address this issue
:17:07. > :17:16.that a Tory MP described David Cameron and George Osborne as two
:17:16. > :17:21.arrogant posh boys. That is a large back problem. Not at all. It is
:17:21. > :17:26.easy to take pot shots. These are tough times. They have been tough
:17:26. > :17:34.job. In the end, people judge you not from where you come but what
:17:34. > :17:40.you do in the job. It has its challenges. They have made clear
:17:40. > :17:48.their first priority is to focus on the nation's debt, the financial
:17:48. > :17:53.system, reforming the education take pot shots. I noticed you are
:17:53. > :17:58.not doing that in this interview. Many Tories are looking at the
:17:58. > :18:06.polls and they are looking difficult for David Cameron. They
:18:06. > :18:15.say they need someone to do plan ahead. The man to do it is Lynton
:18:15. > :18:21.Crosby. In terms of campaign manager. Are you interested? I have
:18:21. > :18:26.a small business. Politics generally makes businesses smaller.
:18:26. > :18:30.I have a job to do. I want to see the Conservatives win. That is not
:18:30. > :18:38.my agenda. Do you think the Conservatives will have a better
:18:38. > :18:48.chance of winning the next election if Boris Johnson will lead to? --
:18:48. > :18:48.
:18:49. > :18:53.were leader? No, I do not. These are tough times. It is a difficult
:18:53. > :19:01.period. This is because of the world reality. The world as an
:19:01. > :19:07.crisis. There are some tough issues to deal with. You do not see Boris
:19:07. > :19:15.Johnson as a better prime minister than David Cameron? Bob Johnson
:19:15. > :19:21.says he is an outstanding mare. -- Boris Johnson. The qualities are
:19:21. > :19:28.born of the fact that it is a presidential system. People voting
:19:28. > :19:35.for one person. He has character. He has a commitment to do the job.
:19:35. > :19:45.Why, when you talk so fondly of his character, why do you think that
:19:45. > :19:45.
:19:45. > :19:49.his press car left the job after the election? His press chief said
:19:49. > :19:57.afterwards that the problem is that our campaign strategy took some of
:19:57. > :20:06.the bubbles out of him. He said that you had tried to control and
:20:06. > :20:11.packaging too much. He cannot be controlled. Boris Johnson won. At a
:20:11. > :20:21.time when the Conservatives were behind in London. Any campaign, you
:20:21. > :20:27.face particular challenges. For people to hear that and see that
:20:27. > :20:33.and understand that, sometimes you have to get a little more direct,
:20:33. > :20:40.focused and tight. He chose to do rich and communicated it. Let me
:20:40. > :20:46.ask you about your work all around the world. You work all over the
:20:46. > :20:51.place. You have been in Malaysia, Fiji, lots of places. Does the
:20:51. > :20:57.approach you go into politics, and we have talked about the
:20:57. > :21:03.exploitation of the tension, does that work in some of these less
:21:03. > :21:09.mature democracies? It might be dangerous in some of them. You are
:21:09. > :21:17.making an assumption. You always take a big focus on a negative into
:21:17. > :21:22.the campaign. You deal with the circumstances you face. Take
:21:22. > :21:30.Malaysia as an example. A number of different races, intermingled.
:21:30. > :21:38.Often sensitive in their issues. It would be wrong to exploit that. To
:21:38. > :21:46.manipulate that in any way at all. Where you go in the world, whether
:21:46. > :21:51.it is Fiji, Ghana, Zambia or a country in Africa. People have
:21:51. > :21:55.various values and goals for themselves and their families. A
:21:56. > :22:01.campaign is all about helping them see, given those aspirations they
:22:01. > :22:11.hold, that the candidate you are offering, you are supporting, and
:22:11. > :22:15.the policies they're offering, meet those aspirations and goals. Let me
:22:15. > :22:24.quote something from one a few phone company's reports from New
:22:24. > :22:28.Zealand. It is about Helen Clark. You called it a strategic
:22:28. > :22:32.opportunity in the emerging perception that Helen Clark is too
:22:32. > :22:36.busy to will be about the concerns of ordinary working families. It
:22:36. > :22:43.must be stressed that this sentiment amongst the public is
:22:43. > :22:49.embryonic. It must be leveraged. It will not exist and mature on its
:22:49. > :22:58.own. As we reach an end to this conversation, it is a very cynical
:22:58. > :23:01.way of looking at politics. You do not manipulate their opinion. They
:23:01. > :23:09.hold their own opinions. You help them understand the circumstances
:23:09. > :23:14.they face and the choice they face. What often happens, particularly in
:23:14. > :23:18.this day and age, people feel this and how work. They get angry when
:23:18. > :23:26.the EC political figures focusing on what they see to be abstract
:23:26. > :23:33.issues. The point I am seeking to make is that people have real
:23:33. > :23:39.concerns about their day-to-day lives. She seemed to be off on her
:23:39. > :23:45.little course. That is the fact of it. You will not tell me if you
:23:45. > :23:49.work with the Conservatives in 2015. Would you say that if you look
:23:49. > :23:52.around the world and the amount of business to a company has done,
:23:52. > :24:02.that politicians are more reliant on the sorts of skills that you and
:24:02. > :24:09.others can bring? In everything, from the media, to finance, to
:24:09. > :24:15.every day small business activity, we all need specialists. The point
:24:15. > :24:19.and made at the start I will reinforce - at the end of the day,
:24:19. > :24:26.someone who runs for political office must have their own beliefs.