The example of Lord Armstrong is relevant because of the ongoing debate about the size of the manufacturing sector – variously put at between 18% and 20% of GDP.  However these figures are slightly misleading, especially when used to show how manufacturing is declining.  The comparison is made with previous periods when manufacturing accounted for more than 30% of GDP, but these were the days before outsourcing.   The sector then included such functions as design and transport which are now outsourced.  The functions still exist – they are just no longer included as part of manufacturing. 

Furthermore, the past three or four decades have seen a massive increase in the size of the financial services sector in particular.  Manufacturing has not increased at anything like the same rate, so will inevitably account for a smaller share of the economy.  But that doesn’t mean it has shrunk in real terms or that it is in terminal decline.

Having said all that, I believe absolutely that we need a strong manufacturing base to support the rest of the economy.  But I am wary of calls for the Government to “do something”.  Apart from fiscal incentives, through tax allowances for such things as R&D, Government should avoid interfering.  As far as I know, Lord Armstrong never received a grant for anything.

 Similarly, I don’t altogether subscribe to the view that manufacturers need the value of sterling to be kept low in order to boost exports. Tell that to the Germans.  They managed to increase their share of world markets when the Deutschmark was rising,  because of the high quality of what they produced.  We, too, should aim to produce the best – whether it be vacuum cleaners or diggers.  Exchange rates are just one more factor that needs to be managed.

However, probably the single most valuable thing we can do to help manufacturing in the long term is to make the sector attractive to young people.  We, as a society, must stop idolising football players and pop musicians and start showing proper respect to the individuals who invest their own money and inventiveness to design and build stuff that is actually useful.  Young people need successful, articulate role models – like James Dyson or Chris Rea of AESSeal of Rotherham or, going back a few years,  the late Joseph Bamford or, of course, Lord Armstrong - to help them to see that manufacturing can be rewarding in more ways than simply financially.

But it actually wasn’t as bad as most people expected.  Taxes on booze, tobacco and fuel have been left untouched and the rise in VAT was widely anticipated and would probably have happened if Alistair Darling was still Chancellor.   Rather cleverly, the VAT increase does not take effect until January, making it highly likely that retailers will have a bumper Christmas as  people bring forward purchases they had planned anyway.    The consequence of all this is that the only people moaning particularly loadly at the moment, apart from the Labour Party, are the professional whingers in the public sector trade unions and various charities involved in welfare-related issues.   Nobody, apart from the BBC, is paying them much attention at the moment.

By way of evidence that my reading of the public mood is right, I’d like to cite an online poll being run by the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette of readers’ reactions to the Budget.  When I looked on Wednesday afternoon, about 60 per cent said they thought it was tough but fair.  So full marks to George Osborne and his team for managing public expectations so effectively.  I suspect the hard part of the job is just beginning.

I believe Israel has a perfect right to control who and what enters Gaza, given that the Hamas regime is committed to the destruction of the State of Israel and is supported by Iran, but this so-called aid flotilla was never more than an act of provocation, daring Israel to intervene.   This was a trap that Israel should have foreseen and avoided.

Having realised that they can’t defeat her on the battlefield – despite vast superiority in numbers, Israel’s neighbours have changed tactics and, since 1973, their aim has been to win the global PR war.  They have been brilliantly successful, while successive Israeli governments have been pathetic. 

There is now a real risk of Israel being condemned in the United nations and even having sanctions imposed.  The country’s government must now stop relying solely on its defence forces and get to grips with articulating its case clearly before the court of public opinion – before it is too late.  This is crisis PR with knobs on.

As an active – and successful – campaigner against Britain’s adoption of the euro, I get a degree of pleasure (I know, I know – it’s not nice) in seeing one’s predictions being fulfilled.  European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) was always doomed to fail for the same reason that every other attempted currency union has failed: without fiscal union, monetary union lacks the discipline to work. 

Despite being called Economic and Monetary Union, the Eurozone’s rules were subject to political interpretation, allowing Greece and other Club Med members to go on irresponsible spending sprees, confident that Germany (and possibly France) would bail them out if things got sticky.  And so it has proved. No wonder Germany is not happy.

The recent multi-billion euro rescue package has now begun the process of imposing strict auesterity measures on Greece – effectively transferring responsibility for fiscal policy from Athens to Brussels or (more realistically) Berlin.  This means that the voters in Greece – the birthplace of democracy – have lost control over their own economy.  No wonder the Greeks are not happy.  I rather fear that the riots and protests that we’ve already seen are just the beginning.

Will this lead to the break-up of the eurozone?  probably not because of the strong political will to make it succeed, but I predict it will lead to closer economic and political union between the core members – France, Germany and Benelux – and possibly the ejection of Greece and, maybe, Portugal.  If these economically fragile countries stay in the euro, it will only be as virtual colonies.

I’m so glad Tony Blair failed to drag us into the euro.

We know that Government spending is going to be cut and recognise that reducing the budget deficit and national debt is THE priority.  However, the trick will be to do this without derailing the economic recovery by stifling growth.  If George Osborne and his team can pull that off, they will have earned their political spurs.

My yardstick for judging the Government’s success in managing the economy is its sensitivity to the needs of small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs), which comprise the engine of the UK’s economy.  If this sector is able to grow during the tough times that lie ahead, the UK will finally emerge from this recession leaner and fitter than before.  I wish Osborne & co well in this challenge.

With Gordon Brown, we have someone who has never been elected Prime Minister or even leader of his party.  His coronation as party leader was more like a palace coup.  Typically, his whole General Election campaign was based on trying to scare voters into backing Labour.  “Vote for us or you’ll regret it,” was the message – (and it must have worked to a degree, otherwise the Labour defeat would have been a total massacre) but it was hardly a vision statement.

Others will dissect the different party campaigns, identifying their mistakes in mortifying detail.  But I’m inclined to agree with the old adage that electorates get the governments they deserve.   In our case, the electorate (that’s us, folks) made it clear that we did not want to be told the truth about the harsh medicine that we are going to have to swallow to restore the economy to good health.  The Tories started to tell us and their poll ratings went south, so they stopped.  Now we are about the find out and, no doubt, the Government will be accused of not telling the truth during the election.  But remember, when that happens, whose fault it is.

On a more personal note, I was delighted to see that my old friend George Eustice  has won Camborne and Redruth from the Lib-Dems.  I developed a huge respect for him when we worked together on the successful No campaign against the euro.  He then went to work for the Conservatives and, later, recruited me to help during the 2005 General Election.  I’m sure we’ll see and hear more of George now that he’s an MP.

This new service is supposed to fast-track the investigation of complaints by small businessmen who feel they have been unfairly refused credit by a bank.  I am no fan of the banks, but we absolutely do not need an army of civil servants investigating every application for a loan that is turned down for whatever reason.

In reality, if a businessman has a decent business plan he will find a bank willing to lend him money.  He just has to shop around.  Banks are there to lend money.  It’s what they do.  The real problem at the moment is that they are overcharging small businesses for this money.  Interest rates can be as much as 6% over base and loans usually come with hefty – and unjustified – administration charges.

To be effective, an adjudication service will need teeth. So, in addition to the hundreds of bureaucrats needed to investigate banks’ decisions, there will have to be teams of enforcers.  Talk about sledgehammers and nuts!

His message is that he alone holds the key to a painless recovery; that industry will be supported to avoid job losses, taxes will not rise; front-line services will be protected and interest rates will remain low so mortgages will remain affordable.   But if you believe all that then you probably still believe in Father Christmas.

The truth is that there is likely to be a lot more pain before the recovery is complete – and that’s assuming we don’t have a double-dip recession.  Britain’s budget deficit is £178bn.  This can be funded only through massive Government borrowing, which in due course will inevitably force up interest rates.  Money, after all, is just a finite commodity and excess demand will drive up the cost.

Furthermore, there are large swathes of the country – mostly in the North – where the public sector accounts for 60-70% of the local economy.  Given that all parties have promised spending cuts, it’s hard to see how large-scale job losses can be avoided.  But, of course, this will happen AFTER the election.

Experience tells us that, when nasty medicine is needed, the sooner you take it, the sooner you get better.  So beware the siren voices counselling against early spending cuts – they probably have their own vested interests to protect.

PR 2.0 clearly is a valuable tool to have to hand.  It is another way of communicating with a particular audience.  But I suggest its real value is for consumer PR accounts, where establishing brand values is of critical importance.  But many – if not most – businesses actually want business-to-business PR.  They want to see their firm reported in their particular trade magazines or the business pages of traditional newspapers.

Similarly, most journalists do not have time to trawl the web looking for stories. They may well have their Linked-in, Facebook and Twitter accounts and be aware of what topics are trending on these sites, but they still depend primarily on well-written, relevant news releases for filling their pages.

This is not dinosaur-speak or luddism. I use Twitter and find valuable information on the web. I simply want to introduce a more balanced perspective to the debate.  PR is all about communicating with your target audiences, getting the right messages to the right people.  And that, I suggest, will involve a blend of traditional PR 1.0 and web-based PR 2.0 techniques.

Moore rightly points out that virtually all progress has come from those people who have dared to challenge the consensus of the majority.  Whether it is in science (think Galileo), economics (Milton Friedman), politics (Winston Churchill), warfare (David Stirling) or virtually any area of life, we owe a huge debt to those few individuals who had the courage to be the odd ones out.

As someone who is instinctively iconoclastic, I am naturally suspicious of most so-called orthodoxy and, while I usually lack the originality of thought that might enable me to develop an alternative hypothesis, I rejoice when I find someone willing to do just that.

So let’s celebrate the few and be wary of cheap political slogans.