Perhaps this is premature, but I detect a new, or should I say ‘old’ morality creeping back into communications, whether it be in politics or business. It comes to mind as the concept of ‘fake news’ is increasingly being derided and social media, under pressure to bear responsibility for what is published on its platforms, is slowly, too slowly many would say, starting to clean up its act.

But it is more than that. The architects of dishonest communications are starting to disappear or mend their ways because it hasn’t worked. In politics, Trump is shuffling off the presidential stage and, however noisy he may be from the side-lines, he is no longer President and that is enough. I can’t believe I am saying this, but he was a brilliant propagandist. He knew his audience and how to incite them; he also knew how to disrupt mainstream news agendas mainly through Twitter to suit his own ends. The leading news channels regularly fell into his trap of endlessly covering his outrageous, often untrue statements, allowing him to hold centre stage on his own terms.

However, there is a limited shelf-life to this approach. People see through the tricks and tire of the divisive, explosive commentary. Fact checking gets tougher, opinion more polarised and, in the process, you lose the middle ground. More importantly, if you can’t back up your claims with competence and delivery, you are simply left with a vacuum and people see you for who you are. This is Trump. As coronavirus mismanagement grows and he tears up democratic norms in his response to his rejection by voters, an immoral communications strategy becomes self-defeating. What Trump now says, or what is said on his behalf, simply comes across as dishonest, uncaring, and faintly ridiculous, sadly with tragic consequences.

Johnson is no Trump but on communications strategy, he overlaps. Charismatically prone to untruths and exaggerations, certainly he is being held to account by this pandemic. The seriousness of his role and the level of scrutiny he is under has demanded a change of approach in communications because aggression and glib soundbites haven’t worked. Less guff and an ‘us versus them’ attitude to media relations, combined with more transparency is now the name of the game. A new cast of Downing Street advisers will ensure this change of substance and tone.

And so on to business. Much communications resource is currently focused on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) issues. Companies are increasingly under pressure from investors to demonstrate their credentials on a range of issues from alleviating climate change to improving the diversity and well-being of their work force. Not unnaturally they engage the services of external public relations firms to help them communicate initiatives and policies.

Two major public relations firms, one now out of business, have been accused of a lack of integrity; being reckless in their choice of clients and/or the actions undertaken on their behalf on ESG-related issues. Allegations ranging from hiding corruption in South Africa on the one hand to aggressive ‘greenwashing’ on the other have been made. But they have been found out, proving the advent of ESG applies to the moral standards of those who advise on communications strategy just as much as to underlying clients.

Strong, transparent communications, including the admission of mistakes, now ultimately brings rewards in an era of greater scrutiny. An opposite approach does not. There are no short-cuts on truth to be had without a price being paid. You do what you say and assume you will be held to account for it. Whether it is business or politics, that is good advice worth taking.

At one time, you could have despaired about the absence of a written constitution in the UK. It felt like amateur hour in governance terms. Powers set by vague precedent rather than codified in a single written document allow for all sorts of abuses. Blair’s kitchen cabinet agreeing to go to war in Iraq without proper constitutional oversight is one example. It also allows governments to potentially, almost unnoticed (since the general public are normally bored by such things), change crucial democratic relationships. Relatively recently, we have had Cameron’s casual, tactical agreement to referenda on voting and House of Lords reform to secure a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, admittedly rejected by voters. Then we have subsequently had Johnson’s attack on parliament and the judiciary.

It all seems worrying until we set the absence of a written constitution in the context of the gladiatorial nature of British politics. The PM, despite the power afforded by an overall majority, rarely has it easy in the House of Commons chamber. MPs are increasingly independent, and the public generally gives little credence to government authority. Cock ups are rarely forgotten, and, with a few exceptions, a tough independent media and judiciary mostly keep things in check.

An unwritten constitution also more easily allows for much needed reform to be undertaken where there is at least some consensus, such as the formation of a UK Supreme Court, strengthening of parliamentary Select Committees to hold ministers to account or more controversially, perhaps, fixed term parliaments.

But there is a more important reason why a written constitution is unwise. A codified document would act as a form of higher law and undermine the UK’s representative democracy. Agreement to amend and update such a formal constitution set in stone would be nigh on impossible. It could have the unintended consequences of pushing key, legitimate decisions away from elected politicians. For definitive proof of this, one need look no further than the United States of America.

Oh dear. What was once its shining beacon is now a millstone around its democratic neck and elected representatives end up being by-standers in the face of it, not all of which can be explained by congressional gridlock.

A powerful, written constitution sucks the oxygen out of legitimate democratic debate and decision-making. Healthcare, abortion, the right to bear arms in the face of automatic weapons and mental health criteria, the grotesque abuses of political funding all seem outsourced by the US constitution to a judicial process which is now, with some irony, becoming a substitute for an accountable political process.

So revered is this document, there seems no flexibility to update key parts of it governing elections which is crucial for modern day America. The constitution continues to allow presidents to be chosen by an unrepresentative electoral college rather than the popular vote; for a powerful Senate, unlike the more accountable House of Representatives, to be elected based on all states having two senators regardless of size; for Supreme Court justices to be appointed for life by just the Senate; for an increasingly politicised Supreme Court to wield enormous and growing unaccountable power over crucial areas of public life.

Recent events have brought this home. A Trump presidency, having lost the popular vote in 2016 by three million, and a Republican Senate majority, pushed a highly conservative Supreme Court nominee into place days before a presidential election whilst Obama was denied the same opportunity nine months before the end of his presidency. There is a slew of crucial Supreme Court cases on key areas of policy that will by-pass Congress in the coming months. Then, a currently untroubled constitution allows Biden, with a lead in the popular vote heading towards six million, to be prevented from preparing for his presidency by Trump who refuses to acknowledge the election result. This would be bad at any time but disastrous mid-pandemic.

A written constitution needs reviewing, updating and improving to avoid sclerosis or worse in public life. If its dominance as a single, codified document means it is almost untouchable, particularly in an era of political polarisation, ominous pressures can build with potentially calamitous effects. On balance, in a reasonably well functioning democracy, if you don’t happen to have one, keep it that way.

The first warning that there would be no Democratic blue wave came with the Edison exit poll. 34% of those who had voted cited the economy as their top priority. Management of the coronavirus pandemic limped in third at 18%.

Biden based most of his strategy on the pandemic. Campaigning in a mask at what appeared to be low energy, socially distanced rallies, he bet on Trump self-imploding amongst his raucous supporters. Well, he won so it is hardly relevant to discuss the merits of this strategy, but what is certainly not in dispute is that the polls were badly wrong. Trump and the Republicans generally did much better than expected.

The reason seems largely to have been driven by economic factors. Until the pandemic, activity was booming. Record low unemployment levels, including amongst minorities, resonated as did the attractiveness of tax cuts, even if the bulk went to corporates and the wealthy. After an endless period of stagnation, workers in the lowest quarter of incomes saw wages rise 5% in the first three years of Trump’s presidency. Accusations of Democrat ‘socialism’ in the South also played well and demographic trends are not the ‘get out of jail’ card Democrats thought. They have more work to do with Latino voters, for example, on misconceptions around their policies.

Trump is seen as a non-establishment, highly successful businessman by his supporters, often more diverse than many commentators have assumed. He plays on being the antithesis of a professional politician. In this election, the mishandling of the pandemic might well have been viewed as a surprisingly transitory issue versus Trump’s more permanent, so-called business based economic success.

Trump’s ultimate defeat will rightly be attributed to his polarising personality, which was simply too much in the end. His refusal to accept defeat is a suitable epitaph. Policy-wise, however, the message of this election is more nuanced; Democrats will need to be careful about their longer-term priorities and govern from the centre ground. And what is wrong with that?

America is clearly widely split politically but this blog doesn’t share the gloom of many liberal commentators who believe disruptive Republicans, even Trump himself, could be back with a vengeance, to ruin Biden’s term of office. A Biden victory is a Biden victory. Despite Trump adding three million more votes to his 2016 tally, Biden is at least 3-4% ahead in a record popular vote.

The removal of Trump as the nation’s voice will make a huge difference to the tone of politics and respect for its democratic institutions. Trump and his supporters may well be noisy from the side-lines but many Republicans, even right-wing ones, will be glad to see the back of him. And, whilst much of American politics will be gridlocked as usual, there is surely scope for bipartisanship on economic measures to alleviate the impact of coronavirus, infrastructure investment and even some elements of initiatives on climate change. The US may well catch up with Europe on the further integration of ESG factors into broader investment decisions.

Overseas, Biden could re-build relationships with traditional allies, re-join WHO and the Paris Agreement on climate change, participate again in the Iran nuclear deal and at least lower the tone on trade disputes. In Europe, probably to the UK’s detriment on influence generally and a UK/US trade deal in particular, Biden will likely embrace Germany and France first. He likes the EU and will be much less sympathetic to Johnson’s aggressive Brexit stance. No bad thing for the UK in the longer-term.

The Democrats performed relatively poorly in the face of Trump, and America overall is currently deeply and dangerously divided. Biden may well be seen as a transitory figure, but he is not Trump and that may be enough. His collegiate style is right for the times and that alone makes his election victory a much-needed source of optimism.