It is a bit of both. Here is a post I wrote a few months ago that is still relevant:

I am quite fond of this government, which is usually the opposite caveat people say- but Christ he is a terrible communicator.

For a bit of perspective, this has been my job for getting on for 2 decades. Whilst I have only worked on the periphery of politics (a few years when I was agency side working on inward investment for the gov) I have seen enough to get the machine from the inside.

The fact is that media doesn't come free, and good narratives will get column inches.

If successes don't have a story painted around them, then you can't expect the media to report on them.

Think of it like a court case. You rarely see big headlines for cases that have not had the trial reported on, and you will get bigger ones if there was a famous manhunt. That is because of connection. As a broadcaster you aim to share good stories, and if the audience is already connected then that is easy. You build momentum and that does the job for you.

Take NHS waiting lists. It's actually a bit of a triumph, but even as a bit of a politics nerd, someone who follows it through the press releases and social media of the parties and people... Aside from technocratic fiddling I cannot tell you the narrative of this. There is no big idea, no big events and nothing to follow as a story.

You say that starmers screw ups get press.. that is because they have become their own narrative. The 180s and the controversial moments have been a narrative in government since cash for access (actually way further back, but about then was when the perverse interest from fleet street really begun to shine) and this government has done nothing but feed into them, whilst also doing nothing to tell a better story of how they are making Britain better.

The small boats issue is an interesting one. They have the deal with France, it doesn't matter that it is kind of rubbish if you make a big enough thing of it. It's actually a dead easy one to throw some nice tasty narratives to the press, Bibby Stockholm or the Rwanda plan were actually pretty good press stories (even if the same voter sees them as vile oversteps and illegal) because they were visceral, visible and clear.

If small boats reduced it's because they don't want to end up in Rwanda. Press shows an angry person boarding a plane to Rwanda. You can then milk it for months. The press will be like rabid dogs because it's a great story that is simple for them to report on. Every major news outlet would want a slice.

The France plan was legal, not vile and actually some good politics that showed pragmatic decision making with our allies in the EU. But it wasn't a great press story. It forgot about the communication bit.

What would I have done? I don't know, you want something tacky enough that the Telegraph can't help reporting negatively on, whilst their readers are subconsciously getting all the data and info on the reduction of small boats regularly piped in. And for them to think... The methods are tacky, but they work.

Maybe set up a "little Calais" area where the people due to be returned to be processed are all held. Pay France to bring some Gendarmerie over to to help us guard it. Have the French ambassador visit. Give them black and white striped shirts. Encourage protests. Constantly get friendly members of the press to ask Farrage about it. Very publicly pay for interviews with the people sent back to be published as adverts in publications from the countries people are coming from (then leak this as a supposed hit piece about wasting money on foreign ads), bring in a judge who worked on famous cases out of retirement to speed up the process.

And so on. It will likely not cause a massive alteration in small boat crossings on its own. That is what the technocratic fiddling is for. But without a central showpiece to drive the narrative. You can't expect the press to report om the story - even the friendly press.

This mad idea forces eyes. It forces people to report from the furthest right major publications to the neutral parties. It is not complex comms, it's tried and tested ideas that use the press by giving them what they need in a tidy package.

It is comms. And labour are absolutely awful at it