Question: Alastair Campbell has become part of the story should he go?

Colin Farrington: I'd want to separate out two issues. Firstly, there's a whole set of concerns over Iraq. It's a very complex, difficult area. The relationship between government and national institutions such as the BBC or the Church of England are always going to be difficult at times of war.

What surprises me about some of the current comment that's been made is that people haven't looked back at what's happened at the times of conflict since the Second World War. There has been a very similar state of disgruntlement between the government and the BBC.

During Suez the government came very close to taking over the BBC because of the way it was reporting the crisis. The Falklands is also well recorded.

Conflict is almost inevitable. I don't think there are any easy solutions. I don't think Alastair Campbell's part in this is all that significant. It's one of those very, very difficult issues that's almost incapable of resolution.

On the wider issue of Alastair Campbell personally, there is a more longer-term fundamental issue about the way the government's communications are handled. There's also a problem with the way political discourse is conducted in this country.

We have achieved over the last 20 to 30 years a deterioration in the way that policies are debated. It's been a reduction to soundbites.

New Labour had a need to radically re-identify itself and there was a huge communications project there. But too much of the vigour of that type of communication was carried over into government. Government has always proved far more difficult and complex than opposition.

Whereas in opposition you can produce ideas and policies at the drop of a hat and have no responsibility for their implementation, what the last six years have shown is that in a society that is more complex promises have been over-reached. Communications have been a part of that.

Alastair Campbell's personal style brings a lot of aggression to the job and a macho confidence which is, perhaps, part of the problem. Government needs to move to a more reflective, interactive style. Maybe somebody else needs to be in that role.

In a sense I feel quite sad about that because I do think he has done a very good job. I don't think it's any criticism of his professionalism or the way he's carried things out. It's just the fact that circumstances change.

Perhaps Labour as a whole were not prepared for the complexity of government.

Question: Has the Campbell spin row damaged the PR industry?

Colin Farrington: If there has been any damage to the industry, it will be self-correcting: people in the business have always learned from mistakes and I think a less macho style of PR in politics may well be the outcome.

Question: What did you make of his decision to do that live interview on Channel 4 News?

Colin Farrington: I assumed it was a snub to the BBC anyway. Going on Channel 4 or Sky or snubbing the BBC at press conferences was a part of the row. I thought it was a bit of an over-reaction from somebody who had not perhaps taken the broader, longer view. It was probably a misjudgement.

These things have to be seen in context; his contribution over a lengthy period has been to do what the prime minister wanted to do; to put Labour on a more aggressive, realistic course. But the government now needs to put a different tone to it. That's why in the autumn he should go quietly - if it's possible to go quietly - and take a new career path.

Question: Who should replace him? Party, outsider or career civil servant?

Colin Farrington: There are wider issues about the government's communications programme. We are in favour of increasing the professional element to the government's communications service.

It's a mistake to believe that the answer always has to be to throw in outsiders. I understand why they were doing this because they weren't happy about the quality of the service they inherited. The Martin Sixsmith case is an example of where things went wrong.

A related mistake has been giving a communications role to special advisers. They're very useful as a link between the party and the minister and for external policy advice. But they're not ideal for a communications role.

I suspect that Campbell's job will become a team effort. Obviously the personal relationship with Blair is irreplaceable and I suspect that, like Peter Mandelson, he will still be making phone calls to Number 10. But I don't see it being replaced by one person either external or an internal promotion.

I think there should be a greater collaborative effort and one that is focused on lessening the degree on reaction.

Question: Is the job a poisoned chalice?

Colin Farrington: No. It's arguable that the media world is so terrier-like and we have 24-hour news, people have become so suspicious that some journalists print that whatever the government say is wrong.

People fail, and this is a criticism of all of us, to distinguish between getting things wrong, making misjudgements and lying. It's very easy to accuse governments of lying when in fact they may well have misjudged the situation.

The Iraq weapons issue is a case in point. The government may well have misjudged the extent of Iraq's capability but to then say the government lied about it may be the wrong approach.

Where you have that situation it is going to be an extraordinary job for one person or a group of people to carry through. It may be that it's unwinable and you can only hope to limit the damage as it were.

Question: Should someone like Campbell have been on a committee meeting intelligence chiefs?

Colin Farrington: There's nothing new about that. It's inevitably going to happen if your communications director is expected to convey accurately and understand the issues, then the idea that he or she can simply sit there and talk about the purely technical communications issues is undesirable and certainly not realistic.

Again we have to have a sense of history about this. If we go back to William Clark, who was Eden's press secretary at the time of Suez, exactly the same point was made by people in the Foreign Office. He was commenting and became too involved; Eden warned him off.

Tom McCaffrey, who was Callaghan's press chief, and Bernard Ingham were accused of similar things. It's a very difficult line.

I was a civil servant in the '70s and '80s. It's not easy to sit round a table when people are seeking to persuade on an issue, you have doubts about the information coming through and are expected to communicate about it, to draw an absolute black and white dividing line. It may be that there were lines that he overstepped but a war situation is very unusual.

I'm very reluctant to criticise people in that situation because the reality is things are coming in thick and fast and its all hands to the wheel. It's too easy to make judgements.

Question: How could Campbell have avoided getting into the position he is in?

Colin Farrington: I think it's a long-term thing where Labour still has too much of the reactive opposition mentality. They believe that if you announced something would be done, it will happen.

The government sets a target against professional advice. Sometimes by miraculously that target is achieved but it isn't always the case. There's been a long-running thing where not so good judgements have been made and I think the Iraq situation brought certain things into a concentrated perspective. There's a certain inevitability about it.

Question: Would the private sector be interested in offering Campbell a job?

Colin Farrington: Yes. I would think he will take a sabbatical to write the book and do the lecture tour. I think he will also have a Peter Mandelson-type role too.

Question: What PR strategy would you set out for the PM to rebuild trust with the public?

Colin Farrington: I think it's going to be a long process. It's not only building trust for Blair but rebuilding confidence in the government. I think it's become a bit addicted to announcements.

It's going to be a long haul out of that by setting out very realistically and clearly what the limits of government are by being very honest. They are going to have to confront a very difficult economic situation over the next three or four years. It's going to be about winding down people's expectations.

Any improvements that Labour has in the major areas are going to be much slower in coming through. They also have to focus on social issues; finding things that can be done which are popular and not subject to huge economic commitments.

Question: A general election could be 18 months away. Has the government got long enough to turn things around?

Colin Farrington: I think they're going to have a struggle. I've long believed that the next election is going to be very close.

I think the Conservatives are doing the right thing by focusing on the negative aspects of Labour's record. By goading Labour on a lack of achievement could trigger a dangerous response of a flurry of announcements against a difficult economic announcement. Also a deliberate anti-spin campaign with Iain Duncan Smith will strike a chord.

Question: What can the Conservatives do to win the next election?

Colin Farrington: Keeping a low profile because I'm still of the view that oppositions don't win elections, governments loose them. I don't think Labour will take my advice because they're addicted to hyperactivity.

The Conservatives will benefit from an economic downturn and having a limited number of policies which will be attractive to certain interest groups - like pensions.

The ludicrousness of Labour accusing the Conservative wanting to make huge cuts in public services where the experience of Conservative governments is quite the opposite will also rebound.

Question: What can the Liberal Democrats do as the third party in the race?

Colin Farrington: They're facing a squeeze on all sides. The main thing they have in their favour is the public's intelligence which politicians under-estimate. Charles Kennedy and his colleagues, by plain speaking will do well.

Where they are going to be in trouble, and it's been the Liberal Party's problem over many years, is knowing exactly where on the political spectrum they stand. A national election throws these things into focus and I don't think they are going to have any problems on getting g people to pay extra income tax to fund education but they haven't found a distinctly Liberal approach to the economy or other issues.

Their approach on the Iraq war resonated well with the public even if they didn't agree with them. It's distinct approaches and I think they can gain from the people who cannot stomach Iain Duncan Smith as prime minister.

Question: How should the government handle what happens with the Hutton inquiry?

Colin Farrington: I was surprised with the speed at which it was set up. They have just got to ensure that everybody involved in the affair tells the truth as they saw it.

They have got to get across, and I'm sure they will, the sheer pressure and complexity of events in times of war and that some of the things that were said and done may not stand up to absolute pure analysis. This is a wholly extraordinary situation. There's no shame in that.

Question: Does the British Airways disaster show firms still have a lot to learn about corporate social responsibility?

Colin Farrington: It's an internal communications disaster, certainly. A very important part of public relations are the staff who work with the public. I was absolutely astounded by what happened. They had such poor lines of communications at a time when they are at their most sensitive. To have that land on them and to have failed to have a rapid way of dealing things is poor.

What they have done since has been quite impressive. My suspicion is that they have been in such a state of crisis for so long that a kind siege mentality develops. You can't believe that things can get any worse.

You get to the point where you cannot deal with new disasters and loose your motivation. You get over a certain point and when the next thing arrives you haven't got any energy to deal with it. I think that's what happened with British Airways.

They've got a huge reputation-building problem but if they get six months of reliability and quality in, show they're running a streamlined operation then maybe it will all come right.

Question: We've mentioned big organisations, government and business, that are supposed to be sophisticated and modern media units. Is it really possible for them to get it right or do the public have too high standards?

Colin Farrington: Sometimes big organisations forget the basics. In terms of government, they forget the things that people want from government. That basic social services are provided, that basic transport services are there. If we get into a conflict it's going to be conducted efficiently, honestly and openly.

British Airways has to provide a service where people turn up at an airport, check in and get on an aeroplane. Sometimes big companies can get themselves into situations where they are focusing on things other than basic delivery. They become over-sophisticated and over-complex and things that they think they can rely on to happen without intervention go astray.

They both face big reputation challenges because of the sheer size of the operations.

Question: And the public's attitude?

Colin Farrington: Most people have reasonably sensible expectations. They understand there is a balance between paying tax and public services. There's a balance between running the trains and the price you pay for the tickets.

Where there is a danger for government and big organisations is if they feel that energy and money are being wasted on peripheral activities. The trains may be very smart but if they are not there, the public loose their confidence.

All organisations have to remember what their basic aim is and ensure their communications strategy is geared to that and not on irrelevant details.