The 2025 Mansion House Speech marked a historic moment for UK financial services and a critical milestone for Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her tenure at No11.

Key Milestones Tracker

Beginning with the “Leeds Reforms”, the Chancellor Rachel Reeves dropped over 20 consultations, call for-evidence papers and government responses, followed by the publication of the long-awaited Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness strategy – which is a ten-year blueprint to reinvigorate UK finance. She went on to bill the day as the “biggest single day of financial services reform since the 2008 crisis” and throughout set the tone that regulators must now regulate for growth, with priorities such as fintech, capital markets and retail investment being placed at the core of the UK’s growth agenda.

Amongst the plethora of changes announced she included a moratorium on ring-fencing reviews; a permanent mortgage guarantee; streamlining of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SM&CR); reined in Ombudsman powers; relaxed prospectus and risk-warning rules and a national ad campaign to encourage savers into equities. Also notable was the Government’s decision to scrap plans for the UK Green Taxonomy, following a clear demonstration that support was lacking through the recent consultation.  Covering competitiveness and growth, wholesale market reform and payments innovation, the day’s package demonstrates the ambitious policy agenda being pursued by Reeves and her team; one which is welcomed by a sector eager for policy and regulatory certainty.

Despite this hefty package, there are signs of opportunities missed. The lack of update on Phase Two of the Pensions Review in the speech has been seen as a missed opportunity on a landmark commitment made earlier in the year; and one which industry was eagerly awaiting. Whilst the final Pensions Investment Review report published in May promised further detail “in due course”, it offered no firm timetable and Pensions Minister Torsten Bell has reiterated plans to launch Phase Two shortly to address fairness, adequacy and coverage. However, industry has warned that without clarity on timing and focus, this delay risks prolonging the growing crisis of inadequate retirement savings, and they now await with bated breath for Monday’s announcement. Similarly, the perceived u-turn on ISA reform – now billed for further consultation and consideration later in 2025 – is a sign that the Government is under acute pressure from industry and backbenchers alike and that it cannot afford to make a major misstep.

Overall, No11 will be celebrating a successful day and it is clear that the Chancellor’s announcements have signalled a bold new phase – arguably the most expansive, pro-growth Mansion House agenda in years, rooted decisively in competitiveness, innovation and market reform, and the substance behind the spectacle has drawn a mixed reaction. However, while many have welcomed the shift, industry has cautioned that trimming already fitting regimes (particularly the SMCR) may yield only marginal gains and that true barriers lie in broader political and fiscal stability. The question now is whether the ambition is tethered to reality.

Reeves has staked her credibility on patching fiscal fissures and delivering stability, reiterating her “non-negotiable” fiscal rules. However, with growth still elusive and the political scar tissue from welfare U-turns still fresh, the path ahead is narrow. If Reeves and the Treasury can successfully translate regulatory rhetoric into sustainable confidence, investment and tangible economic lift, this could mark the start of a new era. If deeper structural issues, including tax burdens, public debt and political volatility aren’t tackled, the 2025 Mansion House blueprint may wind up another showpiece rather than a turning point.

In what we all know to be a complex global life sciences innovation ecosystem, the UK has long held a theoretical advantage: a single payer system with the potential to act as a unified, strategic customer and innovation partner.  

Yet, in practice, and despite a litany of strategic plans and visions, it has remained just that – a theory.  

There are multiple causes for this – some laid out in stark terms in the LSSP – leading to innovation access and uptake in the UK to be comparatively ‘low and slow’. 

But if you take a step back and look at the LSSP in conjunction with other policy, including the 10YHP, what’s striking is that it signals a more intentional and assertive approach from Government to better coordinate, manage and utilise its innovation purchasing power.  

The Government has woken up to its ability (and financial need) to turn purchasing potential into strategic gain. 

Why do I say this? Alongside mechanisms launched in the NHS 10YHP, including the Single National Formulary and enhanced powers to NICE, there is a clear shift to streamline procurement, align incentives, and extract better value.  

Taken together these include: 

• Mandating and simplifying national procurement routes 

• Aligning NICE/MHRA/contracting decisions 

• Introducing new pricing tools (proportionate approach on ISP, confidential primary care pricing) 

• Reducing local duplication and variation (Innovator Passport, Single Formulary) 

• Giving NHS Supply Chain a growth and innovation remit 

At surface level there are positive ambitions behind many of these – faster appraisals, streamlined and coordinated decisions, reduction of variation. Yet, the multiple caveats based on value, affordability and cost effectiveness spread throughout the LSSP temper this positivity and instead pose more questions about whether theory will finally be turned into reality. 

Taking a few key policies in turn: 

There is a significant commitment to place a growth mandate on NHS commercial activity, including NHS Supply Chain and medicines procurement frameworks. Traditionally focused on cost containment, NHS procurement is now being asked to support economic growth and innovation as part of its core purpose.  

This marks a cultural shift, with recognition that procurement decisions are not just about savings, but about shaping markets, signalling demand, and supporting national industrial strategy.  

However, there’s a flip side to this that presents risk. Companies may face stronger pricing pressure without a corresponding commitment to faster or broader uptake. And while there’s greater transparency being mooted (through mechanisms including a refreshed Innovation Scorecard) it’s unclear what penalties, if any, there are for falling short. In essence, the NHS may become a more strategic negotiator, but not necessarily a better customer. 

The Plan also reiterates the introduction of a Single National Formulary, first announced in the 10YHP. This seeks to remove one of the longstanding barriers to consistent access: local prescribing variation.  

By creating a single list of approved products for use across the NHS, the Government aims to reduce duplication, speed up access, and free up clinician time currently spent navigating local bureaucracy. That’s what it says on the surface, but beyond efficiency, the formulary also carries strategic clout. By consolidating demand into a single national framework, the NHS can apply stronger pricing expectations and use inclusion as a lever to negotiate value.  

In effect, it offers companies the prospect of system-wide access in exchange for commercial terms that align with national affordability. 

On the MedTech and diagnostics side, the new Rules Based Pathway and Innovator Passport offer the promise of nationally streamlined adoption routes. These tools aim to remove the friction caused by individual Integrated Care Systems and hospital trusts repeating their own procurement evaluations.  

Instead, centrally validated products, backed by evidence and pre-approved standards, would gain smoother access to NHS markets. While voluntary at the outset, the logic of these reforms is clear: creating a ‘procure once, use many times’ model that reduces waste and accelerates uptake. 

Together, these changes represent a more proactive and coordinated use of NHS purchasing power. From national level frameworks to local adoption tools, the Government is aligning the levers from NICE, to NHS England, to NHS Supply Chain to create a more unified commercial front. 

However, this beefing up of purchasing power will need to tread a fine line and must be handled with care. A positive story can be spun about streamlining driving efficiency and scale. But on the flip side there are risks that an overly muscular and centralised buyer approach becomes too rigid or suppresses innovation by dictating terms to industry without the flexibility to account for risk, complexity, or future value.  

The challenge is to act as a strategic partner, not just a dominant purchaser. If the UK is to remain globally competitive, it must ensure that these reforms enable faster, fairer access without discouraging companies from bringing their best innovations to the UK. 

While the ambition in the Government’s publication of its much-anticipated 10-Year Plan for the NHS is clear, it reads more as a broad vision for the future direction of health service reform than a concrete roadmap. With many of the proposals echoing past reforms that struggled to gain traction, the key question now is whether this renewed vision will be matched by what is needed to truly make it a reality. 

Here are five challenges that will help determine whether this plan is successful on the ground, or will become another in a long list of past NHS reform plans gathering dust. 

1. The proposals lack detail on how they should be implemented within the system 

The plan sets out bold ideas for what the NHS is hoping to deliver, including neighbourhood health centres, digital access, personalised care, but is light on the specifics of how these will be delivered. Unlike previous strategies, this plan doesn’t come with significant new funding or staffing commitments – it’s unclear how comprehensive the Government’s refresh to the NHS Workforce Plan expected later this year will be.  

In reality, delivering this vision will require tough choices, and the Government must be honest about these with the public, NHS leaders, and frontline staff. A dedicated implementation plan is expected to be published later this year (with reports of this chapter being removed just before publication last week), but with Labour counting on delivering NHS improvements as a key political win – the process of reform needs to begin urgently.  

2. The Neighbourhood Health Centre model needs more than co-location 

Central to the plan’s vision is a shift towards local hubs designed to bring services closer to home. But looking to past reform work, we know that simply putting different professionals in the same building isn’t enough. The model is similar to the “polyclinics” proposed by Lord Darzi in 2007, which struggled with a lack of funding, local buy-in and clarity of purpose.  

With the new plan currently lacking detail on infrastructure funding, timelines, or how to ensure neighbourhood care teams work as one (especially with multiple organisations involved), time will tell whether the model in Wes’s plan will have a more successful fate. 

3. Not another reorg. NHS workforce morale and fatigue risk slowing progress 

The plan expects the NHS workforce to deliver fundamental transformation – yet provides little by way of solution to repairing existing challenges. Morale remains low, with burnout, pay disputes and staff feeling undervalued – resident doctors have this week voted in favour of further strike action.  

While the plan gestures toward leadership support and flexibility, it doesn’t directly address issues related to workload pressures, contract reform or pay. Expecting NHS staff to buy into major structural change without first addressing their current reality risks apathy, or even resistance, to the proposals of the 10-Year Health Plan. 

4. Big ambitions for digital transformation, but the basics are still broken 

The NHS App is billed as the new “front door” to the health system – enabling people to access appointments, records, and advice in one place. While other sectors such as banking already offer a similar model, the NHS is a different beast – still contending with fragmented, outdated IT systems, inconsistent data sharing and potential cyber security challenges. Although investment has been committed to digital transformation, we know that implementing new technology into the juggernaut that is the NHS is far from simple. Questions remain over how easily local hospital infrastructure can be updated and systems joined up at scale. 

5. Prevention needs more than slogans 

Finally, the plan’s focus on prevention arguing ignores the reality of over a decade of disinvestment in public health, with local authority budgets slashed by over 26% since 2015.  

Behaviour change is complex and resource-intensive, requiring deep community relationships and sustained engagement. Right now, the NHS lacks the staff, tools and funding to deliver this shift at scale. Without restoring public health capacity and clarifying responsibilities across local, regional and national levels, prevention risks remaining a policy buzzword. 

The 10-Year Plan is full of aspiration for the future of the NHS. But for those working across healthcare, the unanswered question remains: what gives this plan a real chance of working? Without proper investment, strong leadership, and clarity on delivery, even the best ideas risk becoming unfulfilled promises. The opportunities are real – but so are the risks.  

If you’re interested in hearing more about WA Communication’s work in the UK, get in touch with a member of the team.   

The weekend’s headlines made clear that the government’s long-trailed SEND reforms are heading into dangerous territory. In a BBC interview, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson refused to confirm whether families will retain legal access to Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs). The response has been swift, and fierce.

Senior Labour MPs now fear the government is sleepwalking into a “welfare mark two” situation: a deeply sensitive policy area where cost-saving drivers risk overshadowing a genuine need for reform, triggering a backlash from across the Labour movement and beyond. It’s an uncomfortable déjà vu for a party still reeling from the fallout of its welfare plans.

The government insists its intention is to fix a broken system, not slash support. But in the education sector, where trust has been stretched thin by years of inconsistency, the mood is already febrile. So, what does this mean for schools, trusts, local authorities, providers and the wider SEND ecosystem and how should the sector respond?

The context: reform is needed, but trust is fragile

The SEND system is struggling. More than 639,000 children now have an EHCP – up 11% year-on-year. Local authorities are under growing financial strain, with a third facing bankruptcy due to SEND deficits. Parents report an exhausting, adversarial process to secure basic entitlements. Teachers face increasing pressures managing a wide variety of needs in the classroom, and mainstream schools face mounting pressure on inclusivity, often without the specialist training or staffing to do so.

The case for reform is overwhelming, but this weekend’s developments risk undermining that case before it’s even been made. By failing to rule out the removal of statutory EHCP entitlements, ministers have opened the door to claims that support for disabled children is on the chopping block.

For the education sector, particularly those working on the front line, this is a problem. The ambiguity creates anxiety. Schools, Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs) and local authorities are already planning against a backdrop of severe funding and workforce pressures. Any shift in entitlement or accountability without clarity and support will only heighten that instability.

Three areas we are watching closely

The education sector should be preparing for three possible fault lines in the coming reform package:

1. The future of EHCPs

If EHCPs are restricted or reformed, what replaces them? Will there be a credible universal offer for SEND in mainstream settings? Who will be accountable for delivering it? Schools need confidence that expectations on them won’t rise while support falls away. This is particularly acute for inclusion-focused MATs trying to do the right thing but facing inconsistency from local systems.

2. Inclusion versus capacity

The government says it wants more children with SEND supported in mainstream schools, but inclusion without investment is bound to fail. The success of the ‘inclusive schools’ agenda hinges on a serious commitment to workforce development, therapeutic support, classroom adaptations, better infrastructure on school estates and evidence-led interventions – none of which can be delivered either cheaply or at pace.

3. Financial planning in limbo

School and MAT leaders are already managing spiralling demand and increasingly tight budgets. The uncertainty around EHCP reform adds another layer of complexity and they will need to build flexibility into future planning and work closely with local authorities as details emerge, even as those authorities themselves grapple with limited clarity from the centre.

Why this is a moment of influence

The Department for Education is still in deep policy development mode, and Number 10 is watching closely, desperate to avoid further mistakes. The fallout from the welfare reforms has jolted the system. While Education ministers were all too aware that the politics of SEND are high-stakes, highly emotive, and deeply personal to many MPs and their constituents, that understanding is now more widely understood across government.

This creates a window for influence. Already, sector voices, including from schools, trusts and providers, are being heard. At a roundtable this week that WA Communications organised on behalf of Outcomes First Group – the UK’s leading provider of specialist education for children with SEND -cross-sector stakeholders and parliamentarians gathered to share solutions and challenge assumptions. This won’t be the last such opportunity: the autumn Budget and the long-awaited school’s white paper will be key milestones.

SEND reform will define this government’s education legacy. The sector must not only watch carefully, but it must also lead where it can. Because if reform is coming, it must work for children, families and schools alike. Anything less risks repeating the mistakes of the past and that is a cost no government can afford.

Last week, Parliament passed two major votes on abortion and assisted dying – one a Private Member’s Bill, the other an amendment to Government legislation – within the space of four days.  

MPs voted 379 to 137 in favour of decriminalising abortion in England and Wales, supporting an amendment tabled by Tonia Antoniazzi to the Government’s Criminal Justice Bill. Three days later, they backed Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, creating a statutory route to assisted dying for patients with fewer than six months to live.  

These votes have captured widespread attention, prompting debate across the health sector and beyond. They reflect a broader shift in Parliament’s willingness to legislate on personal autonomy and the right to healthcare, with a growing appetite for rights-based reform being driven from the backbenches.  

So what does this mean for the debate around our health and policy development moving forwards? 

With the largest ever intake of first-time MPs, many of them younger and drawn from more diverse professional and social backgrounds, this Parliament appears to be more willing to engage on socially complex issues and challenge long-standing policy taboos. This could have long term implications for health and care services and how we design policy accordingly. 

Until recently, health policy discussions have largely centred on access: who gets care, how quickly, and at what cost. But these two votes mark a shift away from just access to services, towards agency over how and when those services intervene. One empowers women by removing the threat of criminal prosecution from those ending a pregnancy. The other seeks to give patients with terminal diagnoses greater control and dignity in relation to the end of their life. Together, the two reforms bookend the life course – framing healthcare decisions in terms of choice and trust. 

Polling has shown public support for these reforms, particularly for the decriminalisation of abortion, which is less of a radical leap than an overdue modernisation. The fact that Parliament has caught up says as much about changing political culture as it does about the issue itself. 

Still, last week’s votes have reignited an important question around what autonomy really means in practice, and whether our legislative and health system processes are set up in a way to deliver this effectively. Disability rights campaigners have raised concerns that legalising assisted dying without stronger safeguards or proper investment in end-of-life and social care could, in fact, reduce choice. Wes Streeting, who has made his position clear, has argued that without properly funded palliative care and social support some may feel pressure to consider assisted dying not out of autonomy, but out of a lack of a better option.  

A similar tension has played out in abortion policy. Northern Ireland decriminalised abortion in 2019, yet gaps in service provision continue to undermine access. Many women still face significant barriers due to patchy commissioning, limited local provision and the absence of clear regional care pathways. Across the UK, debates continue over the 24-week gestational limit, access to later-gestation care, and the future of telemedicine – particularly in rural and under-resourced areas.  

Legal reform clearly only has teeth when it is backed by the infrastructure needed to deliver it safely, equitably and consistently. 

If passed, these reforms will raise questions about how services are delivered, who delivers them, and whether the system is equipped to meet increased or more complex demand. And this comes at a time when the health system is already in flux – from cuts to ICBs, to the abolition of NHS England, and the prospect of new targets under the forthcoming Ten-Year Health Plan.  

Streeting is in the final weeks of preparing to launch the Government’s 10-Year Plan for Health, promising a shift toward prevention, community-based care and digital transformation. These votes show that both Parliament and the public are increasingly concerned not just with whether people can access care, but whether they can shape it around their own needs, values and lives. Can and will the Plan reflect that?  

And if introduced into the system successfully, do these policies open the door for more innovative approaches to health delivery in the future or will implementation challenges put this at risk? 

While the focus over the next few months will be on responding to Government policy, there is a growing need to recognise where and how the next assertion of the right to health and care might emerge.  

If you’re interested in hearing more about WA Communication’s work in the UK, get in touch with a member of the team.  

There is nothing like a by-election to get political geeks excited. After being found guilty of assaulting a constituent – never a good look – Runcorn and Helsby MP Mike Amesbury is standing down and Keir Starmer will have his first electoral test since becoming PM in July.

At that election Runcorn returned Labour with just over 50% of the vote, with Reform second on under 20%. However, 8 months is a very long time in politics and latest odds have Reform as the favourites, with Labour contemplating defeat in this industrial town just outside Liverpool, somewhere that should be Labour to its core.

In many ways Runcorn represents the the stark political and economic reality Labour is grappling with – a resurgent populist right focused on immigration and culture war issues (sound familiar?) alongside a cost of living crisis that have left many communities in traditional industrial heartlands feeling left behind.

Within this complex landscape is a Labour party itself with differing views on how to challenge the Reform narrative. Some in the party, including those around Keir, support a strategy that would see the government talk tougher on immigration and more socially conservative issues as a way of reconnecting with those voters tempted by Farage. It’s clear that Labour is already leaning this way with a number of announcements on immigration, crime and welfare that many feel are aimed at Reform curious voters.

However, this is not a strategy universally admired in the party, with many on Labour’s progressive wing feeling uncomfortable with how far the PM has and will go in accommodating such voters and their views on ‘culture war’ issues which some find very troubling.

That is why many will be looking to Runcorn as a guide to which way Labour will pivot and ultimately how successful they can be in both winning back potential Reform voters at the same time as not straying too far into populist rhetoric that would repel others. It’s treading a very fine line and only time will tell if its achievable – but for now, all eyes will be on Runcorn.

With the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passing through Parliament, MPs from across the house and from all parts of the country have been brought into closer contact with constituents’ experiences of palliative and end-of-life care (PEoLC). Regardless of their stance on the bill, there was widespread agreement that palliative care must be made more widely available and better supported.

Over the past few months, campaigners have increased calls that PEoLC is essential for ensuring individuals with life-limiting conditions receive compassionate, holistic support during their final days. Beyond providing comfort and dignity to patients, it also offers critical emotional and practical support to families and carers.

Encompassing everything from symptom management and psychological support to practical assistance and helping individuals make informed decisions about their end-of-life wishes, PEoLC is an essential part of the “cradle-to-grave” healthcare coverage the UK has aspired to provide.

And yet, research by Sue Ryder found that 77% of respondents believe that if assisted dying were legalised, many terminally ill people might see it as their only option due to inadequate PEoLC provision. There’s merit to this concern, as it is estimated that 1 in 4 people cannot access palliative and end-of-life care services.

PEoLC has historically been overlooked against competing priorities within the broader health agenda. Fragmented responsibilities between the NHS, social care, and the voluntary sector, coupled with inconsistent funding and regional disparities, have created significant barriers to delivering sustainable improvements. Overcoming these challenges is politically complex, requiring greater awareness, a shift in societal attitudes around death, and reframing PEoLC as a core element of the wider healthcare system, not just a moral obligation.

To unpick some of these challenges, WA Health has been proud to support Sue Ryder to build on their campaign to improve PEoLC provision and ensure that everyone is supported through bereavement and grief. Following the introduction of a new Government last year, we have delivered a multipronged approach, to raise awareness and advocate for change at a local and national level.

• Grief and bereavement training: We worked with Sue Ryder and our Parliamentary sponsor, Peter Dowd MP, to deliver hands-on training to MPs and their staff across three sessions, equipping over 60 attendees with the tools to provide effective support to constituents experiencing grief and bereavement.
• In-depth research surveys: To better understand the challenges and barriers to improving PEoLC, we facilitated two surveys: one engaging MPs and another surveying acute and primary care professionals. These provided insights into the current landscape for PEoLC, and helped to inform Sue Ryder’s engagement with policymakers and stakeholders, ensuring policy asks are data-driven and focused on addressing key challenges in care delivery.
• PEoLC roundtable: Following the Government’s launch of the 10 Year Plan for the NHS engagement series, we convened leading PEoLC organisations and policymakers involved in the development of the plan to discuss the challenges and opportunities to integrating PEoLC into the next decade of health and care planning.

The session marked a crucial first step in developing a consensus statement for how PEoLC can be appropriately and effectively integrated into the 10-Year Plan, supporting the Government to meet its ambitions of shifting healthcare provision from hospital to community, analogue to digital, and sickness to prevention. This statement will serve as a unified voice for the sector, driving engagement with NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure no one is left without the care they need at the end-of-life.

Leanne Creighton, Interim Head of Influencing at Sue Ryder, stated:

“Bringing together the sector to align on shared priorities is vital for driving much-needed change in palliative and end-of-life care. The insights gathered from my colleagues across the sector will ensure that, as we continue to advocate to ensure that no one faces death or grief alone, we do so with the support of the sector as well as the patients and families who rely on it.”

For more information on how WA Health can support your organisation to build cross-sector consensus and engage policymakers at a local and national level, get in touch with Ellie Naismith at EllieNaismith@wacomms.co.uk.

We have been awarded a multi-year retainer following a competitive pitch process, covering political stakeholder engagement for the two popular open access rail services – which connect Scotland, the North of England, Humberside and London.

We will work with the Lumo and Hull Trains to showcase the significant connectivity, capacity, and economic growth benefits that Lumo and Hull Trains’ services deliver to communities across Britain, and demonstrate how these services could expand as the Labour government plans reforms to the rail network.

An initial campaign saw the team work with WA’s Creative practice to deliver an interactive exhibition stand at last month’s Labour Party Conference, featuring a train driver simulator that tasked delegates to navigate through a tunnel and into Edinburgh Waverley Station with fun challenge to guess the best place to stop the train on the platform – attracting interest and driving conversations with visitors including the Local Transport Minister, route MPs, industry leaders and journalists.

The account will be led by WA Founding Partner and Head of Transport Marc Woolfson, with strategic counsel from the Chair of WA’s Advisory Board, former DfT Permanent Secretary Sir Philip Rutnam and former Times Transport Correspondent Phil Pank who joined the agency in late 2023, further strengthening the our integrated communications offer.

The win further expands our credentials in the sector, with Lumo and Hull Trains joining a client portfolio that includes Network Rail, Chiltern Railways, Stagecoach, Roadchef, Birmingham Airport, autonomous vehicle developer Oxa, global EV charging supplier Chargepoint, the Cycle to Work Alliance, and more.

Commenting on the firm’s appointment, Marc Woolfson, WA’s Founding Partner and Head of Transport said:

“We’re delighted to be working with the industry’s flagship open access operators, Lumo and Hull Trains, to advise on the political, policy and communications implications of Labour’s commitment to renationalise and restructure the rail industry. Both brands have an exciting story to tell on regional connectivity, delivering a fantastic service for customers, and supporting economic growth across the UK”.

Martijn Gilbert, Managing Director of Open Access at First Rail added:

“WA bring together an in-depth understanding of the Labour Party, detailed experience of transport policy, and top-tier communications and campaigning expertise – all of which are critical in ensuring that Lumo and Hull Trains can assess the implications of the biggest change to the rail industry in 30 years, and are equipped to communicate our value to the sector and communities across the country”.

I came into Westminster with a general idea about what goes on at WA Communications. I knew that their work principally involved engaging with, researching for, and advising clients on policy and communications campaigns. This does, of course, encapsulate what they do as a strategic communications consultancy, but my fortnight of work experience at WA has taught me that there is so much more to it.

Here are a few of my views of the last fortnight, what the world of policy, public affairs and communications really involves and WA’s impressively detailed approach.

Whether it is helping to summarise the Chancellor’s new financial statement announcement or noting down the implications of a health debate in Parliament, politics played a dominant role in my work here. The recent, drastic shift to a Labour government and its associated changes have presented WA Communications with an important task: research, analyse, and communicate challenges and implications to clients. However, my experience over the last fortnight has shown me not only the urgency and professionalism of the work, but also the attention to detail and breadth of the required research – far more than just political intuition.

Stakeholder mapping – a term which, formerly unknown to me, is now ingrained in my vocabulary – appears an indispensable tool which considers a broad range of possible ‘stakeholders’, from Think Tanks and professional organisations to charities and Government ministers. Thanks to this experience, I now understand far better what is involved in the process of ‘communication’ to clients. The research done behind-the-scenes is substantial, far more than I anticipated, but very rewarding, since it gives you and your client a certain confidence that their future business decisions will be based on a deep understanding of the key decision makers and influencers to drive policy change.

My main takeaway from these weeks is the quality and quantity of research and insights which goes into every client account. All angles are considered, the internet is practically emptied of relevant information and the combined expertise held across the team is deep, no matter how niche the topic is.

WA Communications has shown me what it is like to work in a great team of committed people doing exceptional work. As well as gaining insights into the work, I got to experience the friendliness and sociability of the workplace environment. It has been an invaluable experience with people who were invariably welcoming and understanding.

Throughout the election campaign, the civil service will be preparing for a potential change of government.

Drawing on the experience Sir Philip Rutnam, Chair of WA’s Advisory Board and former Whitehall Permanent Secretary; Natasha Egan-Sjodin, former Head of Ministerial Briefing at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; and Rachel Ford, former departmental Deputy Head of External Communications and Chief Communications Officer — we explore:

• How the Civil Service prepare for the transition of power
• How new Ministers prioritise, and
• The most effective way to engage with them

MAKING THE MOVE: FROM OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT

Sir Philip Rutnam
Chair of WA’s Advisory Board

Sir Philip is a former Whitehall Permanent Secretary, senior Treasury civil servant, and European Investment Bank official.

So what really happens at the start of a new government? Who does what when – and what does the whole thing feel like?

The first thing to remember is that for politicians who may have spent years in opposition and now find themselves in government, this is a moment of peak adrenaline and exhaustion.

The second thing is that, even in a new government that has won a convincing victory, there is immediately a phase of high politics and uncertainty revolving around who gets what job.

It is usually obvious who is going to fill the most senior Cabinet jobs, but not every member of the Shadow Cabinet will necessarily find themselves in the real one or in the job they expected. And that is even more the case for Shadow Junior Ministers. There are almost always some surprises in the final list of names, depending on who has had a good or bad election, and No. 10’s decisions on party management.

The same is true for the appointment of Special Advisers and for creating a new operation in No. 10.

In short, this is a key moment for the new Prime Minister and his top team to exercise real power, as well as a big logistical exercise spanning several days.

New governments also almost always start out with lots of central control. Expect a plan for the first few months of announcements, and a tight ‘grid’ run by No. 10 to manage news coming out of departments. One of the first big real decisions will be the legislative programme for the first session. Another, shortly after, is likely to be an emergency Budget. They will have developed ideas for both in opposition, but only in government will they have access to the information needed for real decisions.

What is less predictable is how No. 10 will actually work with departments, as opposed to trying to control them. Lots of models have been tried over the years and an equal variety of different organisational models in No. 10, but none has lasted. We simply don’t know how No. 10 will operate – unlike the Treasury, which is remarkably consistent (and effective) from one government to the next. Nor do we know how far No. 10 will go in reorganising Whitehall – creating new departments or merging others, though I wouldn’t be surprised if some of Rishi Sunak’s latest changes were reversed.

What about inside departments themselves? The first thing to say is that by the time a new government arrives every department will have made a huge effort to get ready.

Across each department, teams will currently be preparing for possible change: reading manifestos carefully and preparing briefing for new Ministers. Some of this will be about specific, urgent things – if the new government wants to make big changes quickly, or there is a crisis that has to be addressed immediately. Some of it is making sure Ministers can get up to speed quickly with the breadth of their roles.

Soon however, the time for prep will be over.

New Ministers have been appointed. They arrive, excited and a bit exhausted. What happens then? The first thing is to agree how they want to spend their first week and first month. Who do they need to meet in the department and who outside? What is the right mix of urgent and important topics that needs attention? And what do they want to do to set the right tone, like any high-profile visits or events. (We take a first-hand look at how a department’s Ministerial Private Office and Communications Team tackle these questions below).

My advice to any new Minister is that the single most important thing is to be clear about priorities.

The government machine can and will swallow up all your time with ‘stuff that needs doing’. ‘Events’ will swallow up even more. The way to keep the initiative is to have a very short list of important but achievable things that you will actually make happen. Choose those things well. Make them specific enough to be tangible. Create the right relationships inside and outside the Government to help make them happen. And stay totally on top of progress.

One thing I predict should be clear within 100 days of the election is which Ministers know that this is the way to control the agenda!

OPENING THE RED BOX: BRIEFING A BRAND NEW MINISTER

Natasha Egan-Sjodin, Director

Before joining WA, Natasha was the Head of Ministerial Briefing at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

On day one of a new government the Private Office plays an essential role.

The preparatory work undertaken by the department must now be presented to new Ministers as they are announced, and sudden cast list changes to predicted Ministerial teams caused by ballot-box surprises need to be factored in.

Private secretaries, the gatekeepers of Ministerial time and preferences, must learn the new habits and priorities of their primaries and, crucially, any personal policy platforms they have championed during the election campaign.

All of this must be fed back to the Director Generals waiting to be called in for first-day briefings so that the department is on the front foot.

At the same time, personal preferences must be learnt. For some Ministers, office art needs to be changed and briefing styles need to be communicated, for others new Special Advisers need to be quickly supported to get up to speed and meet critical people within the department.

For the outside world, this is a day to let Ministers and their new teams settle in and get up to speed.

First-day congratulation letters and briefings can wait until the work of government resumes; the time to feed in to those initial meetings is before this day comes, and the new opportunity emerges as policy teams are tasked with priorities in the coming weeks.

SETTING THE NARRATIVE: SUPPORTING A NEW MINISTER’S COMMUNICATIONS PRIORITIES

Rachel Ford, Director

Before joining WA, Rachel was the Deputy Head of External Communications at the Ministry of Defence, before which she was Chief Communications Officer at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Once the standard day-one communication formalities are over – a broadcast clip of the Secretary of State entering the department, a tweet saying how ‘thrilled’ they are to be appointed, and an internal message setting out their priorities – the real work for a government communications team begins.

The Director of Communications is usually one of the first people a new Secretary of State will meet and an ‘early visits and media opportunities’ paper will always be included in the day-one pack.

This presents an opportunity for businesses, as early as possible, to feed in visit ideas and policy announcements that a new Minister can get behind.

While a Secretary of State endorsement is a top priority for most organisations, media-hungry Junior Ministers can also be a good way of getting on the radar of the new Ministerial team. And as they will be the ones working on your portfolio on a day-to-day basis, early engagement is always beneficial.

To get ahead with visit opportunities, new Ministers and their teams are usually looking for household names, strong visuals (top marks for high-vis jackets and hard hats) and easy access to London or their constituency. Partnering with or flagging nearby opportunities so they can ‘make a day of it’ works well too.

Beyond planning visits and early announcements, a government communications team must also quickly react and get used to changes in ministerial communication styles, and what they mean for departmental announcements and campaigns.

Will a Secretary of State require a videographer to attend every visit to gather content? Will prolific tweeters demand their posts are promoted on departmental social media channels (even when close to the line)? Will a laborious sign-off process delay announcements? Will Spads and Ministers respect the No. 10 grid or try to do their own thing?

While press officers will often spend the first few days and weeks running around trying to find cameras, rewrite quotes and persuade No. 10 to let their Secretary of State do a sit-down interview, businesses should also be tracking the change in departmental communication style and what it means for them.

For example, social media enthusiasts pose both a risk and an opportunity for businesses – it can mean easy, direct access to those at the top, but say something they don’t like and this opens the door for public debate.

At the same time, understanding the new No. 10 narrative and how this drives cross-government communication activity is crucial in unlocking access. In recent years there have been cross-government communication working groups dedicated to issues such as levelling up and delivering the Industrial Strategy, so understanding the cross-government drivers and aligning activity to these messages is key in getting ahead.

Finally, with the pressure on a new government to make an immediate impact, it is likely that underperforming Ministers will be moved on in an early reshuffle – bringing new priorities, new quirks and new communication styles for communications teams and businesses to adapt to.

The reality is that no two Ministers, and therefore no two Ministerial teams, are the same, but one thing always rings true in government communications: be prepared to expect the unexpected.