Insight Archives - WA Communications

The Future of Broadcast: What’s next for news?

Broadcast media has undergone a huge evolution. We’re now a long way from the days when only four channels were available to watch on our screens, and today many people receive their news from new challenger brands, streaming platforms, podcasts and social media as well as traditional broadcasting outlets.

But how much have audience expectations of broadcasters changed, what role do traditional and new outlets play in shaping the news agenda, and how can businesses support accurate and engaging storytelling?

To answer these questions, we hosted a panel discussion with leading broadcasters, including ITV’s Paul Brand, BBC Newscast’s Adam Fleming and Times Radio’s Rosie Cutler. Alongside this, our ‘Guide to working with broadcast‘ gives an overview of some of the most popular news and current affairs programmes, as well as our advice on how to engage them.

Getting your message heard: A guide to working with broadcast

Our key panel takeaways:

The role of traditional broadcast

Despite the explosion in the number of news and current affairs platforms, it is clear that traditional broadcasters still have a vital role to play in driving national narratives and covering public interest stories.

The panel noted that traditional media has retained an unrivalled ability to shape the news agenda. Every major government scandal is broken by a major broadcaster or by a print newspaper, whether it be Partygate or the Lord Alli donor story, reflecting the fact that established brands are still best placed to hold those in authority to account. Broadcast outlets still represent quality, in-depth and accurate journalism, which it why they have remained one of the most trusted news platforms.

For these reasons, the panel felt optimistic about the future of traditional broadcast, and its influence over the news cycle, with one speaker saying that they do not see a future where audiences only receive their news from social media.

Broadcast in an age of social media

However, broadcasters recognise that their social media content is an important part of engagement with audiences. Some traditional outlets are employing digital reporters who make bespoke content for online channels, and television or radio output is often repackaged up for digital platforms. Broadcast journalists have found that some stories do particularly well on online platforms, especially those with an international angle.

Social media has also provided presenters with the opportunity to increase engagement with their journalistic work, although this comes with its own challenges as they navigate the tightrope between boosting their profiles without compromising their brand’s values or their own integrity.

AI’s role in broadcast news

The improving capability of AI tools will affect broadcasters, but not necessarily to the extent that some have feared. Whilst generative AI may help some journalists to summarise information, or write news bulletins more quickly, there is a feeling that the human element will be of continued or even increased importance. The ability of journalists to discuss complex policy issues with government and outside experts will mean that their audience is more able to understand nuances than if they used an AI summary of public information, whilst there will be a need for ‘human checks’ on anything written by AI to ensure accuracy.

Engaging new audiences

In order to expand their audience reach, broadcasters have shifted to delivering content which ‘works for the consumer.’ This has included creating in-house podcasts which speak to the public’s desire for more ‘companionable’ and discursive forms of news, and making sure that these podcasts are released at the time of day that suits their subscribers, who may want listen on their way home or when they first wake up, rather than wait for the news bulletins at 6pm.

The panel particularly noted that broadcasters should make sure their content reaches and engages young audiences who are more likely to be open-minded about new perspectives and get their news from a variety of outlets than older generations.

What does this mean for businesses?

Just like print journalists, broadcasters value relationships with corporate communications advisers who are transparent and help them access expert business insights and opinions. Producers and editors work to tight deadlines and appreciate conversations which are direct and to the point. Panellists reflected that journalists have candid off-the-record conversations with politicians and their special advisers to help them better understand and report on an issue, and expressed a wish to have similar relationships with businesses.

Businesses should continue to work with these broadcast outlets- as the public are more likely to listen to what a business has to say if their messages are landed with impartial voices on trusted outlets. As part of this engagement, they should consider working with digital reporters on tailored stories for a broadcaster’s online channels.

WA Comms works closely with leading broadcast editors, presenters and producers, helping organisations navigate the media landscape and land their messages in an impactful way. You can download our new ‘Guide to working with broadcast’, or if you’d like to discuss how we can help you, please contact: Rachel Ford, Director of Corporate Communications, rachelford@wacomms.co.uk.

Five big questions surrounding delivery of the 10-Year Health Plan

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.  

Share this content:

SEND reform is becoming a political minefield – what should the education sector do now?

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:

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.

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.

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.

Share this content:

Three shifts, two themes, one aim: what’s behind the ten-year health plan

After stretching even a civil service definition of ‘Spring’ to breaking point, it’s finally landed. At 150 pages, it’s long (and let’s be honest, it could, and should have been 20 with a more liberal use of a red pen). It’s also bold. Perhaps too bold? HSJ and other Think Tanks certainly think so.

But let’s look past that and see that the NHS has fundamentally just been reset and rewired.

Rather than focusing on all the details (we’ll do that instead on our Webinar on Tuesday – sign up here) I outline what I see as the 3/2/1 structure for the Plan.

Starting with the familiar, we all know Lord Darzi’s three shifts: from hospital to community, analogue to digital, sickness to prevention; and the Plan is based on achieving these.

Yet, read closely and what really stands out is that there are two cross-cutting themes in how to achieve them, that run through every chapter:

Firstly; ‘Take the best to the rest’, and

Secondly; ‘Power to patients’

Together, these two themes indicate a profound shift in how the health system is powered, accountable and delivered. They are the principles for what the plan calls a “reimagined NHS”, with control flowing outwards: to providers, places, and most importantly, to people and patients.

And, critically, they’re how the government hopes to achieve its one overriding aim, how it knows it will be judged at the next election, to bring down waiting lists.

Taking the ‘Best to the rest’

While saying repeatedly that no ‘one size fits all’ the plan is clear that some areas are doing better than others, leading the way and others should emulate them. This is where take the ‘Best to the Rest’ guides the new mindset of the system.

While it’s not “one size fits all,” it can be coined as “do what works, everywhere.”

This is no different to how it has always been. High-performing areas have always outpaced others. The difference now is incentives and penalties.

Services and leaders that underperform will be restructured or removed. Those who lead in outcomes, access and patient experience will be given autonomy and resources to do more. This idea of formalising best practice, earned autonomy, and pushing it system-wide underpins everything from contracting to capital spending.

Integrated Health Organisations (IHOs) – (covered by WA Advisor David Thorne here) where a provider takes responsibility for the full health budget for a local population, will be scaled from early pilots. The plan backs shared back-office infrastructure (let’s not forget that DHSC Perm Sec Sam Jones knows this area having previously been CEO of Centene UK), common care pathways, and stronger commissioning from ICBs aligned with strategic authorities.

A key mechanism for delivering “the best to the rest” will be the introduction of new Modern Service Frameworks, due from 2026. These will set clear, accessible standards for care across major clinical areas, starting with cardiovascular disease, mental health (including severe mental illness), frailty and dementia. Informed by the work of Baroness Casey’s social care commission, the frameworks will provide a national benchmark for what good looks like, while allowing local systems to tailor delivery. They’re designed to reduce unwarranted variation, drive investment into underperforming areas, and ensure that every part of the country is working towards the same outcomes.

Payment mechanisms will be geared towards keeping people out of hospital, avoiding unnecessary outpatient appointments, and for benefits to be felt across local systems. Multi-year budgets, long called for, will be introduced.

Importantly though, the Plan directs a shift in accountability. Take the Best to the Rest means power no longer sits with the centre. Providers will need to earn their freedom by delivering real and measurable improvements. Commissioners will be judged on outcomes. Poor performers won’t just be slowly tolerated, they’ll face formal interventions. While there remains a question on how quickly poor performing areas can be spotted, action taken and things turned around, it’s going to become a more transparent, data-led, rules-based system. And it’s designed to confront the quiet and arguably avoidable inequality in care and outcomes that has long allowed postcode lotteries to persist.

Power to the patient

The second crosscutting theme – power to the patient – is just as fundamental.

What it means to be a patient, and conversely what it means as an HCP caring for a patient, is going to change. For many of us working in healthcare communications and policy, this is an exciting shift – one where we genuinely consider outcomes and experiences in the round.

People will no longer just be the receivers of care deemed available and appropriate by the system.

People will shape and lead it: guided by data and intelligence (genomics is a huge winner), be enabled by technology, and empowered by new legislation.

The NHS App becomes the gateway to this transformation. Let’s be honest – a lot is being put on the App….My Vaccines, My Medicines, My Care….but let’s withhold doubt for the moment because if it works, it will let people choose providers, book appointments, manage medicines, access records and co-produce care plans.

It will also let them give feedback that informs payment and improvement – even, (how this will work is yet to be seen) withhold full payment to providers if their experience falls short.

This is a serious reframing of accountability.

But it means that the patient isn’t at the end of the system. They’re at the centre, with new tools, data and rights to steer their own care and influence system performance.

Even the way care is structured is being rethought with this in mind. From patient-initiated follow-up and personalised budgets to genomic risk scoring and home-based diagnostics, the plan is designed to give people the means and powers to manage their health.

Of course, there will be questions on whether this goes far enough, particularly with the scrapping of Healthwatch, and what the mechanisms will be for how commissioners and providers will truly involve patients from Board to Ward.

But for professionals and organisations, it means working differently: in partnership, transparently, and increasingly on the patient’s terms. The Plan talks about a ‘GP in patients’ pockets’ – there’s a literal and figurative way of interpreting that, both of which could become reality under the Plan.

One aim

All of this, the structural changes, the scrutiny, the changes to funding flows, ladders up to a clear political goal: getting waiting lists down.

Government knows it will be judged on outcomes at the election and it makes this a three-seven plan: A three-year sprint to bring waiting lists down and win public confidence. Then seven years to embed more radical transformation and shift the NHS towards a future model of care.

Whether the ambition is delivered is still uncertain – at the risk of being a naysayer, the money given is just enough to cover the ageing population, the payrises for clinicians, pensions and inflation.

There’s also a dependence on productivity to realise ambitions, which has echoes of the reliance Labour has on growth at the macro level.

But the direction of ambition is clear.

And for anyone working in or around health, whether in delivery, communications, or policy, knowing these two themes is important. Because they’re not just about the NHS plan. They’re about how the whole health system is being reshaped, powered and delivered.

Share this content:

The shift in parliament from driving access to health and care to shaping it around needs, values and lives

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. 

Share this content:

Reflections on NHS Confed Expo 2025

Last week saw a busy few days at NHS Confed Expo 2025, with the overall mood across the board being one of cautious optimism. There’s no denying the scale of the challenges facing the health service, but what was obvious was a shared sense of collective will. Leaders and experts from different parts of the system all seem to agree that the NHS needs a new direction, and working together is the only way to get there.

Yet, under the surface of that optimism lies a degree of uncertainty. The much-anticipated 10-Year Health Plan (10YHP) still hasn’t been published, and it casts a long shadow. While everyone agrees that change is necessary, there’s still a sense that no one quite knows how we’re going to make it happen. As Jim Mackey noted in his keynote speech, public support for the NHS is waning and this may be the last chance to earn it back.

The promise of devolution

A few key themes unmistakably stood out throughout the conference – the first being devolution.

It’s becoming overwhelmingly clear that the NHS of the future will be far less centralised. Ten years from now, the role of central governance is likely to be significantly diminished. Instead, we’re seeing the increasing importance of NHS regions in overseeing provider performance.

Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) are also stepping into a more strategic role. They’re not only about strategic commissioning, but they are also evolving into guardians of population health, tasked with building neighbourhood-level health services tailored to local needs. This is more than a structural change, it signals a new way of thinking about accountability and responsiveness in the system.

Another standout conversation was around Foundation Trusts. The influence of Jim Mackey on Wes Streeting’s approach was clear. Trusts will be given the freedom to operate within a defined set of rules, but financial rewards will be closely tied to their ability to collaborate across the system and deliver on the so-called ‘left shift.’

Achieving the left shift

Another key theme was, unsurprisingly, prevention, which dominated discussions throughout the conference. Prevention will no longer be the responsibility of community providers and primary care. As many speakers put it, ‘prevention is everybody’s business.’

The left shift will not just be about moving services from hospitals into the community. Health leaders are increasingly aware that there will need to be a rethinking of how care is delivered, not just the setting where its delivered, but the model itself. There’s now an opportunity for health care leaders, and industry partners, to consider what care can look like if it’s designed around the needs of patients rather than settings. Again, the ‘how’ is still a little unclear, but the willingness to deliver seemed optimistic.

Partnering to deliver impact

A final theme to mention is partnerships. It’s clear that appetite for partnership working is growing, and crucially, it’s not just coming from industry. With capacity stretched and resources thin, there’s a pragmatic understanding that if industry can offer support, it has a legitimate role to play. The key will be ensuring that these partnerships are built on clear, shared objectives and a commitment to transparency.

Even historically sensitive topics, like Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs), are being re-examined. While there’s still wariness around private sector involvement, that caution is being offset by the need for investment and innovation. It’s likely we’ll see a reimagined approach to PFI, driven less by traditional Blairite ideology and more by necessity.

What comes next?

What’s clear from Expo is that there is appetite for change and the system is ready for reform.

But until the 10-Year Health Plan lands, we remain in a holding pattern. The document needs to do more than just set an operating framework. It needs to offer a compelling, cohesive vision for what the NHS can become, rooted in collaboration, shaped by local needs, and open to partnership.

And then the real challenge will begin in implementing the plan – our hope is that the openness to partnership remains, and we can work collaboratively across the system and life sciences industry to deliver real change and positively impact outcomes.

Share this content:

The Spending Review

Presented by Rachel Reeves as the beginning of the “renewal of Britain”, the Spending Review marks a reset of government priorities – whilst also setting the field for difficult trade-offs in the near future.

The Chancellor has struck a delicate balance by emphasising the unprecedentedly large capital investments allowed by her changed fiscal rules, whilst also emphasising discipline so not as to spook the bond markets. Many of her long-term political allies are pleased that Reeves is borrowing to invest in a sluggish UK economy, and the decisions made in today’s review will set the course for how these investments unfold. But with tight day-to-day departmental budgets penned in until the next election, the government’s fortunes will depend on whether the promised growth arrives – and how quickly the public feels its benefits.

A government ready to spend, but cautiously

The headline figures make clear that Reeves is determined to put her stamp on the economy and public services, announcing £120bn in new capital spending (including £39bn for social housing) and £29bn for NHS day-to-day spending over the coming years. Whilst these sums are large, the Chancellor’s mission in the spending review has been to target it effectively – hence why much of the spending is frontloaded to drive regional regeneration and tangible improvement at pace.

Yet, Reeves emphasises, this is not a splurge. Day-to-day spending remains constrained, and some departments – such as the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and DEFRA – are being asked to deliver more with less. While the government has been careful to avoid the word “austerity”, think tanks like the Institute for Fiscal Studies are already warning of its creeping return.

Reeves has been clear that she wants this to be remembered as the most ambitious spending review in a generation. But that ambition rests on fragile fiscal ground, the reality of which the Chancellor is all too aware. With just £9.9bn headroom left in her Spring Statement in March and subsequent giveaways like the winter fuel payment U-turn already eating into that, the Autumn Budget is shaping up to be a moment of reckoning. The unspoken truth is that tax rises are likely, and soon.

The politics of place and the spectre of Reform

This Spending Review wasn’t just a fiscal statement – it was a political one too. In tone, scope and substance, it represents a direct challenge to the economic narrative of the previous Conservative government. Reeves herself highlighted contrasts at the dispatch box, accusing her predecessors in the Treasury of presiding over instability which fatally undermined investment in the UK economy, leading to a “lost decade” for living standards.

The regional emphasis of many of her announcements was no accident either. From transport upgrades in Manchester and Birmingham to housing investment in the Midlands, the message was clear: Labour is serious about “levelling up” the rest of the country but on its own terms.

The Chancellor’s political calculus is directly shaped by the growing threat from Reform UK. By concentrating spending in working-class areas most vulnerable to populist insurgency, Reeves hopes to consolidate Labour’s coalition and shore up support following a disastrous set of local elections in May. But success will depend on whether that investment translates into visible improvements to services and quality of life for voters in key seats across the country, and soon.

Hard choices on the horizon

For all its rhetoric of renewal, this was a Spending Review that left big questions unanswered. The Chancellor’s commitment to fiscal responsibility means that her room for further spending is severely limited. As the Parliament goes on and the next election looms, the tensions between Reeves’ ‘ironclad’ rules and the imperative to spend more money on voter priorities will undoubtedly loom large.

Critics of the Chancellor will say that she has boxed herself in too much with unnecessary fiscal rigidity and now cannot afford to achieve the missions on which her party was elected – and that she deserves to take the blame for the political price that Labour will pay. Her supporters, including – for now – the Prime Minister, would point to the impossible fiscal inheritance she received in July and the solid steps she’s taken to fix structural problems with the British economy, particularly on investment. Either way, Reeves has set out her stall: growth through investment, delivery through discipline.

The next test comes in the Autumn Budget, when the government will have to explain not just where the money is going but where it’s coming from.

Health emerges as the clear winner

The Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England emerged as clear winners in today’s Spending Review. This uplift signals the importance the Government continues to place on the NHS, with wins in healthcare seen as a key facilitator to electoral success.

However, the story is far more sobering when it comes to capital budgets and long-term investment in the NHS estate, which we were told was “crumbling” only a few months ago by Wes Streeting. Capital budgets are flat in real terms, with a 0% average annual real growth rate over the next three years leaving serious questions over the viability of the just recently rebranded New Hospitals Programme and wider ambitions to modernise the NHS estate. The decision is particularly stark considering the Darzi Review’s criticism of chronic underinvestment in capital over the past decade.

One of the biggest questions is whether the funding will be enough to support Wes Streeting’s longer term ambitions for the NHS, particularly its yet to be fully published 10-year health plan. While the Spending Review has committed a theoretically ring-fenced budget of £10bn for digital transformation, this is just one of three priority areas of Wes Streeting’s three-phrase health service transformation mantra. The weight of the impending 10-year health plan will inevitably depend on just how much pay packages, inflation and increasing demand chip away at the spending settlement.

The fact that this significant investment is received with tempered celebration is perhaps an indicator of the scale of the challenges faced by the NHS.

Share this content:

NICE’s Gold Standard Status benefits the UK’s growth agenda – Government must ensure this is maintained

During my nearly 20 years at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and in the period since, NICE has spearheaded pioneering initiatives in health technology assessment that have established it as a world-renowned and globally respected organisation. A lot has changed in this period – personalised medicines, genetic cures for rare diseases, medicines that work across many diseases – and on the whole, NICE has managed to keep up with the relentless pace of medical innovation in its methods and processes.

But the development of ever-more exciting medicines over the last few years, requires an equally agile and innovative HTA environment. Maintaining NICE’s podium status amongst HTA bodies is reliant on the wider public sector life science ecosystem and, importantly, Government as its sponsor, coming together with NICE to map out how best to maintain pace with the outside world.

Front and centre for Government and NICE is reversing long standing viewpoints which have, as Wes Streeting recently put it himself, been based on a perception of “medicines spend as a bit of a deadweight cost”. Cost-containment is all well and good, if benefits to patient outcomes are also being factored into policy developments with equal weight. I have become increasingly worried that this might not always be the case.

NICE is quite rightly seen as beacon for fairness and objectivity in a highly charged drug pricing environment. To continue to be held in such high regard, it must be viewed as fiercely independent, obviously from the life sciences industry but also from direct political influence from government and perhaps most importantly from the NHS, our national ‘payer’ for health technology innovation. Being truly independent is not straightforward and NICE has to balance many powerful external voices. Take the severity modifier now used by NICE in medicines evaluation. Would NICE have set the weighting for this modifier at the level it is if it did not have the policy constraint, set by others, of it needing to be cost neutral with respect to the ‘end of life’ modifier that it replaced?

Similarly, not being able to fully implement indication based pricing as business as usual for medicines with differing relative effectiveness across their indications ignores the fact that each indication for these medicines could be established as cost-effective using NICE’s world leading methods.

By the system viewing medicines as a cost to be contained, rather than an investment in better health, I worry that NICE’s robust and independent arbitration of value for money will increasingly be viewed as failing as the voice of cost control grows ever louder.

Having a world-leading HTA body like NICE isn’t just a nice-to-have for a bit of collective self-congratulation. It can help demarcate us as an attractive place for the billions in potential investment from the life sciences sector. With the US on the brink of a monumental shift in pharmaceutical pricing, shining a light on the UK as a forward-thinking place for health technology adoption at pace and scale could prove to be just the kind of helping hand that HM Treasury is looking for. Amidst the global turbulence for the life sciences sector, the UK could become a beacon of attractiveness.

The talent of my former colleagues at NICE in finding solutions to some of the most difficult issues in medicines policy helps to ensure patients access new medicines at a price that is sustainable for the NHS – but NICE can only continue to be a world-leading organisation if the ecosystem, including Government gives it the space and flex to be so.

If you’re interested in speaking with Carole or hearing more about how WA Communications can support you, get in touch with a member of the team.

Share this content:

Embedding Financial Wellbeing into National Policy

Mental Health Awareness Week is a timely moment to reflect on the growing recognition of financial wellbeing in the UK. Financial health is increasingly acknowledged as one of the cornerstones of overall wellbeing, influencing not only one’s ability to manage day-to-day-living but also one’s mental and physical health.

Whilst financial wellbeing is starting to receive the attention it needs, there is still a real opportunity for policymakers to take it further. By tying it more closely to health and economic policies, there is room to create a more joined up approach that helps people feel more secure and supports the wider economy at the same time.

Interplay between financial wellbeing and mental health

As the nation continues to navigate a cost-of-living crisis, the link between financial stress and mental health has become increasingly clear. In England alone, over 1.5 million people are experiencing both problem debt and mental health difficulties. Financial strain is widely recognised as a key driver of anxiety, alongside acknowledgement that mental health challenges can make it harder for individuals to engage with essential financial services, such as banking. The link between money worries and mental health is intensified by ongoing price rises, leaving many with reduced financial security and rising psychological strain – threatening the Government’s ambition to improve the nation’s health and wellbeing.

Integrating financial wellbeing into health and financial services policies presents an opportunity to improve individual wellbeing and drive forward economic growth. When individuals experience financial security, they are not only healthier and less stressed, but they are also more economically active. With the capacity to spend, save and invest confidently, individuals stimulate demand, support business growth and contribute to job creation. This, in turn, directly advances Labour’s core mission of securing sustained economic growth.

Improving quality of life

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has made it clear that “growth in the abstract doesn’t mean the same as people feeling they’re better off”, signalling a shift towards policies that aim to improve quality of life across the UK. This approach makes room to tie financial wellbeing to public health, recognising that financial stability is essential for stronger, healthier communities.

Whilst the Government is making strides to embed financial wellbeing into national policy, including increasing the National Living Wage and advancing financial inclusion, this needs to be matched by what happens on the ground. The NHS recognises the impact of money worries on wellbeing and has partnered with the MoneyHelper Service to provide free resources, such as budget planners and support lines. However, current support still falls short of what is needed to truly prevent financial stress from turning into health problems. It could do more to reflect the Government’s shift to prevention and productivity, as well as encouraging a greater link between health and financial services policy.

Supporting economic growth

Financial wellbeing is also a key driver of workplace productivity. Employees who are not burdened by financial distress are more focused, less likely to be absent and more engaged in their work. This leads to improved performance and efficiency across sectors, boosting output and enhancing the UK’s economic competitiveness.

From a fiscal perspective, early interventions to promote financial resilience can also ease long-term pressures on public services. Reducing financial insecurity helps lower the incidence of mental health challenges and dependency on social support systems, enabling a smarter, preventative approach that benefits individuals, employers, and the state alike.

By embedding financial wellbeing into policy frameworks, policymakers can begin to foster a healthier population and a more robust economy – one that is better equipped to weather future shocks.

Conclusion

This Mental health awareness week, it’s clear this must remain a year-round policy priority. Financial wellbeing is not just a personal matter, but one that underpins public health, productivity, and economic growth.

The Government has taken steps, but a more joined-up approach is needed to reflect its focus on prevention and long-term resilience. This means embedding financial wellbeing across health and economic policy, and ensuring services match that ambition.

Share this content:

How Soon is Now? Delivering change at pace through the ICB Blueprint

The circulation of the Model Integrated Care Board Blueprint last week offers an extremely valuable insight to the direction of the NHS and its new ways of working, both in a systems sense but also a cultural one. This is an internal NHS document demonstrating the new style of central direction under the Mackey leadership. The detail reinforces previous indications of what to expect from the 10-Year Health Plan in June but also emphasises the major cultural shift required of NHS leaders, and all of us involved – focused on pace of change and urgency to deliver.

A new NHS architecture under Mackey

The best way to predict Mackey’s moves is to consider his career to date: an integrated Foundation Trust running hospitals, community services, GP services, care homes backed up by extensive sub-cos and formation of a £2bn income provider collaborative. His vision is best represented by the Northumberland Accountable Care Organisation (ACO) developed but abandoned within the Vanguard programme of 10 years ago.

The new NHS design is increasingly clear: a new streamlined Centre, Regions, 25 or so modified Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) and then a local NHS led by large provider collaboratives groups possibly formalised as a type of ACO. These new integrated providers will essentially run the NHS delivering services and sub-contracting as commissioners. If you can hear a noise now, then that may be the Shelford Group laughing.

All eyes on Neighbourhoods

While still apparently nebulous, we’ve seen far more progress in the early Neighbourhood model adopter sites than is appreciated. Signalled for three years, this is the pivotal element of the new NHS and must work in order to deliver the Government’s three shifts – but how? It means bringing together the Cinderella services and all the disparate, fragmented, out of hospital services with complex decision space around the Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise sector. We’ve left this challenge aside for decades but the success of Labour’s plans depend on it.

Let’s see what is mandated in the 10-Year Health Plan on Neighbourhoods, especially levers that encourage hospitals to shift services and resource. The substance of the new Neighbourhood Health Centres will be key here but the central question around Neighbourhoods is not “why”, or even “what”, but “how” – how do we get from fragmented local services, estate, IT and workforce to the end goal?

Where do decision-making and commissioning sit?

We have to move decision-making closer to the point of delivery. The new approach to medicines optimisation is clearly aimed at doing so, linking the hand that writes the script to the resource consequences. Prescribing and Continuing Healthcare are both being placed closer to the provider NHS, no doubt as both feature as financial problem children of all ICBs. It will be interesting to see how material procurement is played out in a new world of local determination and accountability. Things are ominously quiet around NHS Supply Chain, at least for now.

It will be interesting to see two main things: any mandated actions for the new lead provider groups around resource shifts and any options for radical models in the imminent GP Contract. Regardless, expect major variation in the local Neighbourhood models, some of which will be planned and reflecting population health needs but some of which will be formed through parochial compromises.

We will have larger, more strategic ICBs with a chance to actually do some commissioning.. It is great to see health economics mentioned but how can ICBs strategically commission with Public Health in separate bodies, with separate funding? And where is the science, methodology, expertise, data and workforce to do this? Commissioning has failed to thrive through attempts like PBMA and then World Class Commissioning. Instead, we got stuck in transactional contracting, gaming, competition and throwing snails into each other’s gardens.

Operating challenges within this new system

There is a massive challenge for everyone within the NHS, with the brave and better-resourced seizing the inherent opportunities. Variation will increase in all kinds of ways and that is deliberate as well as inevitable given the continuation of the weighted capitation funding models. And that variation will be broader in scope given the push for “end to end pathways”, enabled by devolution of specialised services.

The challenge for those working with the NHS – including industry, digital and medtech – is perhaps even greater as they have largely failed to predict what is happening and are quickly trying to get to grips with this new world – clinging to redundant paradigms and often viewing the NHS from their singular perspective. The only way to truly understand the NHS is to view it from the inside out, and the Blueprint is a great aid to that.

Share this content:

Unpacking the 2025 Local Elections

While results are still coming in, the 2025 Local Elections appear to show a landmark shift in British Politics, with the UK moving ever further from a duopoly and closer to a five-party system. The two main parties face challenges on multiple fronts as they both attempt to limit vote-splitting to Reform and, to a lesser extent, to the Lib Dems and the Greens.

In the first test of public satisfaction for Sir Keir Starmer since Labour’s landslide General Election victory, Reform looks set to make substantial gains across England, and the party now threatens to assume the Conservatives’ position as the de facto opposition party.

Below is an analysis of the results so far and what they mean for the wider political landscape moving forward.

Reform UK

Reform UK appears to have met pundit expectations and secured significant wins, indicating that their high polling average is an accurate picture of public sentiment across the country. Critically, Reform’s early gains suggest that Nigel Farage’s populist movement has made inroads not just in Conservative strongholds, but in traditional Labour heartlands as well.

Alongside Reform’s win in the Lincolnshire mayoral contest – secured by former Tory minister Dame Andrea Jenkyns – they managed to clinch an extra MP in the Runcorn and Helsby by-election. Capitalising on the unpopularity of many of the Government’s recent decisions, they have demonstrated the power of their increasingly professional campaign machine by overturning a massive 35-point Labour majority, to win by just six votes – setting a new record for the smallest majority at a parliamentary by-election since the end of the second world war.

However, the question remains as to how the party will deal with increased scrutiny that will come at both a local and national level, and whether they have the temperament to make the jump from protest vote to potential party of power. Farage will remember how UKIP failed to capitalise on the momentum of successful local election results between 2010 and 2015, and be determined not to let this opportunity slip from his grasp.

Significantly for businesses – capturing that momentum means demonstrating that Reform can deliver in power, starting locally.

With the party winning control of its first three county councils, and the Lincolnshire Mayor holding powers over economic development, skills, transport, and planning, organisations with a local footprint in these areas will need to understand the party’s priorities and how they intend to deliver them. This includes the potential opportunities and risks from focusing on improving “pothole-ridden roads and unreliable buses” to delivering more “technical and trade training“.

Across the country, Reform has advocated for embedding UK versions of Elon Musk’s Department for Government Efficiency (DOGE) within local authorities. While this will be difficult for the party to deliver in practice, firms will have to consider the potential impact of slashing spending at a local level.

More broadly in Lincolnshire, where the incoming Mayor does not have the power to block specific developments, Dame Andrea Jenkyns’ success on a platform of “Ending Net Zero Madness” and a desire to ban new solar farms in the region, will provide a high-profile platform for opponents of a greater reliance on renewable energy.

Reform has taken a number of combative stances on policy issues from Net Zero to the NHS, and businesses will need to think about looking beyond this and look at the options for aligning their business offer with the party’s wider policy platform on delivering national renewal.

Whether firms operate in Reform-led authorities or not, the party’s electoral success will reverberate across politics and the media, shaping the operating environment for businesses nationally.

Labour

Just 10 months into their term, these results pose a significant challenge to the Labour Government. While his own takeaway is the need to deliver change more rapidly, Starmer will be braced for pressure from the swathes of MPs who won marginal seats back in July to move firm and fast on the policies which appeal to their voter base.

The Government anticipated a difficult set of results, and the line ahead of polling day reflected this, with ministers repeating the fact that most Governments have, in the past, faced difficult local results following a General Election victory. That said, it’s hard not to reflect on the fact that Labour is polling nine-points down on the 2021 local elections, which led to Starmer nearly quitting at the time.

Labour faces a key challenge in their efforts to reduce migration, and Runcorn and Helsby-candidate Karen Shore drew criticism for mirroring Reform’s rhetoric on this issue. Labour continues to combat Farage on migration, but they need to be wary of playing him at his own game. The Government risks alienating their base, worsened by unpopular decisions around winter fuel payments and welfare reforms, and some argue they would be wise to focus on their own issues to secure cut-through; namely, the NHS, climate change and geopolitical security.

Labour will, however, hold onto the results in mayoralties like the West of England. As a possible by-election looms in Jacob Rees-Mogg’s former stomping grounds – North East Somerset – new Mayor Helen Godwin’s victory offers a timely boost in confidence, seeing off Reform and pushing the Greens down to third place.

Conservatives

The incumbent in 954 of the 1,641 seats up for grabs, the Conservatives entered this set of elections defending the substantial ground won during former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s 2021 vaccine bounce. With public frustration still high and no clear direction, early results suggest the Tories are bound for a substantial crash from their previous high.

While Labour is experiencing increased pressure, the outlook for the Conservatives is much bleaker. These results are the latest in a series of blows for Kemi Badenoch, who has been criticised for her missed opportunities and aping of Reform over her six-month leadership. The party have also been addicted to leadership challenges for years, with no sign of settling down in opposition as Robert Jenrick waits in the wings to take over.

As they lose support – and crucially donors – to Reform, the UK’s right sees potentially catastrophic fragmentation come the next General Election. The Government aren’t the only ones who need to make difficult decisions: with an arguably centre-right Labour government and a populist right, the Tories must choose which way to lean, and they need to decide rapidly.

Looking ahead

Yesterday’s ballots and today’s results have implications for all the major parties. The Lib Dems and Greens – who typically do well in the locals – are also anticipated to hold onto the ground they won in 2021, in contrast to Labour and the Tories, though Ed Davey is likely to be hungry for more.

It’s important to bear in mind, however, that local elections are lower stakes. Turnout is generally modest, and voters are often inclined to choose a councillor who is (or at least portrays themself as) attuned to local issues – this doesn’t mean the result will apply nationally.

There is no doubt, however, that Nigel Farage will be raising a glass of something strong later this evening, while Starmer and Badenoch will have plenty to reflect on. With the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review around the corner, Labour faces a critical juncture: whether to pander to the Reform-curious or satisfy their progressive wing.

Share this content:

Living standards vs. economic growth – The Chancellor’s long-term capital investment dilemma

“The wisest thing you can do is give everyone a good home”

These were the thoughts of Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, speaking at a Resolution Foundation event on capital investment earlier this week. But, with the June Spending Review looming, the Government will be focusing on more than just housing and will have to make tough choices about where long-term capital investment is best allocated.

The Government can take credit for prioritising capital investment, which focuses on the creation of long-term assets as opposed to day-to-day spending. The 2024 Autumn Budget saw the Chancellor commit over £100bn of capital funding over the course of this parliament.

As Rachel Reeves looks to set multi-year funding allocations under the Spending Review, she will have to make a tough decision over whether to prioritise economic infrastructure – such as roads and utilities – or social infrastructure like housing and hospitals. The Chancellor is unlikely to have the financial headroom to fully prioritise both.

In part, this decision comes down to what the Government values most. On the one hand, investment in areas like hospitals and schools are much needed and may have a positive effect on living standards. On the other hand, investment in areas like transport, technology and data, are seen by many as high-growth areas. There is a trade off with both options.

So, where should the Government put their cash?

The Government will have one eye on the polls and therefore may be minded to divert capital investment into vote winning policy areas. This would mean pumping money into schools and the NHS, both of which are crying out for long-term investment and regularly feature at the top of voters’ concerns.

The Government may also consider additional support for transport and R&D. Commitments in these policy areas may have more of an impact on economic growth rather than on working people. However, turbulent global economic conditions, caused in no small part by the US administration, are unsurprisingly influencing what the Government wants to prioritise. Rachel Reeves could be tempted to boost funding here in pursuit of all-important growth.

Alternatively, the Chancellor could consider the thoughts of Andy Burnham and assess whether a capital funding boost to housing could be the wisest approach.

Housing policy has been tumultuous over the last decade and a half, with 16 different housing ministers over the Conservatives’ 14 years in power. Under this changing leadership, the rate of housebuilding has stalled and has consequently led to a mass shortage in social housing; over 1.3 million are on social housing waiting lists across England.

Aside from the obvious direct impacts to living standards, capital investment in social housing could also reduce the significant financial outlay that councils spend on stopgap solutions to this issue; last year local authorities spent over £2 billion on temporary accommodation.

Almost a year after the General Election, the Spending Review represents one of the most critical junctures of this Labour Government and could determine their chances of being re-elected. The Chancellor will need to work out which areas need capital investment the most, and at the same time try to shape a narrative that supports economic growth and improve living standards.

With this in mind, maybe long-term investment in housing represents the perfect balance to transform the Government’s fortunes? Time will tell.

Our recent guide to engaging with the Spending Review, drawing on the expertise of former Treasury Special Adviser Jennifer Gerber and former Whitehall Permanent Secretary Sir Philip Rutnam, can be downloaded here.

Share this content:

ICBs: What does the ‘less is more’ mantra mean in reality?

Even before the announcement that NHS England is to be abolished, the direction of travel for integrated care boards (ICBs) was clear – less is more.

The cost management and reduction scheme which forces a 30% real terms reduction in staffing by 2025/26 had taken centre stage, making the delivery of Joint Forward Plans and the delegation of specialised commissioning far more difficult.

As such, conversations on reducing the total number of ICBs via mergers have been rife behind closed doors, seen as a strategic decision to make the most out of resources and expertise available.

However, following the announcement that ICBs must cut their already diminished workforce by a further 50% (although note this will not be universally applied due to ICBs being at different baselines following the previous 30% cut), the consolidation process is now a necessity rather than a nice to have and will be accelerated and at a greater scale than previously thought.

This is much to the joy of NHS England’s Interim CEO, Sir Jim Mackey, who although falling short of mandating mergers, is keen that ICBs cover larger average populations. With this will come a shift in responsibilities to providers, and the potential for less delegation of specialised services than previously outlined.

1. So, what does consolidation actually look like?

ICBs covering small populations merging

The ICBs that will struggle to survive, and have to merge, are those that cover smaller populations. Many of these ICBs were too small to begin with and are an outcome of the nebulous nature by which ICBs were formed.

These ICBs are those that cover under one million people (10 ICBs), but potentially those serving under 1.2 million (a further 9 ICBs). Many of these smaller ICBs are in the West Midlands, East of England and the South West, so this is where we are likely to see the most consolidation.

While no ideal size has been mandated for ICBs, a target population size of 1.5million – 2.5 million is likely to align with ICS design guidance and create ICBs that are at a scale conducive of implementing their new responsibilities while providing financial sustainability.

In this likely scenario the Midlands would go from having 11 ICBs to 4, East of England from 6 to 4 and the South West from 7 to 4.

Will larger ICBs split?

While the focus is on small ICBs which will be unable to continue due to cuts, larger ICBs, more likely to be able to shoulder a reduction in staffing, will not automatically fit the future model envisioned by the DHSC and NHS England transition team.

But don’t expect these to split into more manageable population sizes. If anything, mergers of large ICBs are just as likely as those covering small ICBs. For example, discussions are ongoing in London on whether to consolidate 5 ICBs to 3, or potentially even 1 ICB covering the whole 10million+ population in the city.

The potential of aligning to pathology networks

One train of thought is that the necessary consolidation of ICBs provides an opportunity to align their footprints against the 27 pathology networks outlined in NHS Improvement’s ‘Pathology Networking: State of the Nation’. While the report is now six years old and created by the defunct NHS Improvement, it still holds that these networks are optimal geographic groupings of providers into hub-and-spoke configurations.

By adhering to these configurations, ICBs would ensure they cover a patient who under current ICB boundaries live outside of their catchment area, but use a tertiary centre within their area, reducing the number of ICBs that share major hospitals, aligning better to patient flows.

The pathology networks could provide a template for ICBs to merge along these geographic boundaries, while also bearing in mind considerations on mayoral combined authority boundaries, as outlined by Sir Jim this week.

2. What will consolidation mean for budgets and spend?

Winners and losers on budget allocations

ICB budgets are not distributed evenly, with some ICBs receiving higher or lower funding across key areas including their core allocation, high cost drugs and to cover specialised commissioning. This means that when allocations are broken down per capita there can be variance of over 20% between the amount of money an ICB receives per a patient in their catchment area.

Often ICBs with large universities in their catchment area, or a higher proportion of people with high indices of deprivation, will benefit from a higher per capita budget allocation. Inevitably some of these ICBs will merge with others that are receiving a lower amount of funding per capita – meaning the freedom to which some ICBs can operate will be stymied.

While this may benefit some, and hinder others, ultimately one of the key drivers of ICBs covering larger populations is a greater mix of demographics within each catchment area and therefore a reduction in budget variation.

Misalignment on spending priorities

Similarly, how money is spent, and where, can differ wildly between ICBs. This does not always correlate to geography, so an ICB which spends a large amount of money on a priority could easily merge with one that spends little money in the same area.

For example an ICB spending nearly £200 on GP prescribing per person, merging with an ICB spending £120 per person may not appear problematic, but when you extrapolate that £80 per person difference across the potential 2 million people in the catchment area of the new ICB the difference in allocation of resources is stark – in the hundreds of millions.

How new ICBs wrangle with budget allocations, and how they use them, with a reduced workforce, will be challenging to navigate, and must be taken into account during the consolidation process.

3. When will this all happen?

Discussions on consolidation have significantly accelerated over the last couple of weeks, with some ICBs unable to viably continue given the funding it takes to run a statutory body (£2-3m a year) falling below the amount needed for some smaller ICBs.

As with the abolishment of NHS England, the DHSC and NHS England’s new leadership don’t have the time to wait for legislation to come first. However, as ICBs are statutory bodies, without new, or amended legislation, they cannot formally merge. This means that we can expect de-facto mergers where all 42 ICBs are still legally separate, but not in practice.

This means while a new health bill is prepared, there is nothing in the way of ICBs and we can expect the first news on mergers to come over the coming months.

These mergers can’t come soon enough for Wes Streeting, Sir Jim Mackey, and Dr Penny Dash who need to show the widescale changes they are demanding from the system don’t disrupt the implementation of the forthcoming 10 year plan which is now only two months from publication.

Share this content:

Spring Statement 2025 – tough choices and tighter margins

The Chancellor’s Spring Statement, delivered under mounting fiscal pressure and growing political tension, marked a particularly delicate balancing act for Rachel Reeves. Being framed as tough but necessary, the Chancellor’s decision to push through sweeping welfare reforms and deepen spending cuts reflects both the gravity of the economic situation and a clear pivot for the Labour Government.

Economic backdrop

Reeves’ statement follows several weeks of pre-briefing and speculation over anticipated heavy cuts to public spending in response to limited fiscal headroom, and this has been compounded by this morning’s decision by the OBR to downgrade the UK’s economic forecast for 2025, reducing it from 2% to 1%, with no expectation of a return to 2% growth during this Parliament. This downgrade brutally illustrates the Chancellor’s challenge: stagnant growth, spiralling debt interest payments, and worsening global conditions have all but erased any fiscal wriggle room.

In this context, Reeves’ emphasis on restraint was unsurprising. She reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to achieving a surplus within two years, rising to nearly £20bn by 2030. She also leaned heavily on OBR analysis that planning reforms will deliver a 0.4% uplift to GDP within the decade – the “biggest positive growth impact” the OBR has ever forecast for a cost-free policy. However, even with this optimistic framing, the broader economic picture remains challenging.

Winners and Losers

Three pillars defined the Chancellor’s approach: accelerating defence spending, reforming public services, and driving economic growth. Reeves framed the Statement as a response to a world in flux and name-checked geopolitical instability, namely Ukraine, the uncertainty of American foreign and economic policy under Trump, and growing NATO obligations.

But the most politically sensitive decision came in the form of welfare reform. Reeves confirmed £4.8bn in cuts, including a halving of the Universal Credit health element for new claimants and tightened eligibility for disability and incapacity benefits. These measures were immediately and fiercely contested.

While the Government insists these cuts are necessary to restore sustainability, outside Westminster the consequences are already being felt. As Reeves delivered her speech, disability rights campaigners staged protests outside Parliament, branding the cuts “cruel” and warning of devastating real-world impacts. The optics were stark: a Labour Chancellor defending welfare reductions while allocating billions more to defence.

Political implications

Politically, this is one of Reeves’ first true stress tests – and the consequences will echo beyond the fiscal arithmetic. Labour’s traditional social justice instincts now sit uneasily beside a more Blairite economic realism, and this tension was laid bare in the Chamber and across the country. The challenge is whether Labour can satisfy both its internal factions, balancing the expectations of its traditional base with the priorities of its more centrist wing, while maintaining the trust of voters who will decide its future at the next election.

The Treasury may claim these changes are modest in budgetary terms, but politically, they cut deep. Backbench discomfort is already simmering, and murmurs of rebellion could flare into something more disruptive if left unaddressed. With further spending decisions to come in the Autumn Budget, Reeves has little margin for error and even less political slack.

To find out more about what today’s announcements mean for your sector, get in touch at contact@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

The calm before the cuts? What to watch in Labour’s first spring statement

The Chancellor’s Spring Statement this Wednesday was initially framed as a ‘forecast’ – a technical and routine fiscal update. However, with growing pressure over the performance of the economy, it’s now shaping up to be a far more politically charged and consequential moment for the government.

In this blog, we share what to expect from the Statement – including the emerging political tensions, the departments and priorities likely to be affected, and how this sets the tone ahead of June’s Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR).

The context

The Spring Statement will serve as a bellwether for Labour’s fiscal strategy and a prelude to the high-stakes CSR in June. Rachel Reeves is expected to set out the broad spending envelope that will guide departmental budgets – effectively signalling who wins and who loses in public spending over the coming years.

Politically, this is being cast as Reeves’s toughest test yet, as she must reassure markets (and voters) of Labour’s economic credibility while addressing mounting pressure within her party over potential “austerity” measures. What began as a routine update has taken on outsized importance as a signal of Labour’s priorities going into the summer’s comprehensive budget reset.

All signs point to Reeves doubling down on fiscal restraint. She has ruled out any major tax rises on Wednesday, meaning any effort to shore up the public finances will come largely from spending cuts. Indeed, reports indicate she will announce the biggest spending cuts since the austerity era, with overall Whitehall budgets set to be billions lower than previously planned. Early estimates suggest this could translate to reductions of roughly 7% over four years for “unprotected departments”.

Crucially, Wednesday’s statement will reveal the average spending growth government-wide and the assumptions for protected areas – with detailed allocations for each department held back until the June review. In other words, the Chancellor will outline how much money is available, leaving ministers to haggle over the specifics in the coming months.

Four things to watch out for

1. Who gets hit – and what that means for the CSR

By design, Labour has chosen to shield a few key priorities – notably defence and health – from deep cuts. In practice, that means many “unprotected” services face real strain. For example, the Department for Transport is reportedly preparing to scale back or delay projects – even ones the government only recently green-lit (East West Rail, a new Oxford–Cambridge line, is one such project now under review). Departments have been asked to model cuts as steep as 20% in some scenarios, underscoring how stark the trade-offs could become.

Notably, even the Department for Education – a clear winner from the Autumn Budget – is understood to be modelling potential cuts. Reports suggest this could include means-testing free school meals for infant pupils and scaling back creative subjects in the curriculum – options that would carry significant political risk. We’re cautious about whether this is a genuine direction of travel or an attempt by DfE to use the media to signal the political cost of further cuts to the Treasury ahead of the CSR.

We’ll be watching whether Reeves’s speech confirms this harsh outlook for “non-priority” departments – and how explicitly those tensions are acknowledged. Either way, the scale and shape of the Statement will be a strong indicator of how aggressive June’s CSR will be in reallocating limited resources.

2. The politics behind the pain

The political calculations behind these choices are increasingly apparent. Labour is keen to avoid any suggestion it will tax or borrow profligately, so sticking to tight fiscal rules has been the order of the day. Reeves has pointedly kept pledges like the state pension triple lock and vowed not to raise headline taxes this spring – moves aimed at bolstering voter trust, but which severely limit her options. Even some usually sympathetic observers worry the government has “hemmed itself in” with these commitments.

3. Will Labour hold together?

The political tensions are already visible. Reports suggest Reeves’s recent Cabinet discussion was the “most tense” so far, with senior ministers – including Angela Rayner, Ed Miliband, Yvette Cooper, and Shabana Mahmood – raising concerns about the impact of cuts on their briefs.

Beyond the Cabinet, Labour MPs across the party – including those in newly-won marginal seats – are worried. Some fear a return to austerity; others worry the government risks looking indistinguishable from its predecessors. As one Labour MP bluntly put it: “What are we doing that the Tories wouldn’t be?” If Wednesday’s Statement doesn’t offer clarity – or cover – expect tensions to rise.

4. How this shapes the story

Reeves is walking a tightrope. She wants to be seen as serious, stable, and economically credible. But she also has to show that Labour is doing things differently and delivering for those who voted for change. If she lands it, the Statement could strengthen Labour’s economic credentials amid a period of relative success for the government.

But if the Statement is seen as austerity by another name, it risks undermining the party’s promise of change. The real test will come in June when budgets are set in full, but the narrative begins now – and may be hard to shift once it takes hold.

What next?

With departments preparing to defend their budgets, and tough trade-offs ahead, evidence of contribution to growth, resilience and essential services will be more important than ever.

Join our post-Statement webinar on Thursday at 9am to discuss the implications for the wider operating environment. RSVP to events.rsvp@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

All eyes on Reform in Runcorn and Helsby

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.

Share this content:

A shop floor view of recent NHS change: “An invitation to the brave and radical”

I work as far away from London – and the dynamics of NHS leadership – as it is possible to be in England.

When the news broke last week of NHS England’s abolition, it was “carry on regardless”. There is an NHS superstructure and an NHS of delivery, and the latter trundled on as normal in treating patients. NHS England is remarkably remote from the operational service so the focus on the ground is “what happens next?”

The ICB change was less expected. I work in the largest ICS and communication with us already tends to be transactional and arm’s length. However, the impact of a 50% cut in management costs will be felt more for smaller ICBs. Everyone is dreading the disruption of ICB’s HR processes and the lack of clarity on “who leads on what”.

The impact of cuts upon smaller ICBs is terminal

It costs £2-3m per annum to run a statutory body’s board and legal functions. Some will now have £4m management budgets whereas my ICBs, North East and North Cumbria, will be £24m. All ICBs need to rethink their functions and role but many are now simply impractical.

Important areas of change will become more prominent to the shop floor as transition occurs; digital, prescribing, procurement of clinical tech and premises. Our prescribing systems are clear, long established and coordinated at the ICB. So, what happens now? We expect major change to NHS supplies and property management.

These strategic changes matter at patient level

Every clinician knows patients undergoing specialist care, invariably involving high-cost drugs. The ongoing delegation of specialised services to ICBs is a policy which already had significant risks – these have now increased, especially in terms of the impact of varied per capita budgets and the consequent variation in local access and service delivery.

What comes next?

Most ICBs seem to be in a state of shock and grief. Ambitious primary care organisations like my Primary Care Network will be immediately looking to our local Foundation Trusts for clarity, decision making and continuity. We have accelerated Neighbourhood working plans with our main local NHS provider – a Foundation Trust with hospitals, community services and 12 managed GP practices.

We anticipate the rise of local NHS single leadership, combining planning and delivery at Place level – resembling the Accountable Care Organisations or multi sector providers envisaged by the Vanguard programme of a decade ago. These could integrate social care, Public Health, care homes, hospices and Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise bodies – possibly headed by the elected Mayors and their combined authorities.

If we’re correct, our future is to build a local Neighbourhood model and to do so with the permanent partners of the local provider NHS. This is a major opportunity for those able to be constructive, proactive and engaged.

My lead clinical colleagues are rightly focused on the end in mind. This is not about saving money but a reset of culture and ways of working, which we all hope achieves the ultimate goal of better patient experience of care and outcomes.

Share this content:

Are we deprioritising women’s health in the UK at a time when more focus should be on it?

International Women’s Day this past Saturday is an important reminder of the advancements made, but also the challenges that still exist when it comes to women’s rights and health.

In the UK, telemedicine for early medical abortion, and the move to make some types of contraceptive pills available in pharmacies, are two recent examples of much needed progress. But there is so much more that needs to be done, because this is an issue that impacts all of society. Here are some of our thoughts on the current situation when it comes to women’s health.

An economic burden and stark inequalities

Recent research from NHS Confederation found that absenteeism due to severe period pain and heavy periods alongside endometriosis, fibroids and ovarian cysts costs nearly £11 billion a year. There are also social considerations, including ethnic and socioeconomic factors – for example, women living in the most deprived areas of England are expected to live for five fewer years than those in the least.

Is the Government still committed to women’s health?

In 2022, the Women’s Health Strategy was heralded as a major moment for this area of policy. It included the expansion of women’s health hubs across the country (framed as a holistic solution for women’s health needs) and the appointment of a Women’s Health Ambassador.

Two and a half years later, the (now Labour) Government has removed the target for all Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) to have at least one hub. While it is true that most areas have met this target, on the ground – it is a mixed picture. The Women and Equalities Committee recently reported challenges with how hub funding is being used locally and called for ‘long-term, ring-fenced funding and resources to embed the hub model and further support its development’.

And while the Government pledged to prioritise women’s health in their election manifesto, no one knows what that means in practice after nearly a year in power. Time will tell if this commitment translates into action.

The rise of social media influencers in the battle for ‘natural’ contraception

Speaking to WA Senior Advisor David Thorne, he described oral contraception as “arguably the most important medicine ever developed for humanity”. This is no understatement – providing women with the choice to decide if, and when, to have children has a huge economic and societal impact, including helping to reduce poverty.

However, many ICBs are seeing a decline in this type of medicine used and an increase in terminations of pregnancies. While evidence is still emerging, there are concerns that misinformation is leading women to increasingly view ‘natural’ contraception apps as superior to the pill – despite the fact they are only 76% effective with typical use, compared to the most effective types such as the implant (which is 99% effective). Social media has a big role to play here – one TikTok video which falsely claims hormonal birth control can cause infertility and brain tumours has been viewed more than 600,000 times.

The clinical world is still grappling with the way young people now access information. Worryingly, this means this downward trend isn’t close to stopping. And while women should be supported to make a choice about whatever form of contraception suits them best, this should be an informed choice – based on evidence.

At a time of increasingly tight budgets and competing priorities across the NHS, we must not lose sight of the value of investing in contraception but we must also be better at communicating its benefits in a way that audiences will engage with.

More awareness of menopause isn’t equating to better health outcomes

One area we have seen significantly increased public debate is menopause – not least because of high profile people like Davina McCall becoming a prolific public speaker on it. While this awareness is positive, women are still sharing many disheartening stories of poor access to the care they need, and most importantly, deserve.

WA Communications has been working with Astellas to understand what women are really experiencing when it comes to menopause care and treatment. Commissioning YouGov to conduct a survey, we delved into the expectations and experiences of 1,680 women – throughout all stages of their reproductive journey. The findings paint a bleak picture for menopause care.

Of the 1,022 peri-/menopausal and post-menopausal women surveyed, 77% felt they were not offered a choice about their menopause treatment, and only 15% felt the treatment options available to them were very suitable for their needs.

This is having an impact on productivity; unemployment due to menopause symptoms costs approximately £1.5 billion per year – with approximately 60,000 women in the UK not working due to menopause symptoms.

We need to focus on translating this positive sentiment into system improvements which still ensure women have access to choice when it comes to their menopause care.

Advocating for change

Thankfully, the idea that action on women’s health matters is not controversial. But our advocacy and campaign efforts must strongly communicate that these are major public health issues. Increasing access to contraceptive care or cervical screening uptake must not be positioned as ‘nice to have’.

These are also issues that directly support the Government’s policy ambitions, including when it comes to getting people back into work, and a laser-focused growth mission. With women making up 51% of the population, this represents a massive opportunity.

When calling for Government action on women’s health, we need to frame our arguments accordingly.

We also need to see this as a policy area which requires effective partnership work. There are hugely exciting medical innovations coming into this space – effective engagement with the clinical and patient group community will help ensure these reach women as quickly and easily as possible.

Increased awareness and activity on social media on issues related to women’s health is one thing, but we are some way off fully delivering for women. We know the gains that can be made, now is the time to make action happen.

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

Share this content:

The need to address the challenges in palliative and end-of-life care

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.

Share this content:

How Amanda Pritchard’s departure signals a new dawn for the NHS

Today, Amanda Pritchard resigned as Chief Executive of NHS England after three and a half years in charge.

Her resignation comes at an extremely challenging time for the health service with the recent Operational Planning Guidance, published at the end of January, asking NHS organisations to reduce their outgoing costs and achieve 4% productivity gains over the year.

While Pritchard’s resignation letter suggests she left of her own volition, she had been under increasing scrutiny, shown during her most recent appearance in front of the Health and Social Care Select Committee where members accused her of lacking drive and ambition.

This change delivers a fresh start for the NHS and suggests a shifting power dynamic towards the Department of Health and Social Care. This is evident from the Government’s preferred candidate as NHS England’s new Chair, widely expected to be former McKinsey & Co partner Penny Dash, and the new interim CEO Sir Jim Mackey. This duo has significant experience in the NHS and will be unafraid of calling out inadequacies in the system, as evidenced by Penny Dash’s recent scathing report into the effectiveness of the Care Quality Commission.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting has said these new appointments will require “a new relationship” between DHSC and NHS England to enhance the “one team culture”. While NHS leadership may be hoping for a joint enterprise, the evidence suggests that DHSC is very much calling the shots and will be in total control over the 10 Year Health Plan, due to be published in the coming months.

So, who’s in charge of the 10 Year Plan?

Despite Amanda Pritchard featuring front and centre in the launch of the consultation, it is certainly not NHS England.

Those advising on the strategic direction of the plan are more PwC than ICB, with a wealth of former consultants advising Streeting in DHSC, such as Alan Milburn, the Blair-era Health Secretary who spent more than a decade working in the private sector. He has been dubbed the second Secretary of State and has been instrumental in shaping the future of health policy since his return to Government. Streeting has also relied on left-leaning think tanks, scooping up Tom Kibasi, former director of the Institute for Public Policy Research to draft the plan.

While the Health Secretary clearly appreciates the role of NHS England in delivering his ambitious plans, long-term reform of the NHS is his single biggest priority in Government, and his desire for success has necessitated whittling down its influence.

Almost eight months after the General Election, Streeting’s influence continues to grow. Ahead of this year’s Spring financial forecast and comprehensive spending review, funding for DHSC is expected to remain strong compared to other departments. This vote of confidence is reflective of Streeting’s standing with Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves but is also dependent on an expectation to deliver on his lofty aims for NHS reform.

Until now, Streeting’s plans have been clear cut: end workforce strikes, expose the state of the health service through the Darzi review, announce the 10-Year Plan, and deliver two million extra NHS appointments. The departure of Amanda Pritchard demonstrates a shift from quick wins to a long-term focus.

The Health Secretary has the influence and political capital to implement his long-term plan. His hope for the future is that he can claim accountability for its successes rather than suffer the same fate as many of his failing predecessors.

Share this content:

Transitioning to Net Zero: A Guide to the Energy Sector in 2025

Achieving Net Zero will require a fundamental change to our energy system, at extraordinary pace – from significant investment in low carbon generation, combined with major reforms to our infrastructure, to shifts in how the energy markets work, and changing consumer behaviour. The expectations on the energy sector in delivering this are huge.

The government’s ambition to achieve Clean Power in the UK by 2030 adds to this pressure. With just five years to achieve this, the race is on.

This comes in the context of a Labour government, having been in power for just over six months, but needing to show how it is delivering. The energy sector is critical to the government’s core ambition of delivering economic growth, and for people and communities across the country to the feel the benefits of this. If they don’t – and they see it as a drain of public resource rather than a driver of growth to fund core public services – sustained support for net zero and the energy transition is likely to be at risk.

This year is critical if these ambitions are to become a reality: government needs to accelerate policy decisions, industry needs to demonstrate the steps that it is taking to deliver on the ground, and collectively both need to articulate to the wider public how this is delivering a cleaner, more affordable and more secure energy system that works for them.

This new guide from WA Communications is our take on the year ahead for the energy sector, looking at what’s in store in the external environment – both from a policy and reputational perspective – and what it means for business. It includes:

The key trends to look out for this year
What to expect in different parts of the energy market
A practical timeline that sets out the key policy and political milestones for the next six months

Transitioning to Net Zero: A Guide to the Energy Sector in 2025

We hope you find this guide a useful framework to understand how to navigate the external environment impacting the energy sector and align your organisation’s strategic communications with these priorities.

To explore our analysis in more detail, and arrange a presentation and discussion to understand how these points apply specifically to your organisation, sector and situation, please get in touch with Angus Hill at angushill@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

Further, faster, higher – planes and politics

Sir Philip Rutnam was Permanent Secretary at the Department for Transport and the Home Office.

Will this be the time it actually happens? After so many attempts to build another runway at Heathrow, Rachel Reeves definitely thinks so. She wants ‘spades in the ground’ during this Parliament. But is the fate of this attempt now tied to the fate of Rachel Reeves herself?

I spent five years helping the Cameron and May governments extract themselves from a crude commitment against expansion, and instead have a new policy that allowed growth subject to conditions. We made real progress – until Heathrow got struck by the double whammy of Boris Johnson’s government and the pandemic.

The thing that strikes me now is the mountain that Heathrow and the government have to climb to get this project to happen, and the scale of the political effort that will be needed to drive it through. Rachel Reeves is not realistically going to be able to lead that, certainly not month in month out – it’ll have to come from the Transport Secretary – but it’s Rachel’s reputation that is now linked to the project more than anyone’s.

Let’s look at three big things that have to happen before Heathrow expansion gets anywhere near final permission to take off.

First, Heathrow itself has to get to the starting gate and put in the application. Rachel Reeves has said she wants proposals from them by the summer. But Heathrow has run this race before. It knows how much it costs to get prepared, and how much leverage it has now before it has put in the application. Expect difficult negotiations between Government and Heathrow over things like surface access (costing billions), economic regulation (ie higher landing charges), and what happens if the Government later changes its mind (would you fancy writing off more abortive costs?). And expect all those negotiations to be overseen directly by Heathrow’s shareholders, and watched keenly by its airline customers and airport competitors. There are real risks of challenge to DfT if anyone is left unhappy.

Second, the case for expansion itself has to be updated and future-proofed. Aviation has changed a lot since the key decisions made in 2018 – think of the balance between business and leisure travel, what’s happening in aviation technology, but also the smart, lower cost schemes for expansion at Gatwick and Luton. All this has got to be taken into account. So too has the latest evidence and policies on carbon and climate change, and other environmental impacts like noise. It’s a massive task to do this work right, and make the best possible case for expansion – and remember it’s Heathrow’s case that gets examined directly at a planning inquiry, not something general from the Government about what it wants to happen.

Finally, there’s the politics. There’s a long list of places, people and organisations that are dead against Heathrow expansion, and have a record of mobilising very effectively. Everyone from Sadiq Khan to lots of West London MPs and Councils to environmental organisations, cutting across party boundaries. Add in airspace modernisation (obscure but fundamental) and the list of places who will feel some effect gets much longer. The politics will only get more complex if the news on climate and carbon gets worse, or (paradoxically) if the news on growth gets a lot better.

None of this is to say that expansion can’t be made to happen: it absolutely can. Howard Davies showed ten years ago how strong the case is. But it will need really good political leadership to navigate through all this and come out the other side.

Over to you Heidi Alexander.

Share this content:

Can we fix it? According to Rachel Reeves, there’s always a reason to say no, but businesses think differently

This week, we brought together key energy, transport and industry players with national media to discuss the intersection of infrastructure, growth, and reputation. Across three core themes – the government’s growth agenda, the sector’s reputation, and the role of devolution – we explored how businesses can effectively communicate their role in shaping the UK’s infrastructure.

Government agenda: Policy, growth, and business confidence

With the government’s renewed focus on driving growth – exemplified in Rachel Reeves’ speech yesterday, and the push for infrastructure investment – there is cautious optimism among businesses. However, companies are still looking for clear, actionable plans before making long-term commitments. Media can be effectively used by government and businesses alike to inspire and drive forward infrastructure:

Big projects like planned Heathrow expansion are under scrutiny. While planning approval may be granted within this parliament, tangible progress will take decades. Breaking projects into clear stages and telling each phase’s story is key to maintaining community and political buy-in.

Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act was referenced as a strong example of government intervention inspiring business confidence. The UK needs similar clarity in its economic and infrastructure strategy and this needs to be communicated on a macro, as well as micro, level.

Regulatory uncertainty remains a concern, particularly around approvals and planning processes, which can be commercially strenuous. Clear messaging on the prize that can be unlocked will be key here.

Perceptions, challenges and opportunities

The infrastructure sector has both legacy reputational challenges and new opportunities to shape public perception.

High-profile stories such as Thames Water’s financial struggles and HS2’s delays can create a contagion effect, affecting trust in the infrastructure sector.

Businesses need to go beyond economic arguments and communicate the human and social value of infrastructure projects.

Media narratives are shaped by compelling stories – journalists want to hear about people, innovation, and tangible benefits, not just numbers.

Regional impacts and local narratives

With the government’s commitment to devolution, national infrastructure narratives must adapt to local perspectives and priorities.

Economic disparity between London and the rest of the UK remains a key media focus. Businesses operating outside London should highlight regional investment, job creation, and community impact.

Skills shortages – particularly for in-demand roles or under-profiled trades – need more visibility in media and government discussions. Projects should emphasise local employment, training programmes, and long-term workforce development to garner support.

What businesses need to know about engaging with the media

Our roundtable provided valuable insights into what makes a strong infrastructure media story and how businesses can better engage with journalists:

Human stories matter – Journalists are more likely to cover infrastructure projects when they feature real people, personal journeys, and the benefits to a community.

Access to CEOs and decision-makers – Regular engagement, background briefings, and personal relationships with journalists are vital for raising profile and being the “go to” voice for a story.

Clear roadmaps and tangible milestones – Companies should outline short-term wins alongside long-term ambitions, making it easier for media to follow progress and open opportunities for coverage – as well hold to account.

Use corporate reports creatively – corporate milestones such as annual reports or financial results aren’t just tick boxes, they can be used to shape narratives on growth, innovation, and sustainability.

Be persistent – Stories often fade quickly from national headlines. Businesses should consistently communicate their progress, ensuring long-term media engagement, and utilise trade media relationships to continue beating the drum on important issues.

Leverage data but tell a compelling story – While investment figures are important, they need to be framed in a way that resonates with a broad audience.

Final thoughts

The infrastructure sector is at a critical juncture. Government ambition is high, but businesses must actively shape the conversation to secure investment, public trust, and regulatory certainty.

For companies looking to enhance their media presence:

Think beyond numbers – tell human stories.

Be transparent and proactive in media engagement.

Align your messaging with government priorities but maintain your stance.

As one leading national correspondent put it: “There’s no magic bullet, but if you have a good story to tell, you will know, and the media will listen.”

Please contact rachelford@wacomms.co.uk if you would like to discuss how we can help shape and amplify your media strategy.

Share this content:

The razing of the digital town square: Navigating social media communications in 2025

The inauguration of President Donald Trump earlier this month marks an important moment for social media platforms. Almost 20 years on from the launch of Twitter, social media has drifted away from one of its original goals of being digital town squares. They once symbolised spaces for open dialogue and shared ideas.

This quality of the social media of yesteryear feels increasingly out of reach. X’s owner Elon Musk is leading Donald Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg is scaling back moderation on Meta, and emerging platforms that could replace the incumbents are struggling to gain momentum.

The redevelopment of the digital town square doesn’t spell the end of social media, but it does require a shift in communications strategies. Platforms are now fractured and unpredictable, forcing organisations to rethink how they engage with audiences. By understanding these new dynamics and prioritising controlled digital spaces, businesses can navigate the evolving landscape while protecting their trust and influence.

The role of X in 2025

Despite its declining user base and changes to moderation, X is still valuable for monitoring breaking news and public sentiment. Its real-time newsfeed hasn’t been successfully replicated by any other platform.

The platform is however on borrowed time. It is becoming increasingly polarised, with more extreme views gaining prominence.

Organisations are responding to this. Reddit, for example, has seen several of its major subreddit communities banning X links due to concerns over the spreading of misinformation.

For businesses, the growing instability of X means its benefits must be regularly weighed against the reputational risks of staying active on the platform.

Meta’s radical change to moderation

Meta’s decision to abandon third-party fact-checking may not have been as widely reported in the UK as in the US, but it is a turning point in the trustworthiness of Instagram and Facebook content. At the start of this year, Zuckerberg announced that Meta platforms will rely on ‘Community Notes’ from contributing users. Meta also intends to lift restrictions on some political topics.

It’s no coincidence that these Community Notes will mimic X’s own approach to moderation. This pivot, positioned as empowering users, is designed to appease Trump. It will also reduce Meta’s fact-checking costs. It currently works with hundreds of fact-checking companies across the world.

This may feel like an American issue but these shifts are far from trivial for British organisations. Reduced moderation increases the risk of misinformation and reputational damage.

A cloudy forecast for Bluesky and other alternative social media platforms

Bluesky, a decentralised social platform, captured attention as an alternative to X in November last year and it looks, feels, and operates similarly to how Twitter ran in its earlier years. Users joined the platform to escape Elon’s X that aligned itself with Trump and saw a surge in sign-ups following Trump’s election win.

Bluesky adoption has slowed down since its increase at the end of last year. It now has a userbase of 29 million users, far below the billions of users on Facebook and Instagram. Search interest for Bluesky has also waned since November. Without widespread adoption, it is unlikely to establish itself as a viable space for corporate communications.

A Google Trends timeline depicting the level of search volume for Bluesky since October 2024.

A brave new world of digital corporate communications

If there’s one point that should be taken from these changes, it’s that you never owned your audience on any social media platform. As these channels grow more volatile and unpredictable, organisations need to prioritise driving audiences to spaces they can control, such as their own websites or email mailing lists.

This is a good moment to remember that every social media post should have a purpose beyond generating engagement. Including calls-to-action that direct users to owned platforms is now non-negotiable. Whether through blog posts, downloadable resources, or event sign-ups, teams must focus on converting social interactions into meaningful engagements.

You should also be ready to test new platforms alongside regularly evaluating if you should dial activity on existing platforms such as X up or down depending on the political and public perceptions towards them.

Share this content:

Engaging with the 2025 Spending Review

Engaging with the 2025 Spending Review

Over the next six months, the Spending Review will determine the government’s spending priorities for the rest of this Parliament.

In our recent webinar hosted by WA’s Founding Partner Marc Woolfson, WA’s Senior Advisers – Jennifer Gerber, who worked on Labour’s 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review as Special Adviser to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury; and Sir Philip Rutnam, former Permanent Secretary and senior Treasury Civil Servant – explored how Ministers and Departments will attempt to balance these competing political and economic demands, the likely spending priorities, and how businesses can shape these discussions.

Priorities:

The Chancellor faces a difficult balancing act: reassuring the markets on stability, rebuilding trust with business, and reiterating the promise of Change to the electorate.

While the Missions, Milestones and Next Steps set out by the Prime Minister earlier this year establish the government’s priorities, and will form the political framework for evaluating spending decisions, the Chancellor’s financial options are increasingly narrow – with the £10bn of fiscal headroom identified in October’s budget evaporating as a result of low growth, sticky inflation, and a rise in the cost of government borrowing.

In particular, the overall budget envelope for the spending review will be significantly shaped on 26th March, when the Office for Budget Responsibility updates its economic forecasts.

To meet her ‘iron clad’ fiscal rules, Rachel Reeves is likely to have to take further action to cut spending – which however unpalatable, will be preferable to raising taxes or increasing borrowing.

This year’s Review is ‘zero based’, the first since 2007, meaning that every area of spending will be scrutinised. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has mandated that funding for new priorities will only be considered if departments have already identified savings of 5%+ from their existing budgets.

Timings:

Across Whitehall, over the next 8-10 weeks departments will be modelling the effect of different financial scenarios.

Later in the Spring, during April and May, the Treasury will combine departmental plans, and assess their feasibility and impact, while the Chancellor and Chief Secretary to the Treasury engage in political negotiations with Cabinet colleagues – for publication of the Review in mid-June.

The length of the process runs the risk that other events may intervene, notably Trump’s threat of global tariffs, requiring further reassessment of the government’s economic or political priorities.

Equally however, there is a real risk of policy paralysis, with action paused for months while spending decisions are finalised (an issue exacerbated by both Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves’ process-centric style of government) – in turn feeding accusations of a lack of political narrative, which may reach a crescendo around the local elections in May.

This period is likely to see an increase in Whitehall activity that doesn’t require immediate spending, with an array of strategies, priorities, reviews and pilots (for example the recently announced AI Opportunities Action Plan). In addition to seeking future spending commitments, businesses can use this time to raise their political profile today, by demonstrating how they are already supporting these government objectives.

Decision-Makers

This Spending Review is more centralised than most – with Rachel Reeves and Darren Jones holding a significant amount of decision-making power, and a structure of 1:1 discussions between the Treasury and individual spending departments. This contrasts notably with the Coalition Government’s ‘Star Chamber’ of cabinet colleagues,

Instead, independent assessment of spending priorities will be undertaken – within departments – by ‘Challenge Panels’ including former senior leaders from Lloyd’s Banking Group, Barclays Bank and the Co-operative Group, as well as other local delivery partners, think tanks, academics and private sector experts.

Their broad remit of these panels, to consider “what government spending is or isn’t necessary”, has the potential to provide strategic cut-through, and bring valuable business and front-line public service expertise to the heart of the spending review process. However, their value will depend on the time panel members can commit, and the options presented to them by departments – the result may be that panels assess only a top-line overview of department plans, and are largely a presentational device to demonstrate business and stakeholder input.

In either case, the absence of a Ministerial ‘Star Chamber’ may reduce the degree of long-term, cross-government political support for what will be difficult decisions.

It remains true that improved public services and significant cost savings can often be delivered by government departments working together to innovate and achieve shared priorities – however in this situation, these innovative structures are more likely to be achieved through individual collaborations between government departments, and likely to be formed on the strength of Ministerial relationships (for example seen in Wes Streeting and Peter Kyle’s shared promotion of the power of AI for the health service).

In this context, four audiences are key for businesses seeking to make a case for spending priorities:

Spending Departments: Businesses can help by providing data, analysis and ideas. Beyond the small teams working specifically on the Spending Review, it is sensible to engage with the civil servants responsible for individual policy areas, providing the ammunition they need for discussions within their department as well as with HMT.

Departmental Non-Executives: Wise departments will be using their Non-Execs to test and challenge plans, to ensure the options presented to the Treasury are as strong as possible. The most successful will be using Non-Execs to build a wider hinterland of support for their plans across government. How departments use their Non-Execs is likely to depend on the personal relationships between the Board and Secretary of State.

The Treasury: Clearly it is beneficial to match engagement with spending departments with similar engagement with Treasury specialists, but across its 1,000+ civil servants, the teams looking at specific policy areas are relatively small (between 10-25 on most departmental issues), and so are likely to focus on the most complex, expensive, or politically sensitive issues.

Labour MPs: Every Secretary of State will want MPs to lobby the Treasury on behalf of their department’s spending priorities. Communicating the investment, jobs, and local electoral benefits of a proposal to relevant back benchers (e.g. by providing constituency-level data, or by identifying relevant Labour networks to partner with) is key.

Ultimately, spending decisions are made by Ministers – meaning any proposals must pass both financial and political tests. With, in principle, £1.3 trillion of public spending under review, organisations that provide clearly thought-out suggestions, with easily-communicated political and economic benefits, are likely to cut through.

Understand the political context: Special Advisers and Ministers will gravitate to suggestions where the ‘sell’ has been thought through. As well as being operationally beneficial, how will your proposal be communicated to the public, other stakeholders, the media, and the wider industry?

Use your platform: Reports of low business confidence – in the economy, and the government – abound. Ministers will be keen to reset this narrative by securing the endorsement of key firms and business leaders to promote the outcomes of the Spending Review. The launch of the government’s Industrial Strategy in the Spring provides another key moment to offer this support.

Amplify your story: Match well-researched evidence with a compelling ‘surround-sound’ narrative – using media engagement, creative content, and policy influencers to illustrate how your proposals align with Labour’s principles, the impact for working people and public service users, and to highlight examples of business investment and economic growth. (But avoid high profile campaigns purely pleading a special interest, which are likely to be both ineffective, and frustrate Ministers and officials).

To discuss how your business can prepare for the Spending Review, please contact Marc Woolfson: marcwoolfson@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

The State of Integrated Care Systems: Finances

Ahead of the now delayed publication of the NHS operating framework and as integrated care systems (ICSs) mark their first full year running as key NHS statutory bodies in 2023/24, WA Communications has undertaken a first of its kind in-depth analysis of all 42 ICBs annual accounts.

This analysis, the second in our ‘the state of ICSs’ series, following our ICB five-year forward plans data map, has been created to foster a mutual understanding of the challenges and opportunities that exist within the NHS, supporting strong collaboration between the private, third sector and ICBs.

We have taken the published accounts and produced an interactive ICB Spending Map that enables comparisons of financial performance – not just of total spend, but more valuable analysis of category spend against the budget set and as a percentage of each ICB’s total budget. In this way comparisons can be made within and across ICBs around the spend upon key categories such as acute hospital care, mental health services and primary care prescribing.

We launch our analysis at a time where ICBs are being asked to take on increasing amounts of responsibility while being scrutinised over finances and impact more than ever:

ICBs are already the lead NHS bodies for strategy and spend.

The delegation of specialised services commissioning and budgets has recently been reinforced and will add to the value of future versions of this map, but also increases the range of organisations needing to focus upon differential ICB performance.

NHS policy is placing increasing importance upon local interpretation of national priorities through ICB-led population health management.

The imminent NHS Ten Year Forward Plan is expected to further develop devolution of priority-setting and spend, possibly through new integration with elected Mayors and other regional local authorities.

18 of the 42 ICBs are currently subject to NHSE’s investigation and intervention programme, meaning they are in financial turnaround monitoring with externally imposed oversight of their overspending.

Methodology

The interactive map uses colour-coded visuals to highlight performance against stated budget, ranking ICBs from significantly overspent through to significantly underspent.

By comparing average figures by 100,000 patient populations we have been able to more accurately compare ICBs. This is important given that ICBs vary so much in gross population with the largest being more than five times larger in population than the smallest.

ICB budgets are set upon a set of formulas that are based upon the number of people registered as patients at their host GP practices. A complex set of weighted capitation indexes then set their baseline budgets through detailed assessment of relative health need against primary care, secondary care and specialised services variables. This produces a highly varied per capita baseline position that needs to be take into account to understand spend performance.

Data map

Our five key takeaways

There are emerging patterns of comparisons that indicate a polarising trend across the ICBs linked to factors such as ICB inheritance of historic local trends, presence of major tertiary centres and performance of local acute hospitals.

The impact of the weighted capitation formulas is pivotal and provides a clear pattern of correlations with overall financial status.

However, there are notable exceptions to the above as Greater Manchester ICB, for example, is both highly capitated and significantly overspent.

Therefore, the percentage spend by an ICB on acute hospital services and the level of under/over spend of this category is a key differentiator in overall ICB performance, which reflects a fundamental tension in the NHS structural relationship of ICB to NHS FT/trust control.

Primary care prescribing costs are the greatest true variable cost to an ICB and a consistent category of overspending.

About WA Communications

WA Communications is an integrated strategic communications and public affairs consultancy. Our specialist health practice supports clients across a diverse range of diseases at the intersection of policy, government affairs and communications, to achieve their strategic objectives. 

If you would like to discuss how to best work in partnership with Integrated Care Systems, and our analysis of their comparable financial performance, contact Lloyd Tingley at lloydtingley@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

Broadsheets, Bluesky and buy-outs: How the communications landscape changed in 2024

This year marked some significant shifts in the way we engage with media.

While the vast majority (96%) of adults continue to consume news in some form, the way we engage with information is constantly changing, with a continued move away from ‘traditional’ media to online news, and the rise of alternative platforms such as Bluesky. At the same time, business decisions that would usually be confined to the boardroom – ownership, leadership and the need to make savings – have irreversibly shaped the future of UK journalism.

While these subtle changes in output and consumption don’t change behaviours overnight, they point to an ever-evolving media landscape that requires careful navigation to reach the right audience at the right time – while ensuring companies and brands don’t become the story.

Here we analyse the top media and social media trends of 2024, and what the new state of play means for businesses seeking to engage and influence in 2025.

Top media trends in 2024

1. Our love / hate relationship with newspapers

While readership figures of UK newspapers have been in freefall for several years, this year saw an interesting twist with all newspapers (at least those with publicly available data) read more on a Saturday than during the week. The i’s Saturday circulation, for example, has gone from being 16% lower than its weekday edition in 2014 to being 49% higher this year.

That readers no longer loyally flick through every edition was the driving force behind The Standard – once the commuter’s paper of choice – moving to a weekly model in September.

The changing fortunes of print press show that while consumption habits are changing, there will always be a demand for newspapers and the expert journalism and commentary they offer.

2. The importance of editorial control

With ongoing speculation around ownership of The Daily Telegraph and an ‘in principle’ deal to sell The Observer to Tortoise Media, this year has seen unprecedented changes in the traditional media landscape – resulting in journalist walk-outs, parliamentary debates and diplomatic pressure.

To understand the importance of editorial influence, we only need to look back on media endorsements around the General Election. While they may not carry the weight they once did, it was a remarkable – and telling – sign of confidence in Labour (or despair with the Tories) that led to the Financial Times, the Sun and the Sunday Times all backing Sir Keir Starmer for Prime Minister.

Although foreign ownership of UK newspapers is banned under the Enterprise Act, uncertainty around exemptions raises some interesting questions around editorial decisions and control that could significantly change the UK’s media landscape.

3. Rise of data and investigative journalism

Earlier this year, WA held a roundtable with leading national journalists about the shifting media landscape in the energy sector. Their verdict? “We’re getting nerdy, and our audience is coming with us.”

The rise of in-depth features and analysis is not just restricted to the energy sector or print press – most national outlets now have a dedicated data journalist or investigations team, and last year’s extensive cuts and restructuring across the BBC led to the creation of a new investigations unit.

Some of this year’s biggest news stories – the ongoing Post Office inquiry, profits of water companies, abuse in public settings – have been led by data or investigations teams, showing both the opportunity for businesses to promote their story, and the increased scrutiny that awaits if they get it wrong.

4. The shifting sands of social media

The emergence of Bluesky as one of the fastest growing social media platforms is perhaps the biggest surprise of 2024. Despite being around since 2019, the move away from an invitation-only business model earlier this year led to a flood of new users – approximately one million a day – as businesses and brands turned away from X (formerly Twitter).

This year has also consolidated the social media generational gap, with TikTok being the single biggest news source for 12 to 15 year olds.

Regardless of platform, with 56.2 million active social media users this year, it is clear that non-traditional platforms are more important than ever

5. Fighting fake news

The media storm surrounding the Duchess of Cambridge’s edited family pictures earlier this year speaks to the practical and ethical debate about integrity and reliability in media.

The rise and availability of AI generated tools like Chat GPT and photo editing tools – as well as the worrying trend of one-sided videos uploaded to social media shaping public opinion – have blurred the lines between typically ‘fake’ and ‘embellished’ news. While some institutions are tackling these issues head on, such as Full Fact and BBC Verify, limited resources and the sheer volume of content means this is not always possible.

Navigating the media landscape in 2025

So, with an unprecedented and impactful year behind us, what will next year bring? Here are our predictions for 2025, and our advice for businesses seeking to cut through:

Data, data, data: The rise of fake news and AI-generated content, combined with time-poor journalists and limited space in traditional media outlets, means stories need to work harder to cut through. Working with data or investigative journalists to craft features will allow the nuance and breadth of stories to come to life in a way that resonates with your audiences.

Rise of owned channels: Likewise, owned channels – social media, website, newsletters and direct marketing – will be more important for businesses. A clear corporate narrative and evidence points – coupled with audience insights and a targeted media and social media strategy – will enable your messages to reach the right people.

Be authentic: With an increase in person-centred content and CEOs speaking directly to audiences on social media, our expectations for the faces of businesses are changing. Spokespeople need to be authentic, engaging and above all media trained to articulately and memorably land their messages.

Multi-channel approach: The growing generational gap in how we consume news often means there is not a ‘one size fits all’ approach to communications. A multi-channel approach, bringing together media relations, digital, marketing and stakeholder engagement will usually get the best results.

Be prepared: As we have seen this year, the best media strategy in the world can easily be derailed by a rogue comment or leaked internal document. Having a crisis communications plan in place will help you prepare, respond – and crucially, recover – from any issue that may arise.

Contact rachelford@wacomms.co.uk if you would like to discuss your media strategy for 2025.

Share this content:

What does the future of healthcare look like under a Labour Government

Last month we were delighted to host a panel session exploring how Labour’s priorities for the NHS are translating to on-the-ground action. To tackle this question, we were joined by an expert panel including David Thorne, Transformation Director of Well Up North Primary Care Network (PCN), Mike Bell, Chair of South West London Integrated Care Board (ICB), and Ellen Rule, Deputy CEO of Gloucestershire ICB.

Guided by WA’s Head of Health, Dean Sowman, the discussion dived into the key challenges and opportunities in shaping the NHS 10-Year Plan, offering a thought-provoking vision for the road ahead.

Since the Labour Government took office, healthcare has been placed firmly in the spotlight. Health Secretary Wes Streeting’s description of the NHS as ‘broken’ and in need of repair has ignited a bold wave of review and reform. From the influential Lord Darzi review and the subsequent three transformative shifts in healthcare – from hospitals to community care, analogue to digital, and treatment to prevention – to the recent launch of ‘name and praise’ league tables and the upcoming NHS 10-Year Plan, the stage is set for significant change.

As decision-making shifts from NHS England to the Department of Health and Social Care, the UK is entering a new era in healthcare. In the short term, the focus is on decentralisation with ICBs gaining more autonomy and greater control over budgets, sparking tensions between national oversight and local autonomy.

Below we outline five key insights from the panel discussion, shining a light on what these changes could mean for the future of healthcare.

A Budget Focused on Stability, not Growth

The latest budget promises no return to austerity, but still falls short of the investment needed to rebuild public services that have been significantly reduced and strained. While the NHS welcomes a projected funding growth of 3.6–3.7% over the next two years, the system continues to grapple with the lingering consequences of underfunding.

On a positive note, this funding boost provides an opportunity to invest in NHS digital infrastructure, a vital step towards stabilising operations and creating a foundation for transformative change.

Productivity remains a key challenge, with NHS staff expected to improve efficiency despite limited increases in resources. The legacy of austerity continues to hold back progress, while the funds allocated for the elective recovery programme have fallen short of delivering anticipated improvements.

Panellists described the budget as a ‘stand still’ measure – enough to maintain current services but offering little scope for meaningful progress. They concluded that while the resolution of GP pay disputes is a step forward, critical issues such as GP contracts and National Insurance rises remain unresolved.

Building the Digital Foundation for NHS Innovation

Before AI can revolutionise healthcare, the NHS must first build a solid digital foundation by tackling basic issues, such as interoperability and shared patient records. Currently, fundamental issues concerning digital skills and infrastructure are apparent, for example healthcare professionals requiring keyboard skills training or multiple landlines needing to be installed.

The shift from analogue to digital is essential, but it’s about more than just adopting new technology. The NHS still lacks an integrated system of care and addressing the fragmentation and “tribalism” between NHS departments is critical to achieving any real progress.

To unlock the potential of AI, ICBs must first strengthen their collaborative efforts, with Chairpersons meeting regularly to align on strategy. AI could help triage patients more efficiently, ease pressure on ambulance services, and optimise primary care across regions.

Meanwhile, investing in ambient technology could boost GP productivity by up to 20%. By automating notetaking and coding during consultations, GPs could see a reduction in administrative burden andincreased capacity, while also preventing burnout. In turn, this could lead the way to a more sustainable workforce, with less bureaucracy, and ultimately improved patient care.

Rethinking Prevention and Productivity

Healthcare transformation should extend beyond focusing solely on economic metrics, incorporating prevention models that prioritise social value and patient outcomes.

Traditionally focused on hospitals and waiting times, the NHS must shift its focus to prevention and address the root causes of hospitalisations. However, the current emphasis on productivity often overlooks acuity – the complexity of modern patients – and fails to address the underlying causes of ill health.

A major challenge is the workforce imbalance. The NHS Long Term Workforce Plan calls for a 40% increase in hospital staff, but only a 5% increase in GPs, this disparity is unsustainable under Labour’s three healthcare reforms. To support the shift from hospital to community care, a fundamental reallocation of both funding and workforce planning is urgently needed.

PCNs are already preparing for this shift by planning further investment into preventative and primary care services and reducing investment in acute hospital care over the coming years. This means redirecting resources from hospitals to community care and integrating services across both sectors within single NHS trusts. By doing so, hospital admissions will be reduced and NHS pressures alleviated, while the focus will shift from output-driven metrics to quality patient care.

Integrating Responsibility: ICBs and the Future of Resource Management

ICBs already have significant autonomy, but the challenge lies in making collective responsibility for resources a reality and ensuring accountability. While some ICBs are integrating services effectively, there is a need for stability during this transformation period, with limited capacity to test new ways of working.

ICBs are already shifting their resources to integrate services at the neighbourhood level, which is key to managing the hospital-to-community shift within existing budgets. Meanwhile, PCN’s have the potential to better manage vulnerable patients through enhanced GP roles and personalised care plans, reducing pressures on ambulance services and hospital waiting lists.

The partnership model in general practice is crucial, and more local integration is vital to managing complex patient needs. There is also an opportunity to empower NHS trust providers to act as direct commissioners, easing the burden on ICBs and facilitating smoother transitions from hospital to community care.

The Opportunity of Specialised Commissioning Delegation

To truly transform healthcare, specialist care must be viewed within the context of the entire patient pathway leading into specialised services, which will ensure a more integrated healthcare system. This requires stronger collaboration between neighbouring ICBs to ensure seamless care.

As ICBs review specialised commissioning budgets, there is an opportunity to better integrate local authority and public health services. Since a single ICB’s footprint is too small for effective delegation, a pathway approach is essential.

The focus must be shifted from costly end-of-pathway interventions to prioritising the full patient journey, and shifting care from acute settings into community and primary care.

Share this content:

On a mission: what did we learn from the Clean Power Action Plan?

Is it achievable to secure a clean power system by 2030? And even if it’s not achievable is it a helpful target to have in place to spur on the right decisions? That’s a question that divides policymakers and the energy industry.

Today the government sought to answer it by setting out their Clean Power Action Plan, following recent advice from the National Energy System Operator (NESO). So, what did we learn?

More of an outline of a plan than a detailed blueprint

This is a welcome plan that provides some important clarity on the government’s direction of thinking, developed by a new team in just a couple of months. However, it’s important to recognise that it doesn’t provide all the answers, and effectively sets out the crucial building blocks to get to clean power rather than a detailed blueprint.

This is reflected by the lack of a definitive ‘pathway’ – signaled by Head of 2030 Mission Control, Chris Stark in advance – and instead setting out capacity ranges for different technologies. Government – rightly – wants to retain flexibility for commercial negotiation and upcoming auction rounds.

Across many of the seven areas set out in the Action Plan, there were a series of consultations and policy processes confirmed – some newly announced, others already in train – from reforming the CfD auction process for renewables to developing a Low Carbon Flexibility Roadmap in 2025.

Decisions in 2025 will determine how on-track this plan remains

The energy industry likes to coin every year as a critical year for reaching net zero. But it’s not unreasonable to argue that 2025 presents a cross-roads. A number of expected decisions next year will determine the extent to which achieving Clean Power by 2030 is feasible.

As the Action Plan outlines, a bumper renewables auction is essential to stand any chance of meeting offshore wind targets. Many of the reforms announced today will support efforts to maximise procurement of future capacity. But with the Spending Review being delayed and continued constraints on public spending, ensuring the Treasury are fully aligned with this ambition will be the key.

On the other side, today’s Action Plan does provide some clarity over a timeline on market reform. The investment risk that generators fear has been well articulated. This decision will provide clarity on whether the government’s ambition is to do everything in their power to meet 2030 Clean Power or to create a perfect market, regardless of the implications this may have.

Genuine questions over affordability remain

Ministers have championed the shift to Clean Power as bringing down bills for consumers. Today’s Action Plan however, notably doesn’t provide conclusive clarity on the costs to reach Clean Power by 2030, and how they compare to meeting it at a different pace. NESO did consider this but have faced questions – including relentless scrutiny from the Opposition – over the assumptions they have used.

Today’s Plan doesn’t answer them and expect to see this challenge increase into the new year. Primarily this is a political challenge for Labour. But it also poses questions for industry, who will face continued questions about the cost of the transition, and who carries this.

Fundamentally, scepticism over the affordability of the transition raises questions over its sustainability and the public buy-in for the shift to clean power. The experience from the US shows that the electorate will judge a government on how they feel their living standards have changed during the political term.

Job numbers from socio-economic reports are helpful but on their own they are not enough: the public needs to genuinely see prosperity in their communities and the number on their energy bill coming down.

The focus on power decarbonisation by 2030 is absorbing attention, but it’s not the only game in town

The Action Plan reflects the political, policy, regulatory and industry focus on getting to 2030. The plan to prioritise planning consenting and grid connections for 2030 projects reflects this. If your project is identified as being able to contribute to 2030 you are in an incredibly strong position, if it isn’t you will face an uphill battle.

This presents challenges for two different groups within the energy market. Firstly, developers and projects whose projects and technologies are not going to play a role in this decade, but will be essential beyond that. That includes some CCS projects as well as emerging technologies, particularly in the nuclear field. Secondly, those organisations in the energy sector whose solutions are aimed at other parts of the market, whether that’s decarbonising heat, industry, or supplying power to consumers.

Both face a similar – and real – challenge. The focus of the government machine is on meeting the Mission, meaning that things that sit beyond this risk getting less attention or being deprioritised in policy processes. The welcome news is that there is policy action on the horizon that many of these organisations need to engage in, for example the upcoming Warm Homes Plan.

It also reiterates the need for impactful, engaging campaigning – showing off innovation, leaning into real people – to create excitement about what can come next, and substantial, evidenced thinking to show the critical decision points that will enable this.

Share this content:

The role of emotion in health communication

For years, health communication has been rooted in science-first messaging. While scientific accuracy is crucial, it often fails to resonate with people on a human level. Facts and figures alone cannot compete with the emotional appeal of misinformation, as demonstrated by movements like anti-vaccine campaigns. These groups leverage emotional narratives that tap into fears, values, and personal experiences. To counteract this, we need to be braver in the way we communicate.

Science alone cannot compete with emotion. Just like traditional media cannot compete with social when it comes to reaching audiences. The healthcare system and healthcare companies need to realise this and adapt. Add emotion to the way we communicate, whilst using the right channel and length of content.

At WA Health’s panel event that I chaired last week with Victoria Macdonald (Health and Science Editor at Channel 4), Dr Philippa Kaye (GP, Author and Media Medic), and Dr Matt Inada-Kim (National Clinical Director for Infection, Antimicrobial Resistance and Deterioration, NHS England), we discussed how we can improve our communications to help people to reach better informed health decisions.

Here are five take homes for all of us to consider as we start our next project or campaign.

1. Shifting from Science-plus-Emotion to Emotion-plus-Science: The traditional model of “science first, then emotion” has its limitations. Instead, starting with an emotional appeal and following with accessible science ensures that the audience is engaged and receptive. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists and clinicians who shared their personal experiences alongside research findings saw greater public engagement.

2. Creating Emotional Resonance: Health is deeply personal, and the humanity of those delivering the messages should shine through. Doctors and scientists, often trained to detach from emotions, can connect more effectively by sharing their own experiences and advice as fellow human beings. Emotional communication fosters connection. For example, a doctor visiting their community hub, mosque, church, to share stories about the real-world impact of health decisions creates a sense of trust and understanding. This approach is far more effective than simply presenting statistics. People need to feel the relevance of health information in their own lives. Health communicators need to adopt platforms and formats that align with public habits. This includes using relatable stories and addressing people in their language, both literally and culturally.

3. Empowering Patients to Be Good Citizens: Clear, honest communication about what public health really means is essential. People must understand not only what actions they should take but also why they matter. Empowerment goes beyond providing knowledge—it’s about fostering behaviours that benefit individuals and society alike.

4. Building a New Social Contract: There is a growing need to reframe the public’s relationship with health systems and pharmaceutical companies and pharma companies have a critical role to play. Moving away from commercially driven narratives, they can focus on providing evidence-based, patient-friendly information. Aligning their messaging with public health goals helps build trust and encourages informed decision-making. For example, women’s health initiatives have shown the value of transparent communication and collaboration in driving change. Instead of focusing solely on profits or innovation, these entities must demonstrate their commitment to societal welfare. Transparency about drug costs, faster licensing processes, and more inclusive dialogues can help rebuild trust and collaboration.

5. Better Leveraging of Social Media: Social media platforms offer unparalleled opportunities for health communication. During the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers and clinicians used platforms like X (Twitter) to rapidly share information. This approach helped demystify science and brought expert voices directly to the public. However, as the urgency of the pandemic fades, we risk reverting to old habits. Making communications open and accessible should be a priority, utilising all platforms relevant to the audiences you want to reach.

Effective health communication is not just about delivering information; it’s about inspiring change. By leading with emotion and working together across sectors, we can empower people to make better health decisions. This requires bravery, innovation, and a commitment to inclusivity and responsible risk.

At WA health, we work at the centre of health change. Making sure all audiences; government, health systems, clinicians and patients can come together to improve the health of individuals and society.

Get in touch, if you want to learn more about what we do.

Share this content:

From roadmap to reality, unpacking the UK’s National Payments Vision

A UK national payments vision has been long in the making. Since the (now abolished) Payments Council set out its initial National Payments Roadmap back in 2013, regulators, policymakers and industry have pushed for progress on making the UK a global leader in payments. Since then, a series of developments – including the establishment of the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR), the Payment Strategy Forum and latterly the Garner Future of Payments Review – have marked the slow march towards a clear, north star direction for the UK payments ecosystem.

The recently released National Payments Vision policy paper therefore marks a landmark move, setting out the new Labour Government’s ambition for the sector and pegging progress to its number one mission: economic growth.

Whilst this is welcome progress for policy makers and industry alike, the Vision sets out a number of further developments needed to fully drive momentum and swift progress on key actions – from regulatory reform to cross-sector collaboration – is needed to head off any risk that the UK falls behind international competition.

This long read sets out the ambitions of the Vision, the key reforms it proposes to take forward, and what these mean for the sector as the next phase of work to make the UK a global leader in payments commences.

Labour’s National Payments Vision: what it sets out to achieve

The Labour Government has been clear – both pre-and-post election – that the UK’s financial services sector has a significant role to play in achieving its mission with a particular focus on how, as a sector, it can support growth, innovation and global competitiveness. The party has set out an ambitious plan for this “crown jewel” sector which, at its heart, is underpinned by a drive towards a less burdensome regulatory landscape and firm evidence of consumer outcomes.

Taken alongside the Garner Review commissioned by the previous government in 2023, which identified lack of investment, burdensome regulation and pace of development as barriers to unlock, the National Payments Vision therefore contains few surprises.

Broadly, the Government’s Vision ambitions can be distilled into four key areas:

1. A clear regulatory framework for the payments sector: In line with calls from industry that the regulatory burden on payments firms needs to be addressed and modernised – and the Labour Government’s own commitment to revisit the regulatory landscape in their Financing Growth manifesto last year – the Vision advocates for a regulatory environment that is clear, predictable, proportionate and, critically, coordinated across the multitude of regulators overseeing the sector.
2. Building a resilient and innovative infrastructure: Recognising the need for significant investment in the UK’s retail payments infrastructure, and with one eye on how to embed emerging payments methodologies such as Account to Account in the UK ecosystem, the Vision calls for an agile and flexible approach to upgrades to the Faster Payments System.
3. Increasing competition and innovation: Key to the Vision is an ambition to expand and diversify the UK’s payments ecosystem, with consumer and business choice front and centre in the aim to drive innovation and increase competition in the market, both domestically and globally. To drive competition, the Vision emphasises the need for the UK to be a global leader in payments innovation, rooted in clear regulatory parameters, benefit to all users and reflective of increasingly diverse consumer and business needs.
4. Putting consumer protection front and centre: Reflecting the Labour Government’s inherent interest in consumer protection, the Vision highlights the critical importance of both payments system integrity and protections for users. This is particularly key for cross-border payments and international regulatory operability, where the Government is keen to walk the line on global leadership without compromising consumer protection or financial stability

Key regulatory and policy changes being proposed

To support this ambitious vision, it sets out a series of proposed reforms and key next steps which will dominate the Government’s work in this area for the next few years.

Regulatory frameworks and oversight

Enhanced coordination between the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) to avoid regulatory overlap and streamline processes, building on the Memorandum of Understanding framework already in place.
The FCA is designated as the sole regulator for Open Banking, streamlining oversight and fostering innovation in account-to-account payments, with the Joint Regulatory Oversight Committee (JROC) to be wound down at the earliest opportunity.
The FCA and the PSR are tasked with improving coordination to address regulatory congestion, ensuring a more cohesive approach to payments regulation.

Infrastructure upgrades

Comprehensive upgrades to the UK’s Faster Payments System (FPS) to improve resilience, functionality, and scalability.

Emphasis on integrating distributed ledger technologies (DLT) and ISO 20022 messaging standards for better interoperability and efficiency.
Establishment of a new Payments Vision Delivery Committee to oversee infrastructure modernization and evaluate long-term infrastructure needs. The Committee will work with the Bank of England (BoE) and the PSR to:
- - clarify upgrades to FPS and assess longer-term requirements
  - consider appropriate funding and governance arrangements needed to deliver this (including proposals to reform Pay.UK)

Innovation & competition

Encouraging innovation within a clear regulatory framework to ensure new payment solutions cater to diverse consumer and business needs.
Adoption of digital ID framework being introduced under the Data (use and access) Bill across the financial services sector once established.
The development of seamless account-to-account payment methods, providing consumers and businesses with more choices and fostering competition among payment service providers
Continuation of the BoE work to establish a Central Band Digital Currency, with primary legislation promised at the point of establishment.
Policies to facilitate the adoption of cutting-edge technologies, such as programmable payments and real-time settlements.
Incentivising private investment in payment services to maintain a competitive and dynamic ecosystem.

Strengthened consumer protection

Measures to enhance fraud prevention, including improved data sharing among financial institutions and the implementation of robust consumer protection standards.
Measures to improve cross-border payments without compromising financial stability or user protections.
Revocation of the payments authentication regulations relating to SCA in the Payment Services Regulations 2017, with the FCA responsible for incorporating successful implementation of Strong Customer Authentication (SCA) requirements in to the Handbook.
Further collaboration between the technology and communications sector and the financial services sector on addressing fraud upstream.

What comes next?

Key to the National Payments Vision is the establishment of a new Payments Vision Delivery Committee which will sit at the heart of future work on this issue.

Made up of representatives from HM Treasury, the FCA, PSR and BoE, the Committee will oversee implementation of the Vision and act as the central point of engagement for industry, with three core objectives:

Regulatory Alignment: Ensure that regulatory activities from the key regulators – the FCA, PSR and BoE – align with the objectives and ambitions of the National Payments Vision.
Coordination: Facilitate coordination among the BoE, the FCA, and the PSR to manage the overall regulatory burden and promote innovation.
Prioritisation: Prove a steer on prioritising initiatives across the payments landscape.

To build on this, the new Committee will establish a Vision Engagement Group to inform and support its work. Membership of this engagement group will be hard fought within the sector and the application process is not yet clear.

What does this all mean for the sector?

Within all the rhetoric, one thing is clear. The publication of the National Payments Vision represents an attempt by an incoming government to capitalise on a fast-moving and high potential sector of the market, and its clear ambition to be “a trusted, world leading payments ecosystem delivered on next generation technology, where consumers and businesses have a choice of payment methods to meet their needs”.

However, whilst it marks the conclusion of the latest round of consultation and industry input into what the UK can achieve in this space and what needs to be reformed, it also marks the start of a series of working groups, committees and further consultations which will shape the long-term policy and regulatory landscape for businesses in the payments sector.

There is much work left to do – from streamlining the regulatory rule book to shifting responsibility for key areas between the regulators themselves – and there are a number of areas to watch:

Key to the development of the National Payments Vision to date has been the extensive consultation with industry. The newly established Vision Engagement Group will be a central means for continuing this, but there is limited clarity on scale or membership at this stage. Involvement in the group will be hard-fought and firms should continue to seek other ways to engage and inform policy makers, on top of their regulatory engagement.
This Vision has drawn on significant input to reach its conclusions and represents several years of work. However, beyond the key bodies awarded responsibility for delivery there is still a knowledge gap amongst MPs and consumers over the potential of the sector and what it can deliver. Both groups will be fundamental advocates for pace of progress and any future reforms needed and making this complicated sector simpler will be key to communicating to them.
Lastly, progress on some of the ambitions set out here has been slow in the making – not least on Open Banking and the establishment of a digital pound. Proof of the Government’s commitment to this Vision and the potential it aims to unlock will be evidenced by action – something firms will be eagerly looking for as a new year commences and the legislative timetable starts to take shape.

What are your views on the National Payment Vision and what it means for the next phase of payments in the UK?

Get in touch with the WA Communications Financial and Professional Services team to discuss.

Tom Frackowiak, Senior Partner – tomfrackowiak@wacomms.co.uk

Natasha Egan-Sjodin, Senior Director – natashaegan-sjodin@wacomms.co.uk

Terri Garratt, Account Director – terrigarratt@Wacomms.co.uk

Share this content:

The need for pharma to socially connect in today’s world is greater than ever

Social connection is deep routed in our biological make up as human beings. It has been well studied and is a basic need – as important as food, water and shelter.

At its most basic level, social connection is about building a relationship that benefits all parties. A place to communicate, connect and co-operate. A give and take approach to supporting each other to be better.

As I left the annual Pharma and Healthcare Communications and Reputation Conference yesterday, where much was discussed about trust and how to connect, I couldn’t help but think how we are far from being good at socially connecting with our audiences. Whether that be government, health system leads, healthcare professionals, patients or the public.

The work our industry does is groundbreaking, at the cutting edge of innovation, and delivered by some of the smartest minds on the planet. I could not be prouder of what the industry achieves and how mind blowing some of the work is. When you look around you, nearly all the people you see will have been impacted positively by the work the pharmaceutical industry does. I only have to look in the mirror to know that, without pharma, I might not be here. And I’m a healthy 41-year-old. However unfortunately, most people won’t realise the role pharma has played in keeping them healthy.

And therein lies the problem.

The way pharma tries to connect with people is complex and multi-faceted. I believe we struggle to reach people and communicate with them in a way that resonates. We over complicate, we hide behind compliance, and as one of the panel members at the event alluded to, we flip flop from one priority to the next, which dilutes and devalues the brands’ of companies and the industry.

Now is the time to be proud of what we do and work towards being better recognised by all audiences for the positive change we contribute to.

I’m not naive to the importance of commercial goals or priorities, but when we only engage with audiences through this lens, it stops us truly understanding where common ground between us and our audiences is. This is because our priorities aren’t necessarily our audiences’. I’d argue that if we can start to focus on ensuring we succeed in this common ground, creating primary goals and objectives aligned to our audiences (whether it be helping HCPs diagnose earlier, patients be more in control of their health, or health systems understand long term savings), our commercial goals will be achieved and our audiences will go on the journey with us.

Some of you reading this may well be shouting at the screen saying we do that. I would agree with you in part. My worry is the way we communicate and talk about these elements is done so through a corporate and commercial lens, with jargon and over complication. And that doesn’t resonate with our audiences.

The presentations throughout the day showed that we have the data, skillset and drive to want to connect. We now must use all this information and tell a consistent story that links us together with our audiences.

We’ve all been in a discussion with a friend or colleague where we are trying to make the same point but saying it differently, now is the time to try and make the same point in the same way as our audiences. It’s what other industries have been doing successfully for years, including highly regulated sectors.

We’ve got to take responsible risk – making sure we are factual but also talk the talk of others, not just pharma jargon. Words matter. In a world of misinformation, we need to have an opinion and people need to hear it or the worrying trend of mistrust of our industry and the incredible medicines we innovate will continue to trend downwards.

When we communicate effectively, we create an environment where open dialogue can flourish, ideas can be shared freely, and understanding can be fostered.

If we can get back to that basic need of social connection and adapt the way we communicate, we all win.

At WA health, we work at the centre of health change. Making sure all audiences; government, health systems, clinicians and patients can come together to improve the health of individuals and society.

Get in touch, if you want to learn more about what we do.

Share this content:

Louise Haigh: a Transport Secretary committed to “moving fast and fixing things”

Transport Secretary Louise Haigh was in the limelight over the last week – with her first appearance in front of the Transport Select Committee, laying the groundwork for her department’s role as a critical enabler of the mission-led government; and a rare appearance on the weekend broadcast round, joining Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg.

While Haigh has had a relatively low-level public presence to date, she presides over some of this term’s biggest Bills, including legislation to bring the railways back into public ownership, to create Great British Railways (GBR) and to give local leaders greater powers over their bus services.

Performance-wise, in the Select Committee appearance, Haigh remained focused and on message in what can be a high-pressure environment.

Although the Labour heavy make-up of Select Committees suggests Secretaries of State can expect softer interrogation tactics, at least for their opening evidence sessions – the Committee itself is made up of newcomers, with exception of the Chair Ruth Cadbury, who has served on the Committee for many years.

Her communication was less-sure-footed in conversation with Laura Kuenssberg.

While she was clear on the message she wanted to deliver (that every recent decision, from settling the industrial action on the railways, to retaining but increasing the bus fare cap, was aimed at delivering a reliable service), a number of her off-the-cuff responses may come back to haunt her – including the quotable line, while noting that GBR will be an arms-length body, that “I have no experience running a rail service”. Her criticism of DP World overshadowing the government’s recent Investment Summit got another minute of prime airtime, restricting her opportunity to focus on policy changes.

Some of our key takeaways from these two recent appearances include:

Reliability is key

Throughout the Transport Secretary’s conversation with Laura Kuenssberg’s, policy decisions were framed consistently in terms of one outcome – the reliability and frequency of services.

Haigh was clear on her view that ending rail industrial disputes has improved reliability and reduced cancellations that was undermining confidence in the network; while the raised-but-retained £3 bus cap ensured that rural services in particular were viable, and the subsidy protected a regular service throughout the day.

Public ownership is not the “silver bullet” of rail reform

With three pieces of rail legislation set to be introduced to Parliament this term, rail took centre stage in the Select Committee session. Perhaps the most surprising moment was Haigh’s announcement of expected timings for the Railways Bill, which is responsible for enshrining GBR, and due to be laid next summer.

Haigh warned not to underestimate the scale of the reform challenge, and the Railways Bill will be much more substantive than the “very simple” Public Ownership Bill to give the Transport Secretary powers to bring franchises into public ownership. A consultation will be launched shortly, and progress is already underway through the creation of Shadow GBR. Haigh told the Committee that GBR could be operational at the end of 2026 at the earliest.

When pushed on the benefits of public ownership by Laura Kuenssberg – who noted that existing public operators such as Northern continue to face significant challenges – Haigh highlighted the importance she attached to GBR as an arms-length operator managing an integrated track and train network. The situation that had developed since the Covid pandemic, where the DfT regularly intervenes on a range of issues across the network, while also not having full strategic control, was not regarded as the poster child for public control.

Local leaders are central to the government’s vision for public transport

The remit of devolved mayors and local leaders will be bolstered under the government’s plans for bus and rail. On rail, devolved leaders can expect a statutory role as part of GBR, to give them accountability and ensure decisions are made as close to the ground as possible.

On bus, the government will give control to and upskill local authorities to effectively plan and deliver integrated networks to meet the needs of communities.

Haigh reflected on the lessons learned from Greater Manchester’s implementation of the Bee Network, calling it “ridiculous” that it took six years to bring a single bus under public control. Her comment to Laura Kuenssberg that “no one should be buying three separate bus tickets … you’d buy a travel-card”, potentially overlooking the impact of cross-border or cross-operator journeys, hints that technological solutions to consumer problems are welcome.

The Better Buses Bill will dramatically speed up the franchising process, Haigh hopes down to as little as two years, streamlining the auditing process and removing some of the operator’s ability to challenge decisions.

£1bn of subsidy to retain the bus fare cap will be welcomed by local government – although Laura Kuenssberg’s challenge that the 50% rise in the fare cap will see many paying significantly more to get to work emphasises a communications challenge both the government and operators will face, as passengers struggle to square such a large infusion of funds with simultaneously rising prices.

Micromobility will have its moment, but not in the immediate future

Haigh was probed during the Committee session on the e-scooter trails taking place across the country and asked what the data shows and whether she intends to bring forward legislation to regulate the use of e-scooters. Haigh said there wasn’t time in this Parliamentary session to introduce this yet, but confirmed the department will look to legislate as it’s clearly required.

She stated that expressions of interest for more trials are out now and there has been significant interest because e-scooters can be an “effective part” of the network. However, issues around parking and street clutter need addressing through regulation.

Road safety is a priority across government

Road policy announcements under this government so far have largely focused on maintenance with increasing funding in the Budget to fix more potholes, with the decision to freeze fuel duty also receiving a welcome mention in Kuenssberg’s introduction to Haigh.

In front of the Committee, Haigh reflected on recent meetings she and the Future of Roads Minister Lilian Greenwood have held with road safety campaigners. The first road safety strategy in over a decade is currently underway, which Haigh emphasised should be cross-departmental, potentially with involvement from the Department for Education and Ministry of Justice. She warned that road accidents have become normalised and treated as if they are a “natural accident”, but if similar numbers of people being killed happened in any other way it would be treated as a pandemic.

Share this content:

Mansion House 2024: Pioneering a new era for UK investment

On Thursday 14 November, Rachel Reeves delivered her first Mansion House speech as Chancellor of the Exchequer, a historic moment as the first woman to hold this position. Declaring that regulation had “gone too far” after the 2008 banking crash, Reeves revealed her bold vision for modernising the UK financial services sector and unlocking a new era of investment.

Leveraging Financial Services for Economic Growth

As promised in Labour’s Financing Growth Report, and following in the footsteps of former Chancellor Jeremy Hunt, Reeves’ speech focused heavily on pension reform. Dominating press coverage is the Chancellor’s plans to consolidate the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) into 8 larger entities (pools), designed to create £500 billion “megafunds” by 2030.

The idea of consolidating LGPS pensions is not a new one, with previous government action to pool the assets of local pension funds, aimed at addressing perceived inefficiencies and unlocking opportunities for larger-scale investments. The Chancellor believes ‘fragmentation’ in the system – 86 administering authorities managing funds independently – is a barrier to maximising returns. However, this concept is not without its critics, some arguing these further reforms are unnecessary, and Reeves will need to carefully balance the benefits of scale with safeguards to ensure that the interests of local government employers and funds are not sidelined.

Reeves’ Mansion House reform package also continues to address perceived inefficiencies in the defined contribution (DC) sector. Again, the Chancellor believes that maximising returns and ensuring there is enough investment risk taken at the right time to generate long-term growth is fundamental to the effectiveness of these schemes. To tackle this the Government will consult on establishing minimum size requirements for DC pension funds.

The Chancellor also used Mansion House as an opportunity to build on former government proposals around green finance, publishing the much-delayed consultation of a UK Green Taxonomy and legislating to regulate ESG rating providers. These proposals, alongside expanding the Bank of England’s remit to include net-zero objectives, highlights Labour’s mission led approach to government that sustainable finance is not only a climate priority – it is also a driver of long-term economic stability and growth.

Unlocking innovation for growth

The announcement of the long overdue National Payments Vision is an important moment for the UK’s payment infrastructure. The lack of a cohesive strategy in digital finance until now has limited the UK’s ability to compete globally in this space. The devil will, of course, be in the detail, but the publication of the vision is a positive sign for the industry and the City more widely. With digital innovation laying at the heart of a number of these reforms, there is space for industry to work alongside Government to ensure the strategy’s collaborative implementation.

A framework for confidence and growth

The Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy also announced by Reeves reflects the Government’s efforts to ensure long-term stability while seizing growth opportunities. The strategy prioritizes five key areas—FinTech, sustainable finance, asset management, (re)insurance, and capital markets—which government believes build on the UK’s historic strengths and attempt to position the country, as a global leader in emerging fields like green finance.

This initiative underscores the Government’s path of EU ‘reset’ and upholding the special relationship with the US. This is a delicate path to tread, and success will depend on whether the vision can balance innovation with regulatory clarity and address the need for long-term investor confidence. The strategy sits alongside a number of modernisation proposals the Chancellor set out, including instructing the key regulators to prioritise growth within their mandates.

Conclusion

Reeves’ speech comes at a pivotal time for the Government, following the mixed reception to the recent Autumn Budget. Balancing these ambitious reforms with the practicalities of implementation will be critical, and their success hinges on collaboration with industry and clear guidance from regulators. Whilst the Opposition has raised concerns that the reforms will be undermined by the Chancellor’s Budget, Reeves’ focus on investment, reform and stability is an obvious attempt to lay the groundwork for a resilient, competitive and sustainable financial ecosystem.

The proposals’ objectives are to maintain the UK’s status as a global financial hub, and the financial services sector should seek to proactivity engage as consultations unfold and strategies take shape.

Share this content:

A North Star for Payments: What’s needed from the UK National Payments Vision

The long-discussed and widely trailed National Payments Vision will have significant implications for the UK Financial Services sector. Successive governments have promised a streamlined rule book and an overarching ambition to supercharge growth and innovation in the sector.

Today, WA Communications hosted a roundtable with voices from across the payments and fintech ecosystem to discuss what industry wants to see from the forthcoming Vision as speculation grows that an announcement is imminent.

Joined by Financial Times’ Retail Banking and Fintech Reporter Akila Quinio, Innovate Finance’s Chief Strategy Officer Adam Jackson, global payment firm Block’s Head of Public Policy, Iana Vidal, Senior Director Natasha Egan-Sjodin sets out her key takeaways from the discussion:

An ambitious vision for the sector is welcome, but this needs to be matched by a firm plan of action and direction for politicians, industry and the regulator to align behind and ensure progress is swift.

In inheriting the work done on this to date, there is an opportunity for the Labour Government to immediately progress technical changes which could propel the UK payments landscape and offer to consumers; from Account to Account payments, Variable Recurring Payments and Strong Customer Authentication and everything in between, there is “low-hanging fruit” everyone can get behind to maintain momentum and diversify the UK offer.

Pressure is rising on the National Payments Vision to provide a roadmap for the UK to follow in order to be a global leader in the payments ecosystem following political and regulatory changes in key competitor markers.

With one eye on the US in particular, the incoming Trump administration’s protectionist tendencies presents a risk for UK retention of start up and scale up brands – some of our most beloved exports – and our competitive edge of innovation and growth. To remain globally competitive, addressing the regulatory and compliance burden on firms will be key.

To remain competitive, the National Payments Vision needs to take a cross-sector view to progressing the UK market and consumer offer, considering the role of tech, access to data and interoperability with other markets to expand the availability of products.

Any work now taken forward within the National Payments Vision needs to sit alongside and work in harmony with changes already underway in the UK and in other markets. This includes JROC’s progress on open banking and open finance implementation, development of a UK digital ID framework and live regulator-owned workstreams on CBDCs, blockchain and digital assets.

Ownership of the National Payment Vision, the ambitions it will achieve and the clear delivery roadmap needed to get there still needs to be clarified and political support is critical.

Whether with the regulator, at home in HM Treasury or with the Bank of England there are a number of interested parties at play and collaboration and cooperation is key. However, a key question remaining is where ownership of the Vision and its ambitions will lie, and how this impacts what it will set out to achieve.

Share this content:

A Trump victory: What does this mean for the UK and beyond?

Chair of the WA Advisory Board and Former Permanent Secretary Sir Philip Rutnam, and Senior Political Advisor and Former Labour Special Advisor Jennifer Gerber, give their take on the impact of a second Trump presidency.

What does a Trump victory mean for the Government in the UK?

It’s an understatement to say there is no love lost between Labour and Trump’s MAGA Republican party.

The new Leader of the Conservative Party wasted no time challenging the PM on his Foreign Secretary’s previous comments about Trump (describing the now President-Elect as a “profound threat to the international order” and a “neo-Nazi sympathising sociopath”). There is speculation about David Lammy’s future, though it’s unlikely any move will happen independently of a wider future reshuffle.

We can also expect Trump to remember the help Labour gave Kamala Harris, and to want to extract something from Starmer early in their relationship.

But the UK will have to build a relationship with the new administration, however appalled its MPs and Mayor of London are by this.

The good news is we have good machinery in Washington and London that will be all over helping us to adapt. Unlike 2016 lots of scenario planning has been done. The key thing will be getting time with likely nominees for all the senior posts in Trump’s Cabinet and White House, and building links in Congress. The latter is easier because at least we know who they are. Expect Trump to take a long time making his own appointments, even if it is much slicker than last time. Britain also still has friends throughout the Republican Party, particularly on the security side.

It also appears that a political appointee for US Ambassador is off the cards and Peter Mandelson and David Miliband can stand down.

The real issue is whether the Government here is remotely ready for the big challenges that go with a Trump victory?

The challenge now and in the years ahead is huge – both in terms of domestic repercussions, on our place internationally and on our role in Europe – including the likelihood of more spending on defence, risks to the economy (through tariffs and pressure on UK Corporation Tax rates), and potentially being sidelined in discussions to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

The UK, bruised and isolated after Brexit will now have to show that it still has the ability to reach out beyond its shores and build strong relationships with those countries in Europe committed to defending democracy and the rule of law.

It will have to face up to the reality of increased NATO and defence funding and an emboldened Putin which will mean supporting those multilateral institutions we need to push back against Russian aggression.

Europe cannot take for granted US military support and a conversation with the British public about what this means will be uncomfortable but necessary.

What happens next in DC?

People and politics. Presidents make 4,000 political appointments to the executive branch, of which 1300 need Senate confirmation. (A comparison in the UK would be everyone in the Civil Service down to DG, some Directors, all Ambassadors, plus the heads of public bodies and regulators.)

Cue delay and wheel-spin, even in the best run administration. The really key appointments – Treasury Secretary, Secretary of State, AG, USTR, National Security Adviser, etc – are all massive calls which are already big media stories. Expect Trump to negotiate with multiple candidates.

But in terms of getting things done, it can be the second or third level person that is critical for, say, new regulation on aviation security or action on money laundering. That can take months. Follow what is happening in Congress too. Trump is now incredibly powerful in the Republican Party, but there is huge scope to influence the trajectory of policy by building relations quickly with Committee members, new Congressmen and Senators.

So what does Trump mean for the economy?

We’re already seeing the markets’ take. The US already has a large fiscal deficit, about 7% of GDP (compared to 4% in the UK), and Trump’s tax cuts could add heavily to this unless he cuts spending heavily (he hasn’t promised that). Fiscal loosening will be matched by higher interest rates and so a higher dollar.

Growth may be higher too but the big risk there is tariffs. He’s threatened 60% on Chinese goods and 10% on everyone else. No doubt there’ll be a negotiation but that in itself will create volatility. If implemented in full, US GDP could fall by 1.5%.

Mexico would be worst affected, but the UK would be very exposed as a small open economy: GDP growth down by 1% and price levels up 2-3% over a couple of years. That would count as an economic shock, meaning higher interest rates and more public spending cuts or tax rises to bring our deficit back under control.

In the long term, the really big issue is whether the markets will keep financing the US deficit with a low risk premium. If that ever changes everything in the world economy will change. Meanwhile, China will keep looking for ways to challenge US dominance, and that means the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

What about sector impacts?

Trump will cut spending on green energy, boost production of fossil fuels, and pull the US out of The Paris Agreement. Expect that to mean lower oil and gas prices, and a tougher time for some renewable projects globally.

However, this is good news for the aviation, oil and gas sectors, and those auto manufacturers who have been slow to shift to EVs. It is also good for some measures of US and global growth, however, not enough to stop the wider shift to renewables now there’s been a transformation in costs, and the scale of investment and innovation.

Expect China to use the opportunity to further strengthen its lead in technology and position in climate politics.

Politically, Trump has given a boost to populism everywhere.

Finally, Labour strategists will be asking themselves what they can learn from the Democrats failure – especially in how Labour reaches out to disillusioned voters and those who supported Reform, key to Labour securing a second election victory in 5 years time.

Share this content:

Budget Analysis

Rachel Reeves has delivered the first Budget of this Labour Government to fix the UK’s foundations and deliver on the promise of change.

The Budget follows months of warnings from the Chancellor and Prime Minister that “difficult decisions” will be necessary to embrace the harsh light of fiscal reality and address the £22 billion black hole, which Rachel Reeves has claimed was left by the previous administration. While the Government’s intention is to protect ‘working people’, decisions such as the scrapping of winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners and increasing the cap on single bus fares means those on the lowest incomes will also be impacted.

Much of the pre-Budget debate has centered on the Government’s decision to increase Employer National Insurance Contributions (NICs). They have faced criticism as to whether this is an outright breach of their pre-election pledge not to increase taxes on working people, or a technical loophole that keeps them within the margins of the manifesto. Either way, this represents the Budget’s largest tax rise and will generate more than £20bn which the Chancellor hopes will go some way towards changing the outlook for public services.

Ultimately, the stakes for business are high in this Budget. Some commentators have argued the combination of increasing Employer NIC contributions and the National Living Wage, as well as legislative measures such as the Employment Rights Bill, could all stifle the pro-growth agenda just weeks after the landmark International Investment Summit. Criticism has been levied at Government from a range of industries who warn these measures will squeeze smaller and medium-sized businesses and result in fewer jobs at a time when Government is striving to dramatically increase economic participation.

The changes announced today will raise taxes by £40 billion. Reeves’ central message to business is to pick up the bill now in return for a steadier operating environment in the long-term.

To find out more about what today’s announcements mean for your sector, and how your organisation can shape the discussion, get in touch at contact@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

Fiscal frameworks and macro-politics – the insider view on delivering a budget

WA’s Senior Advisors draw on their experience at the heart of Whitehall — reflecting perspectives as a special adviser in the Treasury and Department of Health, and senior Treasury civil servant, and Permanent Secretary in the Department for Business, and Department for Transport.

Sir Philip Rutnam, Chair of WA’s Advisory Board and former Whitehall Permanent Secretary

Budgets always matter. The British state raises and spends £1.2 trillion a year – £7 million just in the time it takes you to read this blog – so the way it does that affects everyone. But the Budget on Wednesday matters even more: it’s a once in ten or twenty years event, the first Budget at the start of a new Government. Here are five things I’ll be looking for to make sense of what happens on Wednesday.

First, is the overall narrative linked to a convincing plan? Expect a narrative all about boosting growth – the only practical way for us to get out of the spiral of poor public services, low aspirations and high inequality. But will the narrative be matched by plans that have enough breadth and depth? And will those plans involve building the dull but necessary capability to deliver, not least local and regionally?

Second, can the Chancellor really manage the politics successfully? Budgets are fraught with political risk. And that’s not just true about the macro-politics of Manifesto promises. It’s also about little things and unintended consequences. Are her team sufficiently adept (and lucky) to spot accidents before they happen?

Third, what’s the message for public services? This Budget will only settle current spending for one year, though capital budgets may go out further. We know some budgets are going to be protected – expect health to be top of the list, followed by schools. But public services everywhere are under pressure and in some places that’s acute: local government, criminal justice, defence. Who’s going to be disappointed? Look out for Cabinet Ministers keeping a low profile.

Fourth, and linked to that, what’s the message on reform? Labour needs a serious plan for how it will get more out for whatever it puts in – a mix of technology, transformation, and leadership. Any sign of that?

And finally, what about the framework for all of this? The Chancellor has said that she’s changing the fiscal rules, conveniently making room for more borrowing and investment? But on average the fiscal rules change every 2½ years. Is there any reason to suppose these rules will last longer? And what is she doing to change the Treasury, to give it as much focus on growth as on finance?

Jennifer Gerber, Senior Political Advisor and former Labour Treasury Special Advisor

After 14 long years and three intense months of speculation, Labour’s first budget in government is just 2 days away. Yet to many it may feel like it’s been a neverending budget debate since July 4^th, when Labour won with a mandate for change.

Many ministers and advisers across government, with hindsight, now regret the decision to delay the budget for so long, nor introduce a emergency budget in the summer. What this meant was months of speculation about what the Chancellor would do, and the limited ability for Cabinet Ministers to say too much about some of their plans, without knowing what their financial settlement or the Government’s spending priorities will be.

Of course there were good reasons to hold off and take stock of public finances, not least because both the PM and Chancellor wanted to make clear where the blame lies when it came to the perilous state of the public purse. With public services on their knees, prisons full to bursting and local councils going bust, the new government needed time to explain to the public how challenging things will be. However, the political doom and gloom may have felt too much to those in the Labour party who wanted to also show that, as the song says, things can only get better.

How to communicate how bad things are without scaring people or scuppering growth has been a hard balancing act, and many around the Chancellor and PM will want the budget to clarify Labour’s vision for government and what it hopes to achieve. This is hard when the endless chat has been focused on which taxes will and won’t be fiddled with (CGT, IHT etc) and what is the exact definition of ‘working people’.

With all eyes on parliament this Wednesday, the PM and Chancellor hope that with financial clarity the government can move on from the budget speculation noise and show the public how things are really changing. Though if Health and Education will be the only vaguely happy departments, the noise really doesn’t go away, it just changes!

Share this content:

Lumo and Hull Trains appoints WA to lead strategic communications programme

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”.

Share this content:

Getting to know the Conservative Party’s final four

Like the 2005 Conservative Party Conference which saw a fresh-faced David Cameron stake his claim for Party leader, this year’s edition provided the candidates to replace Rishi Sunak with an opportunity to advertise themselves to members, who will make the final decision in the next month. The agenda was dominated by the leadership contest, with supporters and candidates out in force across the ICC.

Kemi Badenoch

Badenoch struggled to recover from a shaky start to Conference, facing criticism over controversial comments on maternity pay and the Civil Service. Her keynote speech was well received by party members. She championed economic conservatism, suggesting Government’s role was to be “the servant of the market” through free enterprise and reduced regulation.

This underpinned her vision for the NHS. Badenoch suggested that, while the NHS should remain free at the point of use, the Government need not be involved in every aspect of delivering care, indicating support for a free market approach to commissioning and providing. She also predicted that public attitudes to the NHS funding model could shift if the service offering continues to decline.

James Cleverly

Cleverly has been hailed as the biggest ‘winner’ from Conference, impressing with his speech and winning praise from all corners of the membership.

He’s been quieter than other candidates on the NHS. Cleverly praised NHS doctors and nurses, following his wife’s recent battle with breast cancer, but offered no specific policies regarding his vision for the future of healthcare in the UK.

Instead, he sought to redefine conservatism as a force for hope, and for good: small state, lower taxes and support for enterprise. Cleverly framed himself as the candidate with the senior Government experience required to lead the party into the next General Election.

Robert Jenrick

Despite ill-advised remarks regarding the European Convention on Human Rights and its impact on Special Forces operations, Jenrick is still considered the frontrunner. His keynote speech focused heavily on his ambitions for immigration, infrastructure, low tax, and growth.

Surprisingly, Jenrick threw his support behind Labour’s plans for NHS reform. Agreeing with Wes Streeting’s damning diagnosis, Jenrick stated his desire to see a genuine overhaul to improve productivity. His speech made clear that, as leader, he would be looking for more efficiency and greater returns on the Government’s substantial healthcare investment.

Tom Tugendhat

Tugendhat looks the least likely to make the final two. However, his status as the lone candidate from the ‘One Nation’ group of centrist MPs means his perspectives could be influential in shaping Opposition policy regardless of the election result; all branches of the Party are keen to drive compromise and rid the party of the division that undermined them during their time in Government.

Tugendhat has teased ambitions for a “Conservative Revolution” in health policy and beyond, involving major reforms akin to those implemented on the education sector under Michael Gove; while details are scarce, Tugendhat would prioritise easier GP access and reduced NHS bureaucracy.

After criticism from members that the Parliamentary Party had failed to listen properly to members, the 1922 committee elongated this leadership contest, allowing ample time for debate and deliberation.

Candidates will be whittled down to two in the week commencing 7 October, before a final leader is voted on by the membership and announced on Saturday 2 November. We would expect to see a clearer picture of policy positions over the course of the next month as the final two make their final pitches to be the Leader of the Opposition.

Share this content:

The need for improved access to toilets in London

Good provision of public toilets is an important part of public health provision and making our towns and cities more inclusive and welcoming. Access to them is vital for allowing the older people, people living with long-term health conditions, workers and many others to live a high quality of life.

However, in the last ten years councils in London have closed many more toilets than they have opened, leaving only a few hundred public toilets in the city to meet the needs of more than eight million people.

In a recent survey Age UK London found that 81% of older Londoners believes that provision of public toilets in the borough that they lived in was bad, with over half of respondents sometimes reducing the amount they drink to reduce the likelihood of needing to find a toilet.

Sadly, reversing the long-term decline of public toilets has been challenging, with stretched boroughs lacking the resource and bandwidth to create cross departmental strategies to coordinate public toilet provision.

To improve the provision of public toilets, WA Health has been proud to support Age UK London to build on their ‘London Loos’ campaign.

To do this, WA and Age UK London convened a roundtable attended by fifteen leading health charities, unions, councillors, special interest groups and others. The session was chaired by London Assembly Member Caroline Russell.

The session provided an opportunity to:

Understand different organisation’s priorities on access to toilets

Debate the policy changes needed to improve access

Share the policy levers available

Agree how best to work together to impact change

The meeting was the important first step in creating a cross-sector coalition laser-focused on the importance of access to toilets in London for everyone. The new coalition, when formed, will create a manifesto for the public provision of toilets, supporting decision makers with insight on the problem and solutions they can implement, locally and across London.

John McGeachy, Campaigns Manager at Age UK London said:

“Age UK London has had the pleasure of working with the team at WA Communications to set up this initial meeting with an important and wide-ranging group of stakeholders, all agreed on the vital need for more publicly accessible toilets in London. This meeting allowed us to create a strong community that can build on Age UK London’s three year’s of campaigning on this issue, expanding the reach of a clear message on how policymakers can implement change which benefits access to toilets.”

To be involved in campaigning on access to toilets in London, get in touch with Age UK London via John McGeachy at jmcgeachy@ageuklondon.org.uk. For information on how WA Health can support your organisation to build cross-sector consensus get in touch with Lloyd Tingley at lloydtingley@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

Powering on: what have we learnt about energy from this year’s party conferences?

With energy and climate being one of the policy areas where the new Government have built most momentum, the sector is getting to grips with what’s likely to come next and how this will be sustained over the course of the Parliament. Net zero was a significant focus at both the Labour and Conservative Party conferences, although with vast differences in how it was approached.

What has the last fortnight taught us over how both parties are approaching energy and decarbonisation, and what emerging trends became clear at fringes, in the keynote speeches and in side discussions between industry? Here are our reflections on what we learnt.

There’s a tension emerging between delivery against generation targets and using this investment to drive wider social change

The energy sector has a critical role to play in at least two of the Government’s Missions: Clean Power by 2030 and Economic Growth (and arguably also the Opportunity Mission considering the critical importance of skills). The fastest, lowest cost and most efficient delivery of projects is essential to ensure success against these agendas. However, it’s also not a secret that Labour governments are keen to deliver social change. The phrase “inclusive growth” was used repeatedly by Cabinet Ministers in Liverpool.

But can you deliver projects as quickly as possible while also maximising their social impact? While Ministers are clear that they are prioritising project delivery, important voices within the wider Labour movement are calling for policy changes that will ensure the UK’s energy system is more actively used as a vehicle for delivering social reforms.

Nature groups are campaigning for an amendment to the Great British Energy Bill which would give the new body an “environmental duty”, with a requirement to consider the impact on biodiversity. Trade union representatives used contributions at fringe events in Liverpool to advocate for public subsidy and financial support – through the Contracts for Difference (CfD) mechanism, the British Jobs Bonus and the National Wealth Fund – to be conditional on developer commitments around UK content and supply chain support, and trade union recognition for their workforces.

While these proposals are not government policy, they demonstrate the different pressures that Ministers are facing and that business need to be attuned to.

Technologies that will have a role to play after 2030 need to be making the case now for attention

The 2030 Clean Power Plan that Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and the head of Clean Power Mission Control Chris Stark have tasked the newly established National Energy System Operator (NESO) with creating this Autumn will create a clear pathway for projects and technologies that will be essential to meeting this target. There’s likely to be a much smoother delivery pathway for these projects – with the prospect of preferential access to grid connections for example.

However, there’s a clear risk for those technologies that aren’t identified as fitting into this category, but that are likely to have a medium to long-term role including to meet 2050 targets. Nuclear and likely some carbon capture and hydrogen projects are most impacted.

It’s not to say there is no political support for these projects or technologies, however a tunnel-vision focus on 2030 creates a risk of more limited political attention for these solutions and the policy steps required to help them progress being deprioritised.

Industry have a narrow window to make a very clear case to government and NESO now on the 2030 contribution that these projects and technologies can make, and to articulate the risks for future viability – which will still be needed to hit future targets – if progress slows and key decision points are deferred.

Market reform is reappearing on the policy agenda

Reforming how the electricity market works is divisive within industry. The review of electricity market arrangements (REMA) process has occupied significant political, policy, regulatory and industry time and attention to date, with little tangible progress.

However, in the fringe discussions in Liverpool and Birmingham, the debate was reopened. Advocates for a more locational approach to electricity market pricing argue that it will reduce bills. The case against is essentially that the benefits are overstated, and it will create significant market disruption.

There won’t be quick solutions to this one but expect the discussion to intensify over the next six months or so.

Heat decarbonisation is the next big issue on the policy agenda

It’s not a surprise that the Government has sought to deliver as many ‘quick wins’ as possible in the first 100 days, with a particular policy focus on renewables. Limited bandwidth means political attention has been directed towards this part of the energy market.

But with many tough challenges to address across the energy market, this focus will need to widen throughout the Autumn and beyond. It was clear from talking to politicians and industry at both Party Conferences that heat decarbonisation is likely to become a key focus over the next 6-12 months. Often neglected and seen as too difficult to solve, how to decarbonise heat and buildings can’t easily be ignored for much longer.

With key decisions over future technologies expected to be taken in 2026, impatience from industry for the introduction of the Future Home Standard and questions over exactly what Labour’s Warm Homes Plan looks like, this is a theme that will occupy much more policy, political and media time in the months to come. It’s also a space where the government’s thinking is less mature, creating significant opportunities for constructive solutions – both at a policy and delivery level.

The future direction of Conservative energy policy is starting to emerge

The outcome of the Conservative leadership election at the start of November will clearly shape how the Party scrutinises Labour’s energy policy over the course of this Parliament. However, a number of themes are already becoming clear. At the heart of it is likely to be a focus on supporting new nuclear – a combination of GW scale and newer technologies like SMRs, AMRs and fusion. The support for nuclear from Conservative Party politicians at panel discussions in Birmingham was fulsome, and centre-right thinkers are pushing the technology heavily. Conservative Party politicians believe that Labour’s support for the technology is relatively shallow, offering them a chance to highlight policy gaps.

Beyond this, expect continued scrutiny of the impact and value of GB Energy, continued support for North Sea oil and gas, and an argument that the 2030 Clean Power target is creating unintended consequences – increasing the whole system costs of renewables and leading to a lack of focus on medium to long-term technologies. The challenge in the long run will be how to build a distinctly Conservative policy platform while engaging constructively with a government agenda which they instinctively perceive as overly centralised and planned.

Share this content:

How Darzi’s dossier of desolation sets the stage for a rebooted, more radical Long Term NHS Plan

The NHS is on ‘life support’ and needs ‘major surgery’. Years of increasing demand, systemic strain, and the challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic mean it is now time to ‘reform or die’.

With rising public dissatisfaction, mounting waiting lists, and a system struggling to keep up with demand, Lord Darzi’s report is stunning in its frankness and makes for sobering reading. And while it’s the latest in Labour’s ‘look what we’ve inherited’ strategy, the report paints a picture that health leaders recognise.

David Thorne, WA Health Adviser and Director of Transformation at Well Up North PCN said ‘It’s a true portrait of the difficulties faced from top to bottom in the NHS. But with this comes the chance to reform, transform and drive change.’

Labour intends to use the report as a platform to set out how it needs two terms in Government and a long-term mindset to overcome these major problems – doing so will need them to balance urgent against important, acute vs critical, and public demand vs operational and budgetary realities – Labour knows this, which is why the Darzi report is the precursor to a new ten-year plan being crafted by Professor Paul Corrigan, that will set out the how.

Another one? Aren’t we five years into an existing NHS Long-Term Plan? One that was rich with thought and requested by the NHS itself?

With some of the critical challenges sounding familiar, the temptation when the 10 year plan consultation eventually opens might be to dig out submissions from 2019!

That would be a mistake. Darzi’s report does not make policy recommendations (as set out in its terms of reference) but if we take it to be the bedrock for the ten-year plan, Darzi has set the stage to go beyond the LTP, pushing for what may need radical and transformative reforms.

How could this rebooted plan differ, and what new directions will it take to secure the future of the NHS?

What’s familiar?

Several key themes remain consistent but have evolved from 2019, particularly on prevention, digital transformation and workforce.

1. Prevention and health inequalities: Both the LTP and Darzi stress the importance of prevention. Wes Streeting has also aligned to this heavily. But while the LTP focused primarily on reducing the burden of preventable diseases like smoking, obesity, and alcohol-related harm, Darzi has gone beyond and expanded the focus more heavily on issues including social determinants of health, recognising the impact of factors such as housing, income, and education on public health. The aim is to tackle these issues in a more integrated and community-focused way.

2. Digital transformation: Darzi has placed a major emphasis on AI, data integration, and enhanced digital tools to improve efficiency and patient care. The goal is to create a more digitally-enabled NHS that can respond to the needs of modern healthcare.

3. Workforce expansion and retention: The workforce crisis in the NHS remains one of its most pressing problems. While the LTP set out to increase the number of healthcare professionals, particularly in nursing and primary care, the Darzi report has also included issues such as re-engaging staff and tackling issues of burnout and low morale. Retaining existing staff and improving working conditions will be central to Labour’s long-term strategy to restore the NHS workforce, with an early win in the bag via the Junior Doctor’s pay settlement.

A more radical shift: What does Darzi tee up?

Lord Darzi has created a platform for a much more radical and ambitious vision for the future.

1. System reorganisation: One of the most significant changes will need to be in the way the NHS is structured and managed.

The priority will be to shift more services out of hospitals and into community settings, with the intention to deliver care more efficiently and at a lower cost.

Working within the current legislative architecture (which Darzi welcomes as a restoration of sanity), this may mean expanding integrated care systems (and giving local health bodies more decision-making power by ‘reinvigorating the framework of national standards, financial incentives and earned autonomy as part of a mutually reinforcing approach…’

2. Financial reforms: The Darzi Report highlights the imbalance in spending, with too much of the NHS budget going towards hospital care and not enough being directed towards primary and community care. The report sets the need for a reallocation of resources. The new plan will therefore need to restructure NHS funding, ensuring that resources are used more effectively and in line with patient needs.

3. Rebuilding and maintaining resilience: The COVID-19 pandemic exposed significant vulnerabilities in the NHS (see the COVID-19 Enquiries’ findings) particularly in its ability to manage public health crises while continuing routine care. Lord Darzi has therefore focused heavily on resilience and preparedness, and the need to ensure the NHS is better equipped to handle future emergencies. There is now a greater understanding of how the UK fits into a global health system, supply chains and onshore capabilities.

4. A focus on disease: After the focus on major conditions seen in the last few years, there is a notable focus on diseases. Again, many priorities remain from the LTP, but others appear to be scaled back or integrated into broader health strategies. Given Streeting’s noted prioritisation of cancer, mental health (particularly in children) and cardiovascular disease, these are unsurprisingly front and foremost of the report. Interestingly, diabetes looks set to be included within CVD and dementia care (a prominent part of the LTP) has dropped out.

The path forward: Rebooting the NHS

Darzi’s stark analysis means the upcoming ten year plan cannot just be another strategy in a long line of NHS strategies – the scathing diagnosis will springboard an opportunity for radical thinking.

While the 2019 Long Term Plan laid the groundwork for important improvements, the Darzi Report makes it clear that more radical reforms are needed to meet the evolving challenges in the coming decade.

The shift towards community-based care, better resource allocation, and pandemic preparedness signals a bold new direction for the NHS.

In Lord Darzi’s words, “The NHS is in critical condition, but its vital signs are strong”. The new plan offers a real opportunity to rebuild the NHS into a more resilient, patient-centred, and forward-thinking institution. However, as the report acknowledges, it will take time to fully implement these changes.

The challenge now lies in the effective execution of these reforms to ensure that the NHS not only survives but thrives in the years ahead.

Share this content:

Can the European pharmaceutical sector rediscover its competitive edge?

Will Mario Draghi’s report be the wake-up call to rediscover the European pharmaceutical sector’s competitive edge?

Draghi’s report could be another warning missed as Europe risks hitting snooze on putting itself at the forefront of pharmaceutical innovation.

On Monday, Mario Draghi painted a stark picture of the future of Europe’s economy. As instructed by the European Commission, the former Italian Prime Minister and former President of the European Central Bank launched his report – ‘The future of European competitiveness.’

The message was clear: Europe is falling behind, losing ground to other countries like the United States and China, and in desperate need of innovation to rediscover its competitive edge. To avert this decline, an extra €800 billion a year in private and public investment will be needed.

This trend is all too familiar for Europe’s pharmaceutical sector. Sitting against the potential deprioritisation of health by the new European Commission, the question now is whether EU policymakers will take heed of Draghi’s warning for the sector and look to prioritise health and support for the pharmaceutical sector.

Sobering realities

The report set out the key barriers that prevent Europe from being the premier location for R&D and manufacturing of innovative medicines, particularly for the next wave of innovative treatments. These should not be a surprise to European policymakers, with many of these topics subject to ongoing debate as part of recent and ongoing legislative files.

R&D Funding: EU public and private spending on research and innovation is well behind other markets, particularly the US.
Delays in approving new medicines: Although this has been identified as a component of EU Pharmaceutical Legislation reform, the current regulatory framework remains too slow in approving new medicines.
Reimbursement: Europe’s fragmented system across member states presents challenges for companies seeking reimbursement across the EU.

Responding to challenges

Although non-binding, the report sets out recommendations to tackle these challenges.

Advancing progress made in digital health following the introduction of the European Health Data Space and embracing the role of AI across the lifecycle of medicines.
Increasing EU funding with a focus on the development of world-class innovation hubs in life sciences for ATMPs.
Joint procurement and increased cross-county partnership to streamline reimbursement for specific medicines.
Creating a supportive environment for clinical trials through multi-country partnerships as well as reviewing clinical trial design and the use of real-world evidence.
Reforming the regulatory landscape to ensure new medicines can reach patients quickly.

Draghi’s recommendations are ambitious and should compel the new Commission to take note. Although areas such as regulatory reform are being addressed through EU Pharmaceutical legislation reform, recommendations to develop ATMP innovation hubs and advance the role of AI will require investment and collaboration with industry.

The new Commission’s in-tray

As the new legislative term begins, reform of the EU Pharmaceutical Legislation will be an immediate priority. Efforts within the legislative file to futureproof the regulatory framework to speed up approvals are welcome but changes to reduce regulatory data protection could threaten Europe’s position.

As Draghi’s report makes clear, the sector needs bold ambition to remain competitive and as it stands it is unlikely EU Pharmaceutical Legislation reform alone can do this.

With European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen set to appoint her Commissioners next week, mission letters should prioritise health and support for the sector, setting an ambitious common goal that all stakeholders, including industry, can rally behind.

Perhaps a Strategy for European Life Sciences and a dedicated Officer for European Life Sciences could spur Europe into action, but time will tell if this is another wake-up call missed.

Share this content:

Low bandwidth and a call for patience — four takeaways from Labour Party Conference

A packed Labour Party Conference agenda of fringe sessions, speeches, receptions and dinners provided an opportunity to assess Labour’s first two months in government, and better understand their future priorities. So, what did we learn?

1. The party’s over

There has been little time to revel in the resounding election success of the summer. The 2024 Labour Conference felt more serious, and flatter than the 2023 iteration when the party was in opposition.

This should come as no surprise given long ministerial hours, an intense election campaign, and the deliberately pessimistic messages coming from leadership.

With the enormity of the task at hand now clear to all, and a drive to show they are a serious, responsible government, the forward looking, more visionary approach the party had set-out has been diminished.

2. Breaking down inter-government siloes won’t happen overnight

In the run-up to the 2024 election Labour spread the word far and wide that they would be a ‘mission-led government’. At Conference this remained a common theme with ministers regularly referencing the multiple mission board meetings they are attending. Although in their infancy, the new boards have clearly been unanimously welcomed and are providing important channels for departments to communicate.

The challenge that awaits, and where the success of mission boards will be judged, is how effective they are at core decision-making. Will these new ways of working be strong enough to overcome the age-old cross-department battles that will surface on budget allocations and prioritisation of activity.

The first tests of this are already on the horizon with the autumn budget and spring spending review.

3. MPs bandwidth to engage with industry is low

One of the key outcomes of the 2024 election was obvious at Conference, the fact that 231 out of 404 of Labour’s MPs elected in July are completely new to Parliament.

Many of these MPs spoke about adjusting to life in Westminster, balancing the role of a legislator, campaigner and employer, all at the same time.

What was clear hearing these MPs speak is that just two months after their election, they are already laser focused on re-election in five-years. They know that to achieve this, popularity with their constituents is vital.

Given this focus and with casework at record high levels (one MP said they had received 8,000 emails since the election, half of which are constituency casework), this increasingly time-poor cohort of new MPs are deprioritising engagement with industry, even if it aligns to their personal interests.

To stand any chance of engaging with new Labour MPs effectively, industry need to ensure constituency issues are a central part of any outreach.

4. Patience is required

One of the key Conference messages was ‘bear with us’. This is a government that is not yet in full flow. A combination of delays in the appointment of some special advisers, ministers getting to grips with new briefs, a short amount of time where the House of Commons has been sitting and the avalanche of inbound inquiries has contributed to this.

The coordinated effort from Labour’s top team to ask for patience demonstrates their recognition of industry frustration at a lack of engagement, particularly given the emphasis the party had given to ‘open engagement’ with business pre-election.

The question is how long they can ask for patience with industry who have spent the best-part of a year focusing on engaging with Labour and awaiting the opportunity to support their mission-led government.

With a pivotal few months on the horizon, Labour will be hoping to build on discussion in Liverpool and demonstrate they are making inroads with engagement and policy that will impact the long-term changes outlined in their manifesto.

Share this content:

Why Conservative leadership candidates are going back to legacy social media platforms

From TikTok back to Facebook: Why Conservative leadership candidates are going back to legacy social media platforms

This year’s Conservative Party conference marks the final stretch of the party’s leadership election. MPs will cast their votes at the start of next month to whittle down the candidates from four to two.

This has been a markedly different process on social media compared to the parties’ social media campaigning during the General Election. Remember how TikTok was all the rage? Every major media outlet was reporting on how Labour and the Conservatives were publishing videos from their newly minted TikTok accounts. Both parties jumped on trends like the now infamous Man in Finance song, and they weren’t shy about taking jabs at each other.

Our team has been tracking the follower growth of each of the Tory candidates across social media since mid-August. You’d expect their follower numbers to have had a healthy jump up, right? Spoiler alert: they haven’t.

Candidate	X followers
Candidate	13-Aug	20-Aug	27-Aug	3-Sep	10-Sep	17-Sep	24-Sep
Kemi Badenoch	175,400	175,400	175,600	176,800	178,700	178,800	179,100
James Cleverly	242,100	242,100	242,200	242,300	242,400	242,600	242,700
Robert Jenrick	71,500	72,500	72,700	73,400	74,000	74,500	75,800
Tom Tugendhat	140,300	140,300	140,200	140,300	140,400	140,400	140,700

Some platforms – including General Election favourite TikTok – have been ignored. Of the four remaining candidates, only James Cleverly and Robert Jenrick have accounts on TikTok.

But what’s the cause of this stall?

General Election vs. Leadership Election etiquette

Before digging into the digital nuances of the Tory leadership Election, it’s worth keeping in mind the differences between these elections.

The most important factor is the voter base. Both Labour and the Conservatives closely guard their membership data. But from looking at recent articles about voting intentions, it wouldn’t be an unfair assumption that the average Tory party member is older than the average Labour party member.

Also, money talks, or more accurately in this case, stops you from being everywhere all at once. With a limited budget, the candidates have made the right decision to focus their efforts on the platforms they know party members are active on.

Put simply, each candidate is zeroing in on the people who will actually be voting.

TikTok is not the place for Tory party politics

TikTok was the hot new political campaigning channel during the General Election. Though arguably the commentary from media outlets about the content had a greater impact than the reactions on TikTok.

The platform is fast-paced and it’s the perfect place to publish more off-kilter content. But here’s the thing: the candidates don’t want to look off-brand to the party members. After their General Election loss, members are looking for stability, not TikTok-esque quirkiness. We’re seeing this playing out, with candidates talking about renewal, unity, and rebuilding the UK.

Additionally, many of the party members the candidates are trying to appeal to will not be on active on TikTok. There’s no need to publish a scathing video about Starmer on TikTok if the majority of your voter base isn’t going to see it.

Back to the established Meta platforms

The four remaining candidates have large followings on Instagram and Facebook; Badenoch has over 26,000 followers on Facebook. If they already have captive audiences on the Meta platforms, it makes sense to focus their digital campaigning efforts on them. Compared to TikTok’s default of unstructured thoughts, Facebook gives the candidates the space to discuss their into their positions on immigration, taxes, and other pressing topics for party members.

X is still a key political battleground

Regardless of your views on Elon Musk, it is undeniable that X has changed in more than just name since he bought the platform. Every change to the platform has sparked debated on whether it would lose its relevance. This leadership election has proven that it still has its place in British politics.

Where Facebook has been used for planned content, X is still the place for candidates to react to news and announcements coming out from Labour. Jenrick has reposted Labour content and stated its, “declaring way on pensioners,” and Cleverly critiqued the Lib Dem conference.

Is TikTok done for in British politics?

No. But it’s not the popular kid right now.

This shift from TikTok to more traditional social media platforms, such a Facebook and X, shows us candidates are adapting their strategies to match their audience.

While TikTok may take centre stage again when it’s time for the next general election, right now, it’s all about engaging the people who count. And that means Facebook posts, X debates, and a lot fewer dance challenges.

Share this content:

Expectation vs. reality: the key media takeaways of Labour Party Conference

Labour Party Conference in Liverpool marked a key moment for Sir Keir Starmer and the party – an opportunity to reflect on the first months in power and outline future direction, while celebrating its landslide victory. However, the mood music leading up to conference wasn’t as cheerful as you’d expect given the party is in power for the first time in fourteen years, with backbench concerns around ‘doom and gloom’ messaging and the expenses scandal dominating headlines.

The media reaction remained mixed throughout the conference, with no major new announcements and lobby journalists complaining about the lack of stories and briefing. We outline our key media takeaways below:

1. Leadership vision: Pragmatic but uninspiring

The Prime Minister’s keynote speech, the set piece of conference, was met with a mix of praise and criticism from the media. Several journalists highlighted his pragmatic tone – noting his insistence on being a leader who makes difficult but necessary decisions.

However, the speech was also described as policy-light and lacking in inspiration by other media outlets. While Starmer emphasised fiscal responsibility and long-term planning, some commentators felt the speech failed to excite voters or provide a clear, bold vision for the future. Put simply, much of the speech was seen as reiterating familiar positions.

2. How the policy announcements landed

Starmer’s policy announcements, including housing for veterans and vulnerable groups, confirmation of the headquarters for GB Energy, and more information on the Growth and Skills Levy, were widely covered by the media. Some of these updates, as well as the announcements made by Chancellor Rachel Reeves, were trailed in advance of the speeches, with the Mirror receiving the Hillsborough law exclusive and the Sun receiving the migration visa exclusive.

While this followed the traditional conference briefing strategy from No10, scarce policy detail and announcements left many wanting more. Many journalists we spoke to on the ground felt the No10 briefing machine was not operating as slickly as they would expect.

3. What the party wanted to talk about vs. what the media wanted to talk about

The main story ahead of conference was the internal infighting within Starmer’s top team. Alongside these internal tensions, questions about donations dominated the headlines. The media closely followed Labour’s internal dynamics, with Sue Gray and Morgan McSweeney the names on every journalist’s lips – as well as what Starmer was planning to do to avoid the advisors becoming the story.

On top of this, every journalist was asking Reeves and Starmer who bought their suits – as a result of the ongoing donations issue the Labour top team are having. While this is very much not what Labour wanted to discuss, a lot of journalists felt as though they had no choice given the lack of policy announcements at conference itself.

4. Mixed reviews from the public

Media coverage of public sentiment surrounding the conference revealed mixed reactions. A YouGov poll showed that while Starmer’s economic message resonated with many voters, there was growing concern about the party’s ability to deliver on its promises. For those who attended conference and work closely with MPs and ministers, this broadly aligns with the sentiment coming out of the party conference.

Other outlets portrayed the public’s reaction to the speech as responsible and realistic, particularly highlighting Starmer’s willingness to tackle unpopular but necessary policies – outlining the need for new pylons for clean energy to take off and the need for new prisons closer to people’s homes. However, the theme of ‘this is nothing new’ is the dominant strain of thought among Labour voters.

Looking forward

The media consensus after the conference is that Labour’s immediate future is uncertain. With a rocky start to their first 100 days, the media seem to be somewhat unforgiving of this new government and its ministers, who are still finding their footing. While Starmer’s pragmatism and focus on rebuilding the economy have earned praise, critics are calling for more visionary leadership – and more hard policy.

All eyes now turn to the Autumn Budget on 30 October as the next make or break moment.

Please contact media@wacomms.co.uk to speak to us about how we can support with media insight, advice and counsel.

Share this content:

A Fortnight at WA: My work experience reflections

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.

Share this content:

‘We’re getting nerdy, and our audience is coming with us’ – the shifting focus of energy reporting

This morning, WA Communications hosted a roundtable bringing together energy industry comms leads with three of the UK’s best-regarded energy correspondents: Jillian Ambrose (Guardian), Emily Beament (PA Media) and Rob Horgan (Utility Week).

The session explored the shifting media landscape, and what journalists are looking for from energy companies in the coming months – with all three journalists agreeing that readers are increasingly interested in the technical detail driving the net zero agenda and how it impacts their day-to-day lives.

A wide-ranging discussion followed – the key takeaways are outlined below:

There’s been a huge a shift in focus areas for energy journalists as they follow the interest areas of an increasingly engaged readership.

The more technical aspects of reporting – such as heat pump roll outs, or grid connection queues – have rapidly become a focus area for all energy reporting, when previously they might have been purely the remit of the trade press. These issues that previously might have only been covered by B2B trade press are generating high levels of engagement, not just in terms of clicks but with readers spending longer digesting technical and policy-driven aspects of reporting.

Holding the Government to account and demonstrating progress against stated ambitions will become increasingly important.

With a highly ambitious green agenda set out by the new Government, a key focus for energy journalists in the coming months will be to assess progress against stated targets. This won’t just be a case of asking probing questions around delivery timeframes; it will also mean scrutinising the efficiency of delivery – and any gaps. To some extent, the same will be true for businesses and how they are playing their role in contributing to the UK’s net-zero ambitions. Businesses that aren’t used to being held accountable on difficult questions can expect to face much higher levels of press scrutiny in the coming months.

Data remains king for energy reporters

With more technically-minded reporting lines, journalists are looking to businesses to provide data and insight they might not otherwise have access to. It’s no longer enough to put out a bold, inflammatory comment and hope it’s enough to inform what are inevitably complex and highly politicised conversations. Businesses need to be truly leading and informing these debates with real insight – and direct access to CEOs or members of staff that can speak to the data in a lot of detail will inevitably jump to the front of the queue.

There are topics flying under the radar that could heat up in the coming months as they start to impact readers’ day-to-day lives.

As the reality of net zero delivery and what it means for consumers starts to become more understood, further thorny issues will inevitably start to surface. We’re starting to see this with pylons being built across East Anglia which, over the past few months, has rapidly become a national topic of conversation. We can expect the elevation of ‘local’ issues to continue to snowball as consumers – many of them ardent net-zero supporters – are faced with the reality of what reaching this target means for them. Gas decommissioning was highlighted as another “elephant trap” that is currently yet to surface to the mainstream press.

For further information and data-driven insights, you can download our full report here.

WA Comms works closely with leading generators, global power management companies, clean tech start-ups and EV disruptors to secure impactful media coverage that supports commercial outcomes.

If you would like to discuss how we can help you, please contact:

Rachel Ford, Director, rachelford@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

GB Energy – Powering the future

Unpacking what GB Energy means for industry and consumers

As the dust settles on the Government’s Great British Energy (GBE) announcement last week, industry and consumers alike are left wondering what the new entity really means for them. While Government is clear it wants to make a fast start on delivering its clean energy mission, clarity on how this will be fulfilled remains unclear.

1. Complementing, not duplicating, the private sector’s role

Offshore wind continues to be a focus of the government’s communications around GBE, especially following the news of the Crown Estate partnership. This has created concern that GBE might result in the displacement of private capital already poised for investment in mature technologies like offshore wind, vital to the Government’s 2030 clean power target.

The announcement also touched on less mature technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS), hydrogen, wave, and tidal energy. With a limited budget of £8.3 billion over the Parliament, there is broad consensus from industry that GBE could play a more effective role in de-risking investments in these emerging technologies, rather than competing with private investors. By acting as a state-backed co-investor, GBE could provide the necessary reassurance to unlock private sector funding for these “riskier” ventures.

Even for mature technologies, existing mechanisms like the Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme have faced challenges. Despite the last Government’s ambition to reach 50 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030, the 2023 auction failed to secure any offshore wind projects due to misalignment between bid prices and actual project costs. While underfunded auctions are designed to maintain competitive tension among developers, relying solely on CfDs might limit the potential scale of investment that is possible. GBE could play a valuable complementary role here

2. Cutting consumer bills

It was striking, albeit not surprising, the extent to which the questions Keir Stamer faced after his speech in Runcorn on Thursday, and that Ed Miliband faced during media rounds that morning, were focused on the impact of GBE on consumer bills. The pair faced scrutiny as to whether they could ‘guarantee’ a £300 reduction in bills and quite how quickly this would be felt. This follows a trend throughout the election campaign, where there was clear confusion from members of the public about just exactly what GBE would be – with many people expecting the new entity to be a retail energy supplier they could switch to and immediately start saving money. Polling by Common Wealth found that 53% of Labour voters expect energy bills to fall during this Parliament as a reuslt of GBE.

Despite recommitting to this figure again and again, there remain questions over how this will be delivered. Moving to a renewables dominated grid will in theory enable lower prices, but wider market reform will be necessary to deliver this – for instance decoupling electricity from gas prices and rebalancing ‘green’ consumer levies between electricity and gas bills.

Fundamentally, the prevailing view from industry is that the creation of GBE alone won’t deliver the level of savings that consumers want to see, and wider reform is needed to bring down energy bills and meet this ambition. But whilst the REMA process remains ongoing, the industry has been clear that revolutionary market change will be challenging at a time where there is significant pressure to reach ambitious power decarbonisation targets.

3. Skills and supply chain vital to the 2030 target

The new government has set out its ambition to reach a decarbonised power system by 2030. But having enough clean power, both through a varied renewables fleet and abated gas power plants, will require the UK having in place robust supply chain networks and a skilled workforce that gets us there quickly.

The new government clearly wants to make a fast start on the clean energy transition, bringing forward new renewable infrastructure at scale and pace. However, developers are already struggling with the current scale of delivery, facing challenges accessing the supply chains and talent that they need. In recent years, job vacancies in green industries have been around 17 times higher than those in high carbon jobs.

As well as investing in the development of new renewable projects, GB Energy alongside other initiatives like the National Wealth Fund and Skills England (announced at the King’s Speech) must prioritise the development of vital supply chains – both domestically and abroad – as well as investment in the skills and workforce needs of our low carbon future. Unions and trade bodies will be looking for reassurance that government will help ensure that training and support is provided to deliver the jobs to energise GB Energy.

Conclusion

The establishment of GBE presents both opportunities and challenges for the UK’s energy sector and consumers. While the government’s ambition to accelerate the transition to clean energy is clear, the specifics of GBE’s role remain uncertain. The focus on complementing private sector investment, particularly in emerging technologies like carbon capture and hydrogen, could help de-risk these ventures and encourage further private funding. However, the initiative alone is unlikely to deliver significant consumer bill reductions without broader market reforms. Additionally, achieving the 2030 decarbonisation target will require a substantial investment in supply chains and skilled workforce development. The success of GBE will depend on effective collaboration between government, industry, and other stakeholders to address these critical issues.

Share this content:

General Election Briefing

The political landscape is transformed, but a volatile electorate creates pressures for both Labour and the Conservatives.

While the overall result this morning was no surprise, Labour’s landslide victory was just one of several electoral stories – from the return of the Liberal Democrats as Parliament’s third largest party, the rise of Reform, and the success of left-wing independents, to the SNP’s deepening crisis, and a historic low for the Conservative Party.

Keir Starmer will set to work immediately – with key moments over the next 100 days including Cabinet announcements, NATO and European Political Community summits, the King’s Speech and an Autumn Budget.

Our analysis examines some of the key trends from today’s election results, how these will shape Keir Starmer’s government and the new Parliament that reconvenes on Tuesday, and what this means for business.

General Election Briefing

Share this content:

Is it really the Sun Wot Won It? The impact of media endorsements on elections

Media endorsements used to be treated like gold dust – the be all and end all of election campaigns, one of the moments pundits looked out for. But now, as The Spectator puts it ‘they may not command the power that they once did’. Despite this shift in mentality, as well as the general shift in how media is consumed, it’s still an important moment of any election campaign, and can often tell us a lot about reader sentiment of these publications.

How did Fleet Street used to vote?

“It’s the Sun wot won it” has gone down in British political history as proof of how powerful newspapers can be when it comes to swinging elections. The now-infamous Sun front-page headline followed John Major’s slim victory in the 1992 election, after the then Conservative leader was endorsed by the newspaper with the highest readership in the UK. The only time – until now – that The Sun switched over to endorse a Labour leader is in 1997 when they backed Tony Blair. Their infamous phrase reemerged after Blair’s landslide victory.

In the most recent 2019 general election, Fleet Street particularly favoured the Tories. National papers including The Sun, the Daily Mail, The Times, and the Daily Telegraph all endorsed the Conservatives, being especially keen on their Brexit stance and warning readers of what a Corbyn government would entail. Unsurprisingly, given its left-wing stance, the Guardian stood out by endorsing the Labour Party. The 2019 election had the newspapers backing candidates they were expected to back – there were no surprises from Fleet Street this time around.

The times are changing

As we have seen over the past few days, the final week of the campaign is when most papers release their endorsements. Some endorsements were to be expected – the Guardian has supported Labour throughout the campaign, and the Telegraph will always back the Tories. However, there were a few particularly significant and telling swings.

The first notable endorsements included The Economist and the Financial Times – both of which endorsed Sir Keir Starmer to be the next Prime Minister. This is mostly a reflection of Labour’s shift under the new leadership to the center-left. Both papers have a financial market-led approach and tout the benefits of Britain being seen as a sensible power on the world stage.

The most remarkable endorsements have been The Sunday Times and The Sun. Despite their right-wing history and editorial stances, they’ve both endorsed Starmer in this election. This is arguably a proof point for Labour’s successful move towards broader appeal – but also a reflection of national frustrations with the Conservatives. The point that The Sunday Times made in its almost reluctant endorsement is that the past few years of Tory rule have been chaotic and counter-productive.

Who is deciding the election?

It’s clear from the polling data that Labour doesn’t need the endorsement of major titles like The Times and The Sun to win over the public. However, there is still something to be said for the value of these endorsements. Despite the waning power of the press, Starmer’s team was pushing for the Murdoch-owned News UK endorsement – most notably because of The Sun’s reputation for backing winners.

On the other hand, some of the more ‘stand out’ or surprising endorsements are demonstrative of the shift in political leanings of these papers’ readership. Right now, the only paper with a Tory majority readership is the Daily Mail. This includes a relatively equal Labour/Conservative split across the Daily Express and Daily Telegraph’s readership – two historically right-wing newspapers.

Overall, endorsements aren’t the key to winning elections they once were – but they are still important to political parties from a tactical point of view. In light of todays’ front pages, Labour will likely go into tonight’s count with a renewed sense of confidence.

Share this content:

How will the Whitehall machine deliver a Mission-Based government?

“We need government to be more agile, empowering, and catalytic….
“The old model of departments working in silos … needs to be replaced with a genuine joined-up approach. This means collective agreement on the government’s objectives and how best to deploy time, attention and resources to meet them.
“This could mean new structures and ways of working to facilitate collaboration, including replacing some of the cabinet committees with new delivery focused cross-cutting mission boards.”

5 Missions for a Better Britain: A Mission Government to End ‘Sticking Plaster’ Politics

A change in government is very often accompanied by a new vision for how government as a whole should be organised – from the role of No.10 and the powers of the Treasury and the Cabinet Office; to the responsibilities of the central government departments and their agencies; to the use of cross-government ‘Czars’, boards and committees.

Some of these shifts are formally called ‘machinery of government’ changes because they involve moving responsibility for functions from one department to another, or creating whole new departments devoted to goals like Net Zero. Others are changes in the balance between central and local, or in the style and way of doing things.

So what changes can we expect to see under a new Labour government? And how could Government really reflect Starmer’s ‘Mission’-focused government – supporting his cross-cutting ambitions around economic-growth, clean energy, an improved NHS, safer streets, and breaking down the barriers to opportunity?

In Starmer’s own words – these issues are long-term, complex challenges “that need lots of actors and agencies working to achieve them”. And of course those actors aren’t just central government policy-makers but also “business working with unions. The private sector working with the public sector. And partnership between national and local government.”

These are also issues where Labour must deliver on the promise of Change, but with little headroom for further funding increases – meaning good leadership, driving operational improvements and marginal gains become ever more important.

So, under a newly elected Labour government, it’s more likely we’ll see an emphasis on making existing structures more accountable, with stronger central control and cross-government coordination, rather than a wholesale shake-up of the structure of Whitehall.

This evolution rather than revolution also reflects the instincts of Keir’s senior team – an inner-circle heavily populated with experienced public servants. Starting with Keir himself:

As Director of Public Prosecutions, Starmer is one of the few recent Prime Ministers to have personal experience at the very top of the civil service, working regularly with senior civil servants across Whitehall. He used to attend the weekly meetings of Permanent Secretaries when he was DPP.
His Chief of Staff, Sue Gray, has spent decades at the Cabinet Office, right at the heart of the official machine, responsible for sensitive topics like public appointments, Ministerial conduct and government ethics. She also knows a lot about devolution and the Union having worked as the Second Permanent Secretary at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and having run the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland’s devolved executive.
Or former Cabinet Office Minister and the Political Director of Tony Blair’s delivery unit, Pat McFadden – who is likely to return to the department to drive delivery of Labour’s missions. There are also several former senior Ministers in the Shadow Cabinet who bring experience of the day-to-day operation of government.

These are long-term Whitehall operators, who will have a clear view on how to control the levers of power effectively, based on personal experience – they are not Steve Hilton or Dominic Cummings figures who join government to implement ‘blue-sky’ thinking.

Here are some thoughts about what might happen in five areas:

Central Government Departments and Agencies

Sue Gray in particular will have the instinct of most senior civil servants that major changes in the number or role of departments is a distraction, and Keir Starmer will be familiar with the disruption that big organisational changes caused for other parts of government working on the affected policy areas.

Instead the focus will be on making the departments that exist more effective, and holding the Secretaries of State in charge of them to account more effectively.

In some cases this may mean central departments becoming more powerful relative to agencies – expect for example the Department of Health and Social Care to reassert some control and powers from NHS England.

The weakest departments organisationally, and probably the ones most vulnerable to change, are those that Rishi Sunak created recently in the business area – Business & Trade, and Science, Innovation & Technology.

If there are any major machinery of government changes these will be announced when Cabinet Ministers are appointed. Key decisions on cabinet committees will be made shortly afterwards – including their terms of reference, chairs and membership.

Inevitably every Prime Minister gets to a point where a refresh or a reset is required, so notwithstanding the above, machinery of government changes will not have gone away entirely under Labour: expect the option to be on the cards either later in the Parliament or the next Parliament.

HM Treasury:

We can expect an early announcement by Rachel Reeves about increasing the department’s organisational firepower – perhaps beefing up the Growth Unit function, which may also include the appointment of a new Second Permanent Secretary, a figure who can engage credibly with business (currently a big gap, especially in a department to be tasked with a greater role in galvanising business investment).

An early announcement about strengthening the role of the OBR could also be followed up by legislation, probably in the first session.

No10 / Cabinet Office:

It is less clear what Starmer and Gray will do with No10 and the Cabinet Office.

The Cabinet Office is the least loved bit of Whitehall, a sprawling mix of central functions for the Civil Service and higher-end policy coordination across domestic and security policy. No10 by contrast is a small operation which takes a different shape in each administration reflecting the personal preferences and style of the Prime Minister.

In general I’d expect Sue Gray to take a fairly traditional view of what a high-performing centre of government should look like. The shadow of Jeremy Heywood still hangs heavily over Whitehall in this way of thinking – one brilliant individual who could combine superb instincts for policy and political handling with strengths in organisational leadership and transformational drive. The trouble is that individuals like Jeremy are few and far between, and absent this kind of hero the traditional version of the centre is a long way from the strategy-setting motor of government that the modern state needs.

Expect a lot more speculation about who might succeed the current Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, if he does move on early in 2025. A lot of this has so far been linked to the rumoured return to government of Sir Oliver Robbins – who stepped into the public limelight as Theresa May’s chief Brexit negotiator, but also held jobs in Home Office and Treasury. Other names may however also enter the frame.

Mission Boards

The much heralded centre-pieces of the new government’s administrative reforms, these will be intended to fill that central strategy-setting gap.

They may also be an important forum to draw together the range of partners, beyond central government, that ‘5 Missions for a Better Britain’ identifies as key to delivering change – for example opportunities for the private sector and corporate expertise to contribute have been heavily floated in the media, and it would be no surprise to see union and local government representation.

But the boards will struggle to be effective unless:

The objectives are tightly defined, have some realism and are not too rhetorical

One senior Minister is put in charge of each and has the power and authority to direct other colleagues/departments (as that Minister cannot always be the PM or Chancellor, you immediately get into issues of ranking / personality / rivalry)

Preferably there is one senior official responsible for driving the work of the board, with a supporting team and with budgets to match

The risk is that these boards will turn into coordinating and overseeing committees (as with many before). And that is ultimately an issue of political direction from the top, not administrative process. If they are to have real power they need to have the status of Cabinet Committees: it is possible to have non-Ministers attending Cabinet Committees but not as full members.

Local Devolution

While not a ‘Machinery of Government’ change per se, attention should also be drawn to Labour’s plans for further local devolution – where Metro Mayors are an influential part of Labour’s eco-system, and a “full fat approach to devolution” promises a further transfer of policy-making and spending powers on transport, skills, energy, and planning.

If really effective this could be the most important long-term change of all.

Watch out though for whether the Treasury concedes any ability to raise revenue – or just to spend allocations from the centre.

Share this content:

A clear cultural shift: how Labour will govern differently

Attention is now focused on what a new Labour government – but beyond policy differences, how will the party govern differently?

Firstly, it is worth remembering that Labour have been out of power for 14 long years. This means that many of the MPs who will be stepping into departments as newly minted Ministers will have little to no ministerial experience. And this is the same for the army of SpAds who will be assuming their new roles.

In terms of understanding quite how different Labour will be, it helps to start by looking at the people – there is every likelihood that Labour will have a huge number of new MPs, some in seats that they very much didn’t expect to win. Labour PPCs are full of those with backgrounds in local government, trades unions and charities. Many are campaigners, some are public affairs professionals, and quite a few may well be elected with relatively shallow majorities in a number of diverse regions. This will leave Keir with a large and new PLP to manage, and though it is a nice problem to have, it can pose it’s own complications with a number of competing priorities and egos.

In terms of the practicalities of government, it is worth reflecting that Keir respects process and institutions, as does Sue Grey his Chief of Staff, (Sir Philip Rutnam, Chair of WA’s Advisory Board and former Permanent Secretary explores how this will shape the structure of Whitehall more broadly here), so unlike previous PMs there will not be the informal sofa government we have seen previously.

There will also be a clear cultural shift – Labour is more than a political party, it’s a movement. And it has an eco-system very different to the Tories with a far stronger and robust internal democracy which includes the trades unions, who are an integral part of the Labour movement.

The new Cabinet themselves will come from a far more diverse range of backgrounds than we have seen under the Tories. Some grew up in poverty and many have working-class backgrounds which they’ve spoken about, especially in framing their political outlook. The times when Eton dominated the Cabinet table will be long gone and the tone and language of the new government will reflect this.

Also important is an appreciation of how laser focused Labour will be on their key missions and policies. Keir has been keen to consistently stress that economic growth is their absolute priority, so companies and organisations will want to look at how they can be part of this narrative.

There will be very little bandwidth for anything other than their stated priorities as well as very limited fiscal headroom. For those looking to engage with Labour, the challenge will be to use smart and nuanced ways in, where policy aligns with priorities, and companies can demonstrate their role in both growing the economy and shaping the fairer society Labour want to see.

There will be opportunities for engagement, whether it is through the various new consultations that will be launched, working groups or roundtables, as well as keeping up to date with the left of centre think tanks who in the last Labour government provided a lot of policy kite flying.

Questions around the structures of government and how Keir will manage No 10, not least the challenge of getting departments working together on cross departmental policy priorities, are not clear yet. What is clear is that HMT will be central to all key decisions as they focus their attention on budget and spending review in addition to making their growth plans a reality.

And this is forgetting what happens to all the best laid plans of governments…events! Unforeseen issues and events impact greatly on a PMs time and energy – whether this is pressing foreign policy issues or domestic crisies that can come out of nowhere, the pace and relentlessness of government is a different level to opposition.

Labour will be hoping that a predicted Tory leadership race, with all the ‘fun’ that entails, will give them some time and space before the media inevitably want a new story and turn their focus onto Labour.

Still, even on its worst days, being in government is a million times better than being in opposition, and after 14 years out in the cold, Labour will not be complacent about finally having the ability to do, rather than just say.

Share this content:

Debate or Drama? The Role and Relevance of TV Debates in the 2024 Election

Last week saw one of the final significant events before voters head to the polls – the BBC Leader debate. The debate was widely viewed as a critical opportunity for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and one of Keir Starmer’s last public tests, despite a 22-point poll lead heading into the debate. Tensions were clearly high, not helped by reportedly sky-high studio temperatures, leading to an increase in personal attacks and making this the most combative debate of the campaign so far. But do debates really have any impact outside the ‘Westminster bubble?’

The history of the TV debate

The American-style TV debate was brought in in 2010 as a way of making a direct plea to voters – the idea being that this would be a way to engage with those that might normally be swayed by local doorstep politics. Prior to this, television debates were widely blocked by the incumbent party. It was generally the opposition that sought to gain from them. However, this changed under the leadership of Gordon Brown, with a perceived lack of charisma and failing personal popularity driving the Labour Government of the time to greenlight them for the first time so Brown could appeal directly to the electorate.

Since 2010, televised election debates have gone on to become a staple of campaigns, evolving in format according to party support, campaign strategy and leaders’ willingness to participate. Incumbent PMs have typically sought to fix the structure for their benefit (such as Cameron’s 2015 refusal to take part in the multi-leader debate) or the Liberal Democrats 2010 lobbying for a BBC Question Time format (in which questions are chaired by both an experienced journalist and an audience.)

Source: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-uk-needs-an-organised-system-for-tv-election-debates/

The varying debate formats we see today are a result of extensive behind-the-scenes wrangling between campaign teams and producers, with negotiations often happening up to the wire. The arrangement used in the 2010 negotiations, when three major broadcasters (BBC, ITV and Sky) moved together to negotiate as a unit, has since shifted considerably – with each broadcaster masterminding their own arrangements with campaign teams. This arguably leaves politicians better able to pick and choose which format best serves their campaign strategy, but doesn’t always leave room for compelling television.

Winners and losers?

It’s inevitable that politicos are always going to want a clear winner and loser from each debate – and it’s not always a straightforward dividing line. This doesn’t, however, stop attempts to find one. Broadly speaking, there are three main ways to test the ‘success’ of a debate – and which messages (if any) are landing:

1. Media surround sound

The most obvious example of which messages are getting cut-through is to look at the front pages, with acres of column inches dedicated to deciding who ‘won’ each debate. Of course, political leanings of papers do sway the headlines – as do the polls hosted on publications’ websites. For instance, the Express poll following the final BBC head-to-head debate found that 69% of readers thought Sunak won, with reports widely suggesting that Sunak had performed better, despite official YouGov polling suggesting a dead heat.

2. Snap polls day after each debate

Post-debate polls have this year generated mixed results, but nevertheless attempt to find ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ from each debate, with polling companies and publications alike publishing snap results the day after each debate.

Source: YouGov – ITV Election Debate snap poll

3. Viewing figures

While viewing figures started off strong, the widespread apathy of the electorate is clear in the dwindling numbers as the campaign has progressed. The Sun’s widely publicised YouTube debate only drew an audience of 7,000 at its peak – a figure which as the Guardian’s John Crace pointed out, is usually matched by non-league football teams.

Similarly, the final head-to-head debate, widely viewed as Sunak’s ‘last chance saloon’ to win hearts and minds had a peak viewing figure of 3m. (In contrast, the ITV coverage of the Georgia vs Portugal Euros game scored a peak audience of 6.4m.)

These low viewing figures are particularly stark when compared with 2019 numbers. This year’s ITV showdown between the PM and Starmer was watched this year by an average of just 4.8m viewers; down from the average audience of 6.7m for the same debate between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn in 2019.

GE 2024: A different breed of campaign

This has been a campaign like no other when it comes to voter responsiveness; the polls have largely remained stable where we would typically expect set piece debates to shift the dial considerably. Labour’s debate strategy has reflected its wider remarkably risk-averse campaign, while the Tories simply failed to use the debates to land any vote-winning narrative – with Sunak only dialling up the rhetoric for the final BBC head-to-head.

The lack of responsiveness of the polls to the debates speaks volumes both to the reticence of both parties to make any kind of misstep, and the quality and challenging format of the debates themselves – widely panned by mainstream media as being overly soundbite-led, with no party given time to get into the meat of policy thinking. Notable exceptions are those that allowed for long-form live individual interviews.

The Sky (Beth Rigby) Leaders’ Debate, in particular, was widely praised for putting significant pressure on both party leaders. The format used by Sky – of a live 1-2-1 interview with a journalist, followed by questions from the live audience – is easily the most compelling format of the election, but requires a highly skilled journalist to pull off successfully.

Despite facing the most apathetic electorate in recent years, both camps are struggling valiantly to use debates to inject life into their campaigns – with both clipping the sections that best suit them to push key messages on their social channels. However, as the polls show, little seems to be making real impact.

With every major poll predicting a major Tory wipeout, the Conservative campaign team is firmly in damage control mode – whether they have been successful in reversing the damage will become clear in a matter of days.

Share this content:

How does Labour deliver its Clean Energy Mission?

With commitments to establish a ‘publicly owned energy company’, rewire Britain’s electricity grid and expand renewable generation, the Labour Party’s 2024 manifesto outlines an ambitious plan to make the UK a “clean energy superpower”. Ahead of polling day, WA hosted leading figures from across the energy sector for a discussion on how a Labour government would look to achieve its goal of decarbonising the UK’s energy supply.

Contributors including Paul McNamee, Director of the Labour Climate and Environment Forum, Sue Ferns, Senior Deputy General Secretary of the trade union Prospect and Chris Hayes, Chief Economist at Common Wealth discussed how Labour can practically deliver its ‘clean energy mission’.

Here is what we learnt about the direction of energy policy under a possible Labour Government:

1. Quick decisions need to be made

The incoming Energy Secretary will face a packed inbox of ‘legacy’ issues carried over from the last government. Many major policy decisions need to be made by the end of the year, some this summer. These include the sixth allocation round of the contracts for difference (CfD) scheme, the future of Sizewell C, SMR funding and CCUS deployment.

Potential Energy Secretary Ed Miliband is expected to make clear, positive decisions in these areas to back the technologies required for the UK to achieve net zero. Labour and Miliband will look to portray these decisions as totemic, representing how the party is making the bold choices necessary to deliver their green prosperity plan.

Miliband, who will likely be one of the few new Secretaries of State with previous experience of Government, would also be able to use his prior learned experience and institutional knowledge to immediately drive forward Labour’s energy plans. This would be in contrast with other Secretaries of State who would need time to get to grips with the machinery of Government.

Planning reforms to get more renewable generation in development are also likely to be a priority across the first 100-days of a Labour administration. These reforms would entail regulatory overhaul as well as bolstering planning departments who have experienced a reduction in workforce and investment over the past 14 years.

2. Informed backbenchers with an interest in energy policy

The next parliament will perhaps be the most engaged and informed parliaments on energy policy that we have seen in recent years. Many Labour PPCs contesting swing seats including Melanie Onn (former MP for Great Grimsby and previously Deputy Chief Executive of trade body RenewableUK), Mary Creagh (ex-MP for Wakefield and sustainability advisor) and Polly Billington (founder of UK100) will be hoping to enter parliament directly from careers focused on energy and climate issues.

If the best-case scenarios for the Labour Party are correct and the Conservatives suffer what would effectively be a wipeout across the country, Labour PCCs contesting traditionally safe Conservative seats could find themselves on the Labour benches following July 4th. Two such candidates with energy backgrounds are Luke Murphy in Basingstoke and Ryan Jude in Tatton. Murphy is on leave from his post as Head of the Fair Transition Unit at the think tank IPPR while Jude is a Programme Director at the Green Finance Institute.

These MPs with a nuanced understanding of how the energy sector really works, of which there will be many, will be important in shaping policy and holding to account frontbench’s energy priorities.

There is a risk however, that if a Labour ‘supermajority’ transpires, the Labour benches could have ta higher share of inhabitants representing rural areas – in places like East Anglia – where residents are typically more sceptical on the issue of hosting energy infrastructure. This creates the possibility of rising tensions between the leadership’s ambition on energy, and backbench MPs who will be wanting to be seen to be representing their local interests.

3. Managing expectations around GB Energy

While there is clearly an optimism within Labour that the party’s energy policy package will get the UK well on the road to net zero by 2050, there are many areas in which important details and plans are missing. For instance, questions remain over the much-touted GB Energy and how it fits into the existing energy system and infrastructure.

Many voters have a misunderstanding about GB Energy’s role, not helped by the lack of detail early on its policy formation. Polling and focus groups suggest that some voters believe that it will be a consumer facing energy retail company, rather than an energy developer. This misunderstanding of a flagship policy could lead to trouble for Labour, and the energy industry as a whole, if voters do not feel any benefit by the next election. A Labour government will have an important job to do early in its first term to manage expectations, so that by the time of the next election it can show that GB Energy has delivered.

Share this content:

Tokking political campaigning to the next level: How Labour and the Conservatives are using TikTok for election campaigning

This is the first General Election in the UK where TikTok is playing a leading role in the parties’ communications strategies. “Sorry to be breaking into your usual politics-free feed,” announced Rishi Sunak in the first TikTok published by the Conservative’s new account last month. The platform launched in the UK in 2018 and was still finding its footing during the 2019 General Election. In the latest edition of its Adults’ Media Use and Attitudes Report, Ofcom noted that 37% of the participants had watched video content on TikTok within the last 12 months.

TikTok’s rapidly growing userbase has rarely shied away from discussing politics. As both parties establish themselves on the platform, there are important reminders about planning comms campaigns when reviewing their launches and initial weeks on TikTok.

TikTok? Isn’t it banned?

Seeing politicians on TikTok may raise some questions with its users. The social platform has found itself under the scrutiny of governments across the world. The UK government banned TikTok from government-issued devices last year. Crucially, these limitations do not stop parties from creating accounts and publishing content on TikTok. Still, there is a certain irony about politicians pivoting from slamming TikTok just last year to now using it as their latest campaigning channel.

Unlike other social media platforms, TikTok will reject any political adverts. This means the parties cannot pay to push adverts to potential voters who they want to see their election messaging. They must create compelling content that users engage with and share with their followers.

The prevalence of misinformation surrounding the election is another important reason for the parties to create their own accounts. TikTok users have been subjected to false information about policies and candidates, including claims of 18-year-olds being deployed in war zones during their national service if the Tories were to win. The creation of party accounts will allow Labour and the Conservations to challenge misinformation published on TikTok.

Taking the first steps into a brave new TikTok world

The Conservatives and Labour launched their TikTok accounts shortly after the election was called. They both featured their leaders talking head-on to the camera in their debut posts. But whilst Sunak was filmed in an empty room with an imposing wood panelled background, Starmer had a group of supporters brandishing Change placards in the background of Labour’s first video. Keir used his 11 second video to repeat his party’s election messaging and encourage viewers to vote for Labour, whilst Rishi explained his widely criticised national service policy.

Unlike other social networks, such as Instagram, TikTok and its users put a lower value on perfectly shot and lit videos. In fact, some of the platforms’ most watched videos have featured someone walking down the street, ad libbing to their phone. The Conservatives’ first video may look more professional, but that’s not content TikTok users are desperate to see. Labour’s video will still have had a team filming and editing it, but featuring a crowd of supporters behind Keir does give the impression that he’s shot this on the fly and fits more closely alongside other content on TikTok.

The Conservatives had an uphill battle launching on TikTok. Its userbase’s average age skews far younger than the average age of a Conservative voter. This first video wasn’t able to explain why a sceptical TikTok viewer should vote for them.

Unpacking the parties’ identities on TikTok

Since both the launch posts have been published, Labour and the Conservatives have used their TikTok accounts to react to and critique announcements coming from the other party. Where this reactionary content was previously in the form of witty one-liners, photoshops, and GIFs on X, both parties are now making use of the video formats and editing available on TikTok.

The Labour Party heavily criticised the Conservative’s proposed national service policy, publishing multiple videos ridiculing it. These videos have used clips that will be easily recognised to TikTok users. A cut from Cilla Black singing Surprise! Surprise! with the caption POV: Rishi Sunak turning up on your 18^th birthday to send you to war has now been viewed over five million times. This type of content demonstrates both an understanding of what performs well on TikTok and the ability to be able to make it relevant to political news.

@uklabour
Surprise surprise #generalelection #toriesout #ukelection #ukpolitics
♬ original sound – UKLabour

The Conservatives’ posts have clapped back at Labour’s response to the national service plans. One video features James Cleverly reacting to an interview Rachel Reeves had with Laura Kuenssberg, with him claiming that Labour could cut funding for apprentices.

@ukconservatives
James Cleverly calls out Labour’s dithering #uk #generalelection #rishisunak #conservative
♬ original sound – Conservatives

Learnings for integrated campaigns

TikTok may be the new kid on the block for this General Election but how Labour and the Conservatives have launched their accounts offers useful reminders on some age-old rules for integrated campaigns.

Go to where your audiences are

With attention spans getting shorter by the day, organisations cannot rely on people proactively visiting their websites or searching for their press releases. They instead need to communicate on the channels they know their audiences regularly use. For political parties trying to reach younger voters, that’s TikTok.

Understand the expectations for how you should communicate on a channel

Just as the format and tone of voice for an organisation’s press release should be different to a post published on its LinkedIn account, so too should any content published on TikTok. Copying and pasting language from a press release into a TikTok post is unlikely to get a positive reaction. Organisations who are successful on TikTok (or any social media platform) take the time to consider which points from an announcement or release their audiences need to know about and how these points can be told in a relevant and engaging way on the platform.

First impressions matter

Many of the media outlets reporting on the launch of these two new TikTok accounts praised Labour’s content and critiqued the Conservatives’ approach. This narrative in the media has continued despite the Conservative account more recently using similar tactics to content published by Labour.

This inability to change the perspective that the Conservatives’ TikTok content isn’t working demonstrates how important first impressions are for any campaign. They can be extremely hard to change and will set the tone for the rest of the campaign.

Don’t underestimate the value of timely reactive communications

The most successful social media campaigns publish both planned and reactive content. Giving space for reactive content is undoubtedly more challenging to manage than scheduling all your posts in advance. But the upsides of this include being able to directly address incorrect information and communicate directly with your target audiences. Their reactions to your content are an invaluable way of getting feedback on your campaign in near real-time.

Share this content:

How the Civil Service is preparing for the next government

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:

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.

Share this content:

Labour Manifesto Sector Analysis

Despite the brief interruption of a heckler, there will be sighs of relief after today’s launch of Labour’s manifesto. As predicted there were no surprises and many of the big policies had been briefed well in advance. What it demonstrates is quite how serious Sir Keir is about winning the election and reassuring the swing voters he needs for a healthy majority.

The five ‘missions’ are padded out a little but the focus is undeniably one of economic growth and reassurance that Labour can be trusted on the economy. Will everyone be happy with the manifesto? Well no, there are already grumblings on the left of the party that it’s not radical enough. But as Sir Keir made abundantly clear in the Sky News debate last night – his priority is country not party, and today’s manifesto is a clear reflection of this mantra.

Jennifer Gerber, Senior Political Advisor, WA and and former Labour Special Advisor

To read our analysis on what the Labour Manifesto means by sector, click below to download:

Education and Skills

→ Click to download

Energy

→ Click to download

Financial and Professional Services

→ Click to download

Health and Life Sciences

→ Click to download

Transport

→ Click to download

Share this content:

The Paths to Power with YouGov’s Patrick English

Patrick English, Director of Political Analytics at YouGov, joined WA to explore our exclusive polling and analysis of Labour’s potential paths to power and the electoral trends that will shape a Labour government – and to discuss the implications of their latest MRP poll, which predicts a landslide win for Keir Starmer next month.

Our Paths to Power research is part of WA’s ‘Next Left’ Guide to the Shape of a New Government – which explores what a Labour Government would look like in detail, including analysis of leading PPCs, a look at the role Unions play under a Labour Government, the key moments in the first 100 days, and more.

YouGov’s first projection of the election campaign showed Labour on track for a historic majority of 194. Victory on this scale would bring in well over 200 additional Labour MPs and new constituencies with a diverse spread of demographics.

Patrick English, Director of Political Analytics at YouGov, sat down to explore four possible scenarios for Labour with Tom Frackowiak, Partner at WA Communications.

An underwhelming swing

YouGov’s polling has stayed resolute since the start of the election campaign and shows no sign of narrowing. At this stage, a hung parliament with Labour as the largest party would be seen as a disaster for Starmer. However, key Labour figures are not complacent and will be aware that this remains a possibility.

In this eventuality, Labour would likely take solace in their retention of ‘Red Wall’ seats that lost faith in the party in 2019.

However, without a majority, Starmer’s ability to pass legislation would be dependent on securing cross-party support and he may have to offer significant concessions on his legislative agenda.

Skin of their teeth

A small Labour majority would be seen as an underwhelming success for the party and would have implications for their plans in Government.

Under this scenario, Labour would win back constituencies that haven’t voted red in over a generation, including key southern battlegrounds. Labour’s Parliamentary representation would broaden, moving away from the urban-heavy base we have seen over the last five years.

This would undoubtedly give Starmer a smaller mandate than he’d hope for. He would need to deliver short-term reforms required to secure a second term and satisfy factions within his own party at the same time.

Strong and stable

A 10-point swing or more will see Starmer emulate Boris Johnson’s 2019 election victory. This would make considerable in-roads into Conservative, Lib Dem and SNP held seats, including crucial constituencies in the West Country that have been apathetic at best towards Labour since the Blair-era.

This would bring a whole host of new interests into the Labour Party. Crucially, it would enable Labour to set a course for policy changes over two parliamentary terms, with Starmer safe in the knowledge that challenges to his leadership and authority would be neutered in the immediate term.

Full-fat Labour majority

A Labour landslide would leave Starmer in dreamland. A 15–20-point swing is a big ask, but not impossible and YouGov’s latest projection puts Labour within this bracket.

In this event, Labour would secure seats in traditionally Conservative-voting areas and claw back almost all of their losses in Scotland, reducing the vote share and influence of the SNP in Westminster.

Starmer would see this as a total success and iron-clad mandate to govern on his decade of renewal.

All sunshine and roses?

Patrick finished our discussion by setting out a medium-term challenge for Labour: the electorate’s motivation.

Currently, voters are not rallying behind Labour out of enthusiasm, but out of discontent with the Conservatives.

If Labour win the General Election, regardless of the margin, a priority will be inspiring genuine optimism among the electorate. Without convincing voters of their positive vision for the future, Labour risks seeing their lead in the polls become unstable.

Starmer must ensure that Labour’s policies and ambitions resonate deeply with the public, fostering lasting support that goes beyond mere dissatisfaction with the alternative.

Share this content:

Conservative Manifesto Sector Analysis

The Conservatives’ manifesto is a much longer document than Labour’s will be later this week. Nonetheless the essential pitch can be summarised in two words: tax cuts. There are an estimated £17 billion worth of tax cuts outlined in the manifesto to be implemented over the next parliament. They range from further reductions to national insurance to abolishing stamp duty for young home buyers. The proposals are vaguely costed but Rishi Sunak’s main objective is not to demonstrate their feasibility. He seeks to create dividing lines with Labour over tax, often a vote winner for the Conservatives in the past. This time the electoral context is bleak for him and his party. Privately senior Tories are in despair about their prospects and fear the manifesto will not be a game changer.

Steve Richards, Senior Adviser, WA Communications

To read our analysis on what the Conservative Manifesto means by sector, click below to download:

Education and Skills

→ Click to download

Energy

→ Click to download

Financial and Professional Services

→ Click to download

Health

→ Click to download

Transport

→ Click to download

Share this content:

The Liberal Democrat manifesto launch – For a Fair Deal

This morning, the Liberal Democrats became the first mainstream party to launch their 2024 General Election manifesto – titled “For a Fair Deal” – at an event in London.

As was trailed by the party in advance of the launch, the NHS, environment, social care and the cost of living were central to the manifesto; all policies designed to attract voters in the previously Conservative-held ‘blue wall’ seats in southeast England and home counties.

Indeed, party leader Sir Ed Davey made a point of criticizing the Conservative government’s record in all of these policy areas in his speech, reflecting this strategic shift of closely targeting disaffected Tory voters.

The significant polling lead held by the Labour Party, and the size of their expected majority, meant that Davey was not inundated with questions from journalists regarding what his party might do if it needed to join with Labour in any kind of coalition.

Rather, the challenge facing the Lib Dems is one of influence: how Davey can leverage the political weight of what is expected to be the largest contingent of Lib Dem MPs for several parliaments to shift the governing agenda in their direction. Businesses should therefore view the Lib Dems of the forthcoming parliament through this lens: as a potentially influential stakeholder group that can no longer be dismissed as not having sway over government policy and the policy debate on the Labour benches.

In introducing the party’s centre-piece policies for the NHS and social care, Davey continued to tell the personal story of his care experience which he has highlighted throughout the campaign so far, saying that caring has “been in the shadows for far too long”.

What followed was an £8.35 billion commitment to free ‘personal care’ and 8,000 more GPs, along with an increase in carers’ allowance by £20 a week and a change to the rules on how much carers can earn. In a point of differentiation from Labour, Davey pledged to scrap the two-child limit on benefits introduced by the coalition government a decade ago. So far resisting to do the same, this issue could return as a headache for Starmer – with pressure from the Lib Dems – if he becomes Prime Minister.

Pledges on education, childcare, and foreign policy all followed – with the Lib Dems mirroring Labour’s fiscally cautious approach of explaining in simple terms how each major policy would be costed. For business, the general acceptance from both Labour and the Lib Dems that government is not flush with cash to pay for large policy commitments may pose a potential risk – as both parties have been happy to single out sectors of the economy that will see tax rises in order to cover costs of new social policy spending commitments.

In his speech, Davey referenced internet and social media firms, water companies, large banks and energy firms as targets for this – with more sectors lined up as money-raisers contained in the full manifesto document. While clearly these are popular policies with the public, as each party goes to great lengths to spell out how they will pay for things, businesses should be alive to the reputational risks that may arise from being attached to any costed policy during the campaign period.

Finally, two of the cornerstones of Liberal Democrat policy over the last decade – closer integration with Europe and electoral reform – were addressed by Davey towards the end of his speech. On Europe, he committed to ‘seeking to rejoin’ the EU single market – admitting the lengthy process that this would entail. With all major parties having been relatively quiet on the issue of Europe in the campaign thus far, this is an issue that an emboldened cohort of Lib Dem MPs may seek to apply pressure on Labour in the next parliament, and one that businesses interested in the UK-EU economic relationship should monitor, as a future Labour government will need to make significant decisions on this within their first few years.

Overall, while many of the party’s ‘greatest hit’ policies resurfaced once again, and previously ‘toxic’ issues like student tuition fees were notable in their absence, it is clear from today’s manifesto launch that the Lib Dems, anticipating the largest number of seats they have had in nearly 10 years, have built a focussed electoral strategy to chip off voters from the soft centre of the Conservative Party, worsening the headache for the Prime Minister and his campaign team, with neither the ‘Red’ or ‘Blue’ wall safe as we head towards election day.

Share this content:

General Election Political Update – Labour’s Campaign

In my first week as Senior Political Advisor at WA Communications, I was delighted to be able to sit down with Lee Findell, Partner and Head of Corporate Comms at WA, to discuss how the general election campaign is going and share my experiences from working at the heart of numerous general election campaigns

The conversation is the latest in a series of events on the upcoming general election with senior political and media figures hosted by WA.

A change in fortunes for Labour…

With recent polling predicting a dramatic and potentially historic win for Labour, party strategists are allocating resources and targeting seats that would have been a distant dream only a few years ago. There’s no doubt Labour HQ has a long hit-list, looking to win a range of different seats across the full length and breadth of Britain.

From regular party supporters knocking on doors to shadow cabinet ministers looking to generate media buzz and voter engagement, allocating these resources is a key component of election strategy and a revealing factor for the ambitions of a political party embroiled mid-campaign. Labour is reaching further and further into traditional Conservative territory, moving resources away from seats that would have been key battlegrounds just 5 years ago, believing that Labour’s position is increasingly secure in those areas.

On the other hand, the Conservatives are on the defensive, and with Nigel Farage throwing his hat in the ring they risk having their constituency majorities squeezed from the right and the left. Conservative Cabinet Members are locked into defending their own seats, with scarce time or energy to venture further than their own doorstep. From Chanceller of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt to Cabinet stalwart Grant Shapps, some of the most senior Tories are locked in a battle for their job.

But no complacency from Labour…

Tuesday’s TV debate reminded the country, not to mention senior Labour figures, why the modern Conservative Party has earned the reputation as a general election winning machine. Sunak hounded Starmer with the line that households would pay an extra £2000 under a Labour government, which is a classic play of Conservative election campaigns. They are extremely effective at distilling a message down and relentlessly pushing it so that it cuts through and sticks with the public when they go to the ballot box. This instance has reminded Labour that they cannot take their lead for granted and are all too aware the Conservatives will pull out all the stops to claw back any kind of advantage.

Labour, consequently, is playing a careful game. They have been cautious to steer well clear of making unfunded spending commitments. Additionally, they recognise they are unlikely to have a lot of fiscal headroom in office and, therefore, are careful to avoid making policy promises they are unsure they will be able to keep once they open the books for the first time in office. Labour has been keen to mitigate and counter the relentless Tory election media strategy by avoiding making the mistakes of previous election campaigns.

Critically, the Labour Party and Shadow Cabinet of 2024 is an indicator of an extremely disciplined messaging machine. The uniformity of message and purpose from Labour when in front of a camera or near a microphone is a sign that they have learned from both their past mistakes, but also their past victories. Labour are equal parts trying to turn people on to voting for them as they are trying to stop people from turning off.

How a Labour government might behave…

The Labour Party under Keir Starmer is emblematic of a party that has undergone a drastic revolution from within. They have been transformed into a unified, disciplined electioneering organisation and this is a significant indicator as well of how Labour will behave in government. Starmer has prioritised, at times ruthlessly, installing allies in safe seats who might make promising ministers of the future, but critically will support his leadership. He is not just thinking about how he will win; he is planning how he will govern.

NEXT LEFT? THE SHAPE OF A LABOUR GOVERNMENT

This article is part of our Next Left series, which examines the people and policies that will shape the next government if Labour wins power – explore the guide in full here.

Share this content:

Saving face: The role of television debates in an election campaign

Last night, Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer faced each other in the first head-to-head debate of the election campaign. In a lively discussion, the leaders fought over taxation, public services and immigration in a bid to win over the public.

As seen throughout the campaign, Starmer reiterated the need for ‘change’, positioning himself as an advocate for practical solutions and a brighter future. In contrast, Sunak stressed his ‘clear plan’ was working, portraying himself as a steady hand amidst uncertainty.

Sunak’s strategy was evidently to come out on the attack, aiming to unsettle Starmer and reinforce doubts about Labour’s economic competence. Starmer, while initially shaky, gained confidence when addressing audience questions directly.

Whilst Sunak’s performance slightly tipped YouGov’s snap poll (with 51% of favourable opinion), the same poll suggested Starmer came across as more likeable, in touch and trustworthy. On balance, neither leader ‘won’ the first debate.

With just over four weeks to go until election day and the latest polls suggesting Labour is on course for a record win, we explore the role of television debates in an election campaign and whether they can ever turn the tide.

Memorable shows – and no shows

While television debates have been a firm fixture of US campaigns for decades, the UK only held its first debate in 2010.

The debate between then-party leaders Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg was watched by nearly 10 million viewers and triggered what became known as ‘Cleggmania’ – with support for the Liberal Democrats increasing by 14% the following day. Although interestingly, come election day Liberal Democrat support had fallen back down to pre-debate levels and they finished the election with fewer parliamentary seats.

Following concerns around political bias, the set-up was overhauled during the 2015 election to accommodate seven party leaders, including Nicola Sturgeon and Nigel Farage. The messy format limited airtime for political leaders, and no conclusive ‘winner’ emerged from any of the debates.

While broadcasters accommodated then Prime Minister Theresa May’s refusal to take part in television debates in 2017, citing lack of time due to the snap election, producers at Channel 4 were less sympathetic with Boris Johnson’s refusal to take part in a debate on climate change in 2019 – famously replacing him with a block of melting ice.

History shows us that while television debates can shift the dial in the campaign, they are fraught with pitfalls. Sunak and Starmer may have escaped unscathed so far, but with seven-way debates coming down the track – including with newly appointed Reform UK leader Nigel Farage – that could soon change.

The knight that won’t fight

The noise and optics around televised debates can be just as important as the events themselves.

In 2019, former SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon accused Boris Johnson of being a ‘scaredy cat’ because he refused to debate her. This became a common theme of Boris Johnson’s campaign, repeatedly refusing a sit-down interview with BBC’s Andrew Neil despite his opponents taking part in the grilling.

Fast forward to 2024, and the Tories are mirroring this strategy with briefings around ‘Sir Fear Starmer’ and ‘the knight that won’t fight’, a tactic they will likely double down on given Starmer was clearly unsettled by Sunak’s approach last night. Given the potential pitfalls around televised debates and their strong lead in the polls, it is clear the Labour Party have more to lose in head-to-heads and Starmer’s team will be choosing media opportunities carefully.

That Boris Johnson secured the biggest Tory majority since the 1980s demonstrates the effectiveness of his media strategy and that keeping quiet when you are winning is sometimes an effective strategy.

Debating in a digital age

The way the public consume news has changed significantly since the first televised debates in 2010, with only 4.8 million viewers watching last night’s debate.

However, live commentary on social media channels, the ability to clip blunders, and the rise of political memes can create a longevity to television debates that wasn’t as impactful in 2010.

#ITVDebate continues to trend on X this morning, with over 324k tweets so far, and politicians and media alike know that in a 60-minute debate, a five second clip can sometimes be the only thing an audience remembers and sometimes the only thing they see.

This has changed the way leaders debate, moving to a focus on soundbites – such as Sunak’s repetition of a supposed £2,000 tax hike under Labour – rather than substance. While initial social media reaction suggests the public is wise to this, political teams will point to people talking about their strategies as successful cut through.

Time to wrap up

On paper, television debates are an opportunity for political leaders to directly engage with the UK public, answering questions from the audience and succinctly pitching their policies.

In reality, the rise of social media and the fall in broadcast viewers means the surround sound to debates is often more important than the debate itself.

Over the next few weeks, political strategists will set up gruelling role-play exercises to prepare politicians for upcoming debates, emphasising the importance of message delivery and creating the right sound bite.

Only time will tell if it makes any difference.

Follow us on LinkedIn for more insight and analysis on the general election campaign or contact media@wacomms.co.uk to see how we can help achieve media cut through at this time.

Upcoming debates and interviews

WA Comms will provide regular insight and analysis during the televised debates, and we will assess whether they have indeed helped shift the dial after the last head-to-head debate on 26 June. Here is a list of debates and set-pieces announced so far:

Tuesday 4 June – First head-to-head debate between Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer (ITV, 9pm)
Thursday 6 June – Broadcast interview with Sir Ed Davey (ITV, 8:30pm)
Friday 7 June, London – Debate between leading figures from the seven biggest political parties (BBC, 7.30pm)
Wednesday 12 June – Q&A with Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer (Sky, tbc)
Wednesday 12 June – Broadcast interview with Rishi Sunak (ITV, 7pm)
Thursday 13 June – Debate between senior representatives from seven biggest political parties (ITV, 8:30pm)
Thursday 20 June – Question Time Leaders’ Special with leaders of the four biggest political parties (BBC, 8pm)
Wednesday 26 June – Final head-to-head debate between Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer (BBC, 9pm)
Thursday 27 June – Broadcast interview with Sir Keir Starmer (ITV, 8:30pm)

Share this content:

A guide on how the pre-election period impacts DHSC, the NHS, health regulators and what that means for Life Sciences companies

Following the dissolution of Parliament last week, we have officially entered the pre-election period. The impact of this period on Parliamentary activity, and the ramifications for MPs, is well understood, but there are wider implications that impact the machinery of Government and how Governmental bodies operate.

For companies within the health and life sciences landscape, this is particularly pertinent as organisations impacted by the pre-election period, such as the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England, and NICE play a key role in the medicines access process and wider health policy to support this.

We have taken the time to analyse the pre-election period impact, as well as what may happen to ongoing policy developments to support Life Sciences companies during this period and beyond.

Department of Health and Social Care

In line with official Civil Service guidance, the activity of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) will be reduced during the election, putting into question ongoing policy activity.

Perhaps the most awaited piece of policy activity is the Major Conditions Strategy that was touted to be published this summer, with work well underway to develop it. As it was not published before Parliament, it will now be a matter for the next Government as to whether they wish to progress with this policy initiative.

NHS England

NHS England (NHSE) have published their guidance for the pre-election guidance for NHS organisations, which places NHSE under strict requirements not to make any announcements on policy, strategy, procurement, or business development during this period.

NHSE are not permitted to launch consultations during the pre-election period unless they are considered essential. Ongoing consultations should continue but should not be promoted and existing consultations can be extended if deemed appropriate.

This puts into question the timing of the consultation on the updated Commercial Framework for New Medicines that was originally due to be published in June.

As for medicines access and approval, NHSE will continue to operate as normal, but the pre-election period may impact public facing activity following agreements.

Regulators

The Medicines and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA) will conduct activity in line with civil service guidelines for the pre-election period, so do not expect any policy activity over this period.

Communications referring to items such as licensing announcements, marketing authorisations, and manufacturing licensing will continue as normal through their customer service team.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) adhere to the same guidelines which means during the pre-election period they will avoid posting news on updates to NICE methods, changes to NICE policy, or consultation results during this time.

However, the pre-election period does not prevent NICE from operating as usual in terms of publishing guidance or HTA recommendations. This work will continue to the same timeframe and cannot be influenced during the pre-election period by NHS England or Government.

This means that during this time, NICE will continue to progress key policy areas such as highly specialised technology criteria and the severity modifier internally, but wider consultation and public engagement with industry on these issues may not occur until after the election.

In Scotland, Government business will continue as normal as the Scottish Parliament is still in session. That said, Scottish Government civil servants, including those working with Government agencies such as the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), are to conduct themselves in line with the Civil Service Code and exercise caution when conducting public activity that could have a bearing on the UK General Election.

For the SMC, this means business will continue as normal but activity with reserved or cross-border implications, such as activity with NICE, may be postponed until after the election.

If you would like further information on the impact of the pre-election period and to discuss opportunities to engage with relevant stakeholders during this time, please do get in touch – [Health@wacomms.co.uk].

WA have also prepared a guide on how best to hit the ground running, assessing the first 100 days post-election. This can be accessed here: https://wacomms.co.uk/hitting-the-ground-running-the-first-100-days/.

Share this content:

Political Update with Steve Richards – an unexpected Election

This week I had the pleasure of sitting down with Steve Richards, WA Senior Advisor, on a webinar with over 150 corporate communications and public affairs professionals to discuss the General Election. It is fair to say there were only few people on the call who anticipated we would be going to the polls on 4th July!

Steve’s analysis on why Rishi Sunak called the election now is based on two key factors: a calculation that the Government’s fiscal and political position is as strong as it is going to be at any point from now until the end of 2024; and the realisation from the Prime Minister that holding the Conservative party together until November, as it is impacted by ‘events’, might not be sustainable. However, Steve confirmed that from his private conversations with Conservative MPs many are unhappy with the decision to go early, and not as expected in the autumn, when the UK’s economic picture might have improved.

A large part of our discussion focused on the different campaigning strategies of the Labour and Conservative parties, which are already clear to see.

With a sizeable lead coming into the campaign (many polls still have Labour leading the Conservatives by over 20%), Keir Starmer and his chief lieutenant Shadow Chancellor, Rachel Reeves have adopted a ‘big tent approach’ in an attempt to appeal to a broad range of voters right across the country. This is also reflected by the cautious nature of Labour’s policy approach, and particularly its attempts to not be out-flanked by the Conservatives on tax.

In contrast the Conservatives, whose vote is being squeezed by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, but most dangerously by Reform, who are committed to running candidates in every constituency, have adopted a ‘core vote strategy’. This is focused on older voters, and hence why we have seen eye-catching polices announced on mandatory national service and a commitment to never tax the state pension, dubbed the ‘quadruple lock’.

As with all General Elections we can expect this campaign to be fast, dynamic and exhausting, and full of gotcha media moments, and big policy interventions.

Therefore, from a professional perspective for in-house practitioners and consultants advising C-suite audiences, Steve has four pieces of advice:

Forensically analyse any Conservative policy to properly understand why it has been made. It is likely that it is linked to their core vote strategy.
Track through Labour policy to see how it could be implemented if they form the next Government, so you are on the front foot. A lot of this detail still needs to be worked out, but you can expect an ‘interventionist’ or ‘active’ state if Keir Starmer becomes the next Prime Minister (see FT leaked memo on Labour’s issues list for a sense of inbound priorities).
Think about how your business or organisation can support a Labour Government with its first mission, focused on economic growth and the creation of good jobs across the UK.
Watch out for campaign “cock-ups”, which will inevitably happen. Analyse the reaction to see if it is just commentary or hysteria, or a genuine moment that moves the dial (see Theresa May’s 2107 general election social care policy announcement as a case study).

I would also add one thing that communications professionals should consider in their advice. It is easy to get swept up in the current of political thinking, and in this General Election that narrative is that Labour will win a landslide. The polls might well be correct, but equally the General Elections of 2015 and 2019, and the EU Referendum of 2016, show polling is not always right, or at least the interpretation of polling, and the subsequent perceived narratives might not be.

So it is important to do proper scenario planning early in this campaign on General Election outcomes. For example, a Labour government with a big majority will be a very different beast to one that has a 30-40 seat majority.

This is something we explored in detail, in recent bespoke WA research with YouGov, as part of our ‘Next Left?’ guide to The Shape of a Labour Government. Our research identifies the constituencies behind four potential scenarios in which Labour takes power, looking at the types of voters that would switch to the party, and the backbench issues and priorities that might feed into Keir Starmer’s decision making based on those different scenarios.

From regaining the Red Wall and a hung parliament; to a majority that is more secure but driven by an electorate far more cautious about government spending and intervention, there are many potential outcomes.

And here I bring you back to the 4th July being an unexpected election!

NEXT LEFT? THE SHAPE OF A LABOUR GOVERNMENT

This article is part of our Next Left series, which examines the people and policies that will shape the next government if Labour wins power – explore the guide in full here.

Share this content:

A ‘Change’ Election – for the Country, and for the Parties

From the Labour Party’s ‘slow and steady’ approach and a relentless focus from the Lib Dems, to the potential decline in Scottish Nationalism and a battle for the soul of the Conservative Party – the general election campaign sees changing party strategies as well as the possibility of change for the country.

The Conservative Party

Has Rishi Sunak fired the starting gun for a general election or the battle in the fight for the soul of the Conservative Party? As the Party machinery goes into campaigning mode, it is worth considering Sunak’s chance.

But first, how did we get here? For Sunak, the logic is clear. The polls haven’t shifted despite his best efforts and Sunak has decided to pull the general election lever to change his political fortunes. Holding out until November and being perceived by the electorate as vainly waiting for any kind of good news would’ve risked fueling the sitting duck narrative.

Never say never: Three measures of success for Sunak’s campaign

Febrile election campaigns can throw up any kind of outcome contrary to conventional wisdom. A measure of Sunak’s campaigning success will be a seismic shift of the political narrative and public opinion to narrow-in on Starmer’s average 17-point lead, bringing it down to a margin of uncertainty sufficient for a possible rabbit out the hat type moment.

A second measure of success for Sunak’s campaign will be the movements of Tory big beasts and possible leadership successors. Will the chief Conservative campaigner of the 21^st century, Boris Johnson, put aside the et tu, Brute maneuverer of his former Chancellor and make a return to pounding the streets for the sake of the Party?

It’ll be worth keeping an eye out for Sunak’s successor hopefuls, such as Robert Jenrick or Suella Braverman, who will likely sit this one out. The only rationale for a successor hopeful to softly side with Sunak in this campaign is positioning as a future party unity candidate.

A third measure of success will be neutralising the Reform risk. Expect restoring the economy and the security of the UK in a more uncertain world to be the meta-framing of Sunak’s electoral pitch.

The National Service and “Triple Lock Plus” for pensioners reflects a survival campaign tactic of appealing to your base. Why? Because while Farage will not be standing for a seat, Reform UK risks outflanking the Tories from the right. Even some longstanding, loyal Conservative voters might even be asking, does my party really deserve to win again?

The Labour Party

If the Prime Minister was hopeful that Labour would be taken off-guard by his surprise announcement of the general election last Wednesday, he has surely been disappointed. Having pushed the party machine to prepare for an election from May onwards, Starmer and his campaign chief Morgan McSweeney have made a point of being prepared.

With vetted candidates in place across most winnable seats and a messaging strategy and manifesto agreed, Labour has managed to smoothly transition into campaign mode ahead of the dissolution of Parliament. Indeed, while the Prime Minister was still drying off from his speech on the steps of Downing Street, Starmer’s team launched a slick campaign video announcing the party’s election slogan: simply, ‘Change.’

Going forward, we expect Starmer’s team to take a ‘slow and steady’ approach, taking few if any risks – a strategy which makes sense if you are defending a 20-point-plus poll lead. However, it would be a mistake to read too much into Starmer’s middle-of-the-road campaigning style. Far from representing a rehash of Blairism, the contours of a distinct Starmerite project are becoming clear.

The thesis shared by Starmer and his Shadow Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, is that the UK is vulnerable – to international threats and domestic political upheaval – due to a public sense of insecurity. In their view, this multipronged insecurity caused the Brexit vote, Boris Johnson’s landslide win in 2019, the cost-of-living crisis, and it is feeding the growth of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK.

On a domestic level, their solution to insecurity is Rachel Reeves’ ‘securonomics’: a more active state using industrial policy, planning reform, and insourcing to stimulate growth, with proceeds reinvested in priorities like public services and defense. On the international stage, these policies will be supported by Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s ‘progressive realism’ which aims to secure UK supply chains while rebuilding ties in Europe.

Politically, this technocratic project is being communicated with the language and imagery of communitarianism – the slogan ‘country first, party second’, the use of the Union flag on party literature, and a hard line on crime and defense.

Despite its consistent poll leads and a drama-free first week of the campaign, Labour remains nervous. The party is used to losing, having spent the last 14 years in the wilderness, and McSweeney’s team is determined to root out complacency.

Even if they succeed and enter Downing Street, there is a list of simmering crises that could throw an incoming Labour government off track. These include global issues like the war in Ukraine, the Middle East conflict, and the potential return of Donald Trump. But they also include UK-specific issues, like sluggish economic growth and the financial precarity of universities and local councils – many of which are expected to go bust.

Starmer’s chief of staff, Sue Gray, is said to be actively planning for these eventualities to ensure the party is ready to react quickly. But even the best laid plans can collapse on contact with reality. Any one of these issues alone could cause a major headache for an incoming Labour government. Together, they could destroy the Starmer project before it has even got started.

The Liberal Democrats

The Liberal Democrat’s strategy this General Election is relatively easy to understand: relentlessly focus on the 70-90 seats where they are clearly the best placed party to defeat the Conservatives, and largely ignore the rest of the country. They are no longer positioning themselves as equidistant between the two larger parties – they are unashamedly anti-Tory, setting themselves up as the only people who can defeat the Conservatives in certain parts of the country.

This hyper-localised and focused approach will focus on two different types of seat.

Firstly, large swathes of what has become known as the ‘Blue Wall’: largely in the South East as well as a handful of seats in the north with similar characteristics. These areas have seen demographic change in recent years with younger families moving out from London, have higher than average proportions of ‘Remain’ voters, and a population with more ‘liberal’ values. The fact that the Prime Minister visited four key Lib Dem target seats across South West London, Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire this weekend shows the impact this strategy is having.

Secondly, those parts of the UK where the party has traditional strength, particularly the South West.

As always within the Liberal Democrat party, some excited activists see an opportunity to secure upwards of 70 seats. More seasoned hands in the party see 40-50 seats as success. Unlike 2019, there is a laser-focus on targeting resources at those seats that are genuinely winnable.

In terms of campaign themes, Brexit is largely off the table, with the focus being on the environment and the quality of public services, particularly care. However, the level of policy detail sitting behind these issues is very limited. Were the party to play a more significant role in the next parliament their level of policy thinking – and the input from businesses into this – will need to mature significantly, quickly.

The Manifesto – and other policy announcements throughout the campaign – will focus on these themes and issues that will be seen to resonate with target voters in these key seats. Expect a small number of impactful policies – tougher water regulation, improved access to GPs, and new resources for the care sector.

Scotland

Labour, the SNP and the battle over the border

Scotland remains pivotal in determining which party forms the next UK Government. The overall General Election contest will be defined by the resurgence of Labour in the region – but does the Scottish National Party (SNP) still stand in the way?

The SNP has dominated Scottish polls for the last decade or so, but the Party faces significant challenges as it enters this campaign period.

While the SNP secured 45% of the vote and 48 of Scotland’s 59 seats in the 2019 General Election, recent Ipsos polling indicates a more negative outlook for 2024, with strong public dissatisfaction over living standards. Notably, and potentially damaging in the long term, independence — once a defining feature of the SNP — has fallen to fifth place on the list of priorities for Scots. It now finds itself trailing behind the NHS, cost of living, education, and the wider economy.

Thrown in at the deep end, the newly elected First Minister John Swinney hopes to rescue the Party from growing dissatisfaction amongst voters, a loss of donors and public skepticism off the back of recent policy failures and police investigations.

Working to put these hurdles behind him, Swinney’s campaign “Put Scotland First,” aims to re-engage voters by focusing on uniting Scottish people and bringing independence back to the forefront of SNP ambition.

In the meantime, capitalising on growing SNP discontent and working to reinstate the credibility of Scottish Labour alongside the popular Anas Sarwar, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has placed Scotland at the centre of his campaign, stressing its importance for national renewal. “There’s no Labour without Scotland”, the two leaders stated at the Party’s campaign launch in Glasgow last week.

Whilst Scottish votes are unlikely to solely determine the next ruling party in Westminster, with 57 seats up for grabs, the voting sway of Scots could significantly impact the extent of Labour’s victory. Recent polling indicates a remarkable red resurgence, suggesting they could win over 30 seats, while the SNP’s representation could drop to the low teens.

This contest is crucial, and one to watch closely. The outcome will depend on the degree to which the SNP can regain the trust of the Scots, how far Starmer is committed to visiting the region, and to what extent he, and Anas Sarwar, can truly make voters believe that Scotland will be a centerpiece of a future Labour government.

Share this content:

Hitting the ground running: The first 100 days

The days after a Labour General Election win will see wide-ranging change in SW1, as well as the country.

A selection of immediately deliverable policy changes are almost certain,100+ Ministers will meet their private office teams, set priorities and seek out profile-raising opportunities, and potentially 200+ brand new MPs will pick up their parliamentary pass for the first time and navigate the corridors of power.

Crucial moments abound – from the day after the election, and as MPs and Ministers take up their positions over the next week, to key parliamentary moments throughout the subsequent 2-3 months:

First 100 days of the new government

First 10 days

Ministerial Appointments

More than 100 new Ministers will pick up their red boxes, and meet with senior civil servants from across each department to set out their priorities.

Special Adviser appointments will also be made quickly, including key Downing Street roles such as the Prime Minister’s Director of Communications.

On page 68 of our Next Left guide, Natasha Egan-Sjodin, former Head of Ministerial Briefing at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, explores in detail the briefing of a brand new minister.

Electing a Commons Speaker and Swearing-in of MPs and Peers

First 30 days

King’s Speech

This will set out the government’s key priorities, and also their likely sequencing.

Not every policy will require a place in the King’s Speech: many could be introduced as part of a subsequent Budget (for example introducing VAT on private school fees), or through existing legislation or statutory instruments.
Debate on the King’s Speech will take place in the days after – with specific days often focusing on certain themes selected by the Opposition.
Some parliamentary business can begin before the King’s Speech – for example the government could begin to introduce some bills if it wished, oral questions can begin, and secondary legislation can be considered.

In the scenario of a minority government or confidence-and-supply arrangement, it will be the first test of Labour’s ability to command the confidence of the Commons.

Select Committees

Key Select Committees – such as the Treasury and Public Account Committees – will typically be formed within three to four weeks of Parliament reconvening after the election, with Chairs being elected by MPs. Committees announcing their first inquiries will offer one of the first opportunities for targeted engagement.

First 100 days

Emergency Budget

The Chancellor of the Exchequer will start to set out the new government’s economic strategy, public finance measures, and taxation policies, most likely when Parliament returns in September.

Comprehensive Spending Review

The most recent spending review in Autumn 2021 set departmental budgets up to the end of March 2025. This may lead to two possible outcomes – a one-year CSR from the current government which Labour will adopt, or Labour being compelled to roll-over departmental budgets for a year to give them breathing space to conduct a full multi-year CSR from 2026.

Machinery of Government changes

Labour’s Five Missions typically bring together policy objectives that would span multiple government departments – so a Labour administration, and Sue Gray in particular, will be looking at how central government is structured, to ensure deliverability and accountability around these key priorities.

This might mean changes to government departments, but broader use of Cabinet Committees, cross-departmental teams, the appointment of external ‘czars’, and greater use of taskforces could also be options.

All-Party Parliamentary Groups

APPGs will reform in a less formal way – with changes to groups, and the speed of formations depending on the number of existing MPs returning to Westminster, and the range of interests across the new Parliament.

NEXT LEFT? THE SHAPE OF A LABOUR GOVERNMENT

This article is part of our Next Left series, which examines the people and policies that will shape the next government if Labour wins power – explore the guide in full here.

Share this content:

How to get your story heard during a General Election campaign?

A change of government can be a daunting prospect for brands seeking to protect and enhance their reputations amidst shifting national priorities, policies and regulations.

In this age of rolling news and trigger-finger social media, there is a real risk of corporate announcements becoming politicised in the febrile months immediately before and after an election.

So we thought we’d draw on our experience – and that of our media network – to find ways through this critical period.

We asked two senior journalists for their views on two contrasting scenarios:

What should brands do if they inadvertently become a political football in the election period?
How can organisations connect with media if they are struggling to find airtime?

Our huge thanks to Caroline Wheeler, Political Editor, The Sunday Times, and Sam Rix, Senior News Editor, Good Morning Britain, for sharing their thoughts, as part of our ‘Navigating the media in an election year’ breakfast.

How to respond if you find yourself in the eye of the political storm?

As the American newspaper publisher-turned-showman P. T. Barnum reportedly said: “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.” But try telling that to your comms team when your organisation is unintentionally drawn into the storm.

Our panel gave three clear recommendations to help.

1. Create bespoke packages for your most influential media

As a Sunday newspaper Editor, Caroline Wheeler lives and breathes exclusives. For her, the key to successful brand management lies in selective media engagement.

“My view is that blanket coverage which is out of control will be more difficult, if you do get into trouble with the media” she said. “Who are the audiences you want to target? What is your messaging? What is the media going to be interested in?

“Build a bespoke package for key media so you have control over that coverage. If you put out blanket coverage, it tends to fuel the news cycle. Careful management will be more effective in shutting down the news story. There will be one more day of it, but you feed the beast once in a compelling way.”

She cited the example of Henry Staunton, the former Post Office chairman, who put a bombshell under the Department of Business and Trade with one carefully crafted Sunday Times interview.

2. Don’t be too defensive

Journalists will assume they are onto something if your comms team is too defensive – all the more so if that turns to outright hostility.

“There is always defensiveness from people who have not been in the [media] industry and defensiveness tends to perpetuate the story rather than shut it down,” Wheeler said.

3. Respond quickly to frame how the story is told

There are times when putting your head above the parapet is ill-advised. But if you know that a story has legs, it often pays to engage. Sam Rix said that early intervention is best, to frame how your story is being told in the media.

“A quick response that will help frame the narrative is important,” Rix said. “You tell your story first, before the media do. Frame the narrative and make it your story.”

How to get your story heard during a busy election campaign?

Many a PR will agree with Oscar Wilde when he wrote: “There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.”

Seasoned journalists gave us their views on how communications professionals stand the best chance of getting heard during the election tumult.

1. Make sure to build relationships with key media

When space is short and competition for stories even more intense, personal relationships become even more important.

“It is good to have contacts in the media before we get to an election. Go to events, invite a prominent journalist to come to your event, to establish your own network. It’s important to build relationships.” Wheeler said.

2. Make sure you have a compelling story to tell

At a time when media interest can become myopic, if you are able to present interesting, counter-intuitive information, then you stand a decent chance of having your voice heard.

“The old adage is true: dog bites man is not an interesting story, but man bites dog is. Have you got a narrative that is going to solicit interest?” Wheeler said.

3. Commission polling or focus groups to provide information a journalist can use

Polling or focus group work only gains in importance at election time. If you can find the resources to pay for national polling on interesting issues you might well cut through the noise. Especially if you can pay for those expensive constituency-level surveys.

“Providing that added value is a very good thing. Many newspapers can’t afford to do any polling in a consistent way. If you can commission a piece of polling, that might help,” Wheeler said.

Before joining WA, Philip spent more than a decade as a senior journalist at The Times, including more than five year’s as the paper’s Transport Correspondent.

NEXT LEFT? THE SHAPE OF A LABOUR GOVERNMENT

This article is part of our Next Left series, which examines the people and policies that will shape the next government if Labour wins power – explore the guide in full here.

Share this content:

The great aviation debate: can we do it better?

Pity the poor Planning Inspectors. They spend years qualifying as a town planner and then find themselves asked to answer one of the most contentious questions in British politics – the future of aviation. That at least must be what it feels like to be the Inspector in charge of the current enquiry into Gatwick’s plan to expand using its northern runway. And Gatwick is just one of half a dozen airports with plans to increase capacity.

Expanding airports has never been easy but the list of challenges has got a lot longer in the last decade. Air quality and the path to Net Zero have joined noise and the local environment in the top tier of issues. And any major proposal to expand needs to show not just that it will meet a need and bring social and economic benefits, but that it is consistent with national policy and will mitigate any adverse effects.

Of all these issues the one where the stakes are now highest is climate change. And that’s true politically as well. Aviation is hard to decarbonise, but it’s also emotionally charged in a way that (let’s face it) grazing cattle or sheep are not – even though agriculture is actually responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions and far fewer jobs than aviation.

With Labour’s focus on the economy, and an industry that is ready to expand and create jobs and growth, it’s easy to predict some difficult debates about aviation if they form the next Government. And those debates are likely to focus above all on airport expansion: whether it’s the most important issue or not, it can be understood and it can generate feelings in a way that many other aspects of the environmental agenda cannot.

We can all see this risk coming, so what to do about it? Can we manage this debate any better, so that it is less likely to turn into a zero-sum argument played out in the media about climate vs growth? To its credit, the current Government has already started to do lots of things that I suspect any Government will want to do: set out an ambitious strategy for Sustainable Aviation Fuels, invest more in aerospace R&D to try to improve fuel efficiency, and lead efforts around new global mechanisms like CORSIA at ICAO.

There is lots more to do here to ramp up delivery, not least on SAF. But it’s also striking that other aspects of the debate are less well developed and more polarised – which is never a good sign.

Let’s look at positions on airport capacity. The Committee on Climate Change has recommended a new framework for managing this nationally. It says there should be no net expansion in airport capacity between now and 2050: if there is expansion in one location, capacity should be reduced elsewhere. Under the CCC’s model, by 2050 the capacity of Britain’s airports would basically match demand – there would be a 25% increase in passenger numbers over 2018 levels and every airport would be more or less full.

The Committee says there should only be a net increase in airport capacity if aviation reduces carbon use even faster than the Government is assuming – for example because of huge breakthroughs in SAF or electric flight. This would be a radical intervention in the economy – managing capacity across the country’s airports, closing some to open others. It obviously raises lots of practical questions (including costs), as well as focussing on airport capacity more than the underlying issue of carbon emissions.

The Government by contrast thinks that the path set out in its Jet Zero strategy should allow aviation both to decarbonise sufficiently and to increase capacity and passenger numbers, with a 70% increase by 2050. This is based on assumptions about the development of technology – mainly SAF and fuel efficiency – as well as major changes in the pricing of emissions globally through CORSIA, that would need international agreement. The CCC, and some others, think these assumptions are just too risky and optimistic.

It seems a shame if the debate is left there, as an argument about assumptions when the truth is no one really knows. What is striking to me, as someone who has been around the block on public policy, is that the underlying issue is not really about technology – it’s about how you deal with uncertainty and create enough confidence that future Governments will act to limit emissions. And those are issues that come up and get resolved not too badly in other areas of public policy – pensions for example.

A bit more thought about solving these problems might be time well spent. It just might make life easier for a new Government, never mind the people running airports and, yes, the poor planning inspectors.

Share this content:

In Conversation with NHS England’s Medicines Value and Access Team

WA Communications hosted an insightful roundtable discussion with NHS England’s Medicines Value and Access (MVA) leadership team, led by Fiona Bride alongside Jack Turner, and were joined by Mike Bell, Chair of South West London Integrated Care Board (ICB) and Senior Adviser to WA Communications.

This roundtable offered representatives from the pharmaceutical industry an opportunity to delve into MVA strategic priorities and explore collaborative opportunities at ICS level to deliver patient access to innovative medicines.

Setting the Stage: Priorities for the Future

The session kicked off with a clear outline of MVA focus areas:

Driving Efficiencies: Streamlining processes to optimise medicines use and secure taxpayer value.
Horizon Scanning: Preparing the system for future innovations.
Addressing Inequities: Ensuring fair access to medicines across diverse populations.

Key Takeaways: A Vision for Progress

From this dynamic discussion, the WA team captured four critical takeaways, highlighting the pathway to a more responsive and innovative healthcare system.

The Commercial Framework for New Medicines – firm or flexible?

The imminent Commercial Framework review aims to clarify its flexibilities, focusing on commercial arrangements including indication-based pricing (IBP) and combination therapies. The consultation presents a pivotal opportunity for the industry to shape long-term policy.

Industry input is vital to determine how explicitly these commercial flexibilities should be defined. While detailed criteria might prove limiting, broader guidelines could lead to ambiguity. It’s confirmed that eligibility considerations will remain case-specific, but NHS England’s move away from viewing indication-based pricing as “exceptional” is a welcome shift. There is also recognition that the changes can’t be strictly held to cost neutral parameters.

A second consultation on the Framework in 2025 will aim to take a more holistic view of the system. This includes how, through working with partners, regulatory, health technology appraisal (HTA) and uptake pathways could be streamlined to facilitate faster access. A consultation on increasing the threshold of the Budget Impact Test (BIT) to £40m from £20m will also be launched imminently.

Earlier Engagement – how and when

NHS England underscored the importance of early engagement from the pharmaceutical industry. Proactive involvement in strategic pipeline discussions, facilitated through channels like NHS commercial surgeries or the Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway (to be refreshed in ILAP 2.0), is crucial. This early alignment ensures the health system is well-prepared for new medicines, ultimately accelerating patient access. The key question NHS England seeks to address: What does a new medicine launch mean for workforce, patient pathways, outcomes, and system interactions? Early dialogue on data requirements for indication-based pricing agreements is particularly beneficial, speeding up implementation when systems are in place.

Strategic Long-term Thinking on the Horizon

The looming General Election and the NHS’s ongoing productivity efforts have temporarily shifted focus to necessary short-term financial objectives. However, there is optimism that post-election, the NHS will have the bandwidth to embrace bold, multi-annual strategies essential for integrating groundbreaking pharmaceutical and technological advancements. Should political tides turn in favour of a Labour government, their systemic reforms will necessitate close collaboration between the NHS and the pharmaceutical and med-tech sectors to realise ambitious strategic goals.

Focus on Community-Based Care

The roundtable discussion recognised the need to enhance the uptake of products and initiatives suited for community settings, given the prioritisation of preventative and anticipatory care. NHSE is keen to understand the unique requirements for effective implementation in these settings and is open to industry insights. While immediate efforts are directed towards community care, addressing long-term issues in primary care prescribing remains on the agenda. The industry is encouraged to share experiences and solutions ahead of formal consultations, noting that this broader challenge is earmarked for the second consultation in 2025.

WA Communications: Bridging the Gap

WA Communications, with its expertise in strategic communications and public affairs, is dedicated to supporting clients at the intersection of policy, government affairs, and healthcare communications. Our health practice is adept at navigating complex landscapes to help clients achieve their strategic objectives.

For a deeper discussion on partnering with the NHS and navigating this evolving landscape, reach out to us at HelloHealth@wacomms.co.uk. Together, we can drive forward innovative solutions for a healthier future.

Share this content:

What are the learnings so far at Integrated Care System (ICS) level to reduce health inequalities?

In conversation with NHS Gloucestershire Integrated Care Board (ICB)

The need for local community action to address health inequalities has never been greater. Over the last few months, we’ve seen a disbanding of the Office of Health Inequalities and Disparities (OHID), the government department set up to drive a meaningful step change in health inequalities.

However, with disappointment comes opportunity.

In a year of political change, many are looking to ICSs who have a statutory duty to reduce health inequalities, as the engines of meaningful progress. Now almost two years on since their formal legislation, each ICS is taking a different approach in response to addressing health inequalities, with great success.

We sat down with Becca Smith, Associate Director Clinical Programmes, Frances Beavis, Senior Project Manager and Natalia Bartolome Diez, Insights Manager EDI to talk about their tailored approach to working with people and communities, and why they are confident it is already working.

What are you doing differently to understand the nuances of the diverse community you work with?

Everything starts with building trust. Whilst national health campaigns over the years have had great results in shifting behaviour, it is the underserved populations that are often forgotten. There are multiple reasons for this, too many to get into today, but one of the most important factors is a lack of trust in the health system. We decided to create a new role, an ‘Insights Manager’ to act as the point of reference for many different religious, ethnic and social-economic communities into the NHS to work out how to overcome this. Our Insights Manager’s main role is to listen and to truly hear the needs of seldom heard communities. Doing this allows us to truly understand what we need to do differently, what are the simple fixes and what are the longer-term changes that will get the results these groups deserve. All good plans start without assumption, and we are seeing the benefits of this first hand.

And more broadly, how does addressing health inequalities fit within your wider organisation?

Often within an ICB, there is a dedicated health inequalities team. However, responsibility for health inequalities is also shared by team members across the organisation, including team members in specific disease areas −transformation roles as well as clinical leads may share responsibility.

If you are interested in collaborating with an ICB on a health inequality initiative, we would recommend mapping stakeholders via desk research. You should also be prepared to speak with several people within the ICB to identify the right person with responsibility for your area of interest.

Is it time to stop categorising ‘ethnic minorities’ into a catch all definition?

We have seen that there is real benefit in developing engagement strategies that are tailored to specific ethnic groups. There are different social and cultural norms between different groups and with this, different barriers and drivers. There can be a tendency to develop health engagement strategies for all ethnic minority communities but increasingly as a sector, we are understanding that engagement needs to be more specific. What might work for one community may not work for another.

Do you have any projects that show this new approach is succeeding?

There are a few examples that we are incredibly proud of.

Our collaboration with the Gloucester Health and Care Community Cancer team to host an early diagnosis in prostate cancer event for Black men demonstrated how local community events are starting to inform local policymaking.

Firstly, we made sure that the prostate cancer event was hosted in a local, familiar space that Black men attended regularly – in this case the local community centre. We also invited a range of people including doctors, clinical nurse specialists, support workers and a Black man with lived experience to provide information on the symptoms of prostate cancer, treatment options and support options.

During the event, attendees suggested some helpful screening recommendations, including offering a drop-in clinic at the community centre for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. This will be discussed with Gloucester ICB’s Cancer Patient Reference Group, a group of people affected by cancer that inform the strategy and activity of the ICB.

We also worked with the Gloucester South Asian local community centre over the course of a year to explore barriers to NHS England’s digital diabetes platform, which sets out to help people manage their diabetes. We managed to identify specific language barriers and develop solutions to inform a national pilot programme.

It’s great to see these new approaches achieving high engagement from communities and now feeding in to how we shape our services in long-term chronic conditions.

If you are interested in further examples of local best practice or how to work collaboratively with an ICB, contact Rose Brade at rosebrade@wacomms.co.uk or Clara McDermott Simarro at claramcdermottsimarro@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

Unravelling the Budget – Health and Life Sciences reflections

Alongside the economy, health is one of the top concerns among the electorate. In today’s Budget, likely to be the last before the General Election, the Chancellor made announcements which will have implications for the healthcare system and clients alike.

Here, we take a look at three key take aways for the health and life sciences industry:

An efficiency saving trade-off for the NHS

The Chancellor’s flagship Budget announcements were largely based on personal finances. This includes a 2p cut to national insurance tax, freezing fuel duty, and raising the child benefit cap. Despite this, Hunt did find room for one significant financial package for the NHS – £3.4 billion of funding towards the NHS Productivity Plan.

The Productivity Plan aims to fund digital advancements across the board, including for AI MRI scanners, ungraded IT systems and digitally enabled prevention services. The plan will also fund electronic patient records in all NHS trusts by 2026 – something initially committed to by Hunt when he was Health Secretary in 2013.

This funding package and the commitments attached to it should be welcomed; however, they will be delivered alongside an expectation that the NHS achieves annual productivity growth of 2%. In the wake of ongoing industrial action and the largest real terms cut to NHS funding since the 1970s, this may be difficult to achieve.

Clients engaging with the NHS should bear this in mind – policies and proposals that offer productivity gains or efficiency savings will be warmly welcomed.

Scuppering Labour

Hunt’s unexpected decision to reform the non-dom tax status takes away the only funding source for Labour’s health service reform plans, just as they will have finalised their manifesto commitments.

Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting confirmed yesterday that this leaves a hole in their funding allocation, and they would have to look at alternatives. Hunt’s decision to act here puts a sizeable spanner in the works for Labour’s health mission.

While there is nothing to suggest that Labour are inclined to move in an entirely new direction, this new development will likely require them to consider their priorities and rethink their direction of travel in health policy.

What about Life Sciences?

Hunt’s budget this year reaffirmed the Government’s position placing Life Sciences as a key growth sector in a series of announcements including funding for medical research charities and R&D tax reliefs. He hailed the success of AstraZeneca’s £650m investment in R&D and manufacturing sites in Cambridge and Liverpool respectively.

Richard Torbett, CEO of the ABPI, suggested that this shows UK medicine manufacturing can be reinvigorated if the policy environment is right. The policy environment he refers to is one that values growth, jobs and investment.

This is a mindset shared with Labour. Attracting Life Sciences industry investment is central to their plan for the sector and wider ambitions for growth. Any opportunity to leverage home-grown domestic growth and inward investment will be looked on favourably.

Share this content:

Spring Budget – Moving the political dial

Today’s heavily trailed Spring Budget demonstrated the difficulty the government will have in moving the political dial before the General Election.

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has been operating under tight fiscal margins after ONS data showed the UK entered a ‘technical’ recession at the end of 2023. Nonetheless, news from the OBR that the government had more than halved inflation since November 2022, the top priority on Rishi Sunak’s 5-point plan, gave Hunt the confidence to cut taxes for a second time, in what could be their last opportunity to appease voters.

According to the OBR forecast today, the economy is expected to grow by 0.8% this year and 1.9% in 2025. That is slightly stronger than the 0.7% and 1.4% growth rate expected at the time of the Autumn Statement in November.

In this economic context, it was no surprise that Hunt’s speech was marked by a series of smaller scale changes rather than big policy interventions. Instead of an injection of cash to target waiting lists the Chancellor chose to announce an ‘NHS Productivity Plan’ to support a digital transformation within the NHS. On housing, a capital gains cut for residential properties was announced, but no sign of the rumoured Stamp Duty holiday for buyers.

At the heart of his speech was the 2p cut to national insurance, a measure that will partly be funded by abolishing the non-domicile tax status by 2025. This highly political move puts Labour on the backfoot by forcing Starmer to endorse the personal tax cut in his response, while creating a major challenge for a new Labour government, who have already allocated the money changes to the non-dom status will raise to the NHS.

There was also a notable continuation of existing commitments, with the freeze on alcohol duty and fuel duty both extended for a further 12 months. A U-turn on the household support fund, scrapped in the Autumn Statement, to provide an additional six months of funding also speaks to the Chancellor’s plan to push tough decisions until after the General Election, setting potential traps for a Labour government.

Whilst some fiscal headroom will be created through measures announced today, the reduction in national insurance will lead to a tighter squeeze on public services at a time when local councils are increasingly struggling with their budgets.

In his response, Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer accused the government of “delusion” and “giving with one hand and taking more with the other”. He was quick to highlight that theft of Labour’s non-dom policy signalled “a government bereft of ideas”, and warned about stealth taxes that would swiftly follow through council tax.

However, pressure is now on Starmer and Shadow Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, to show how a Labour government will deliver economic growth and public sector reform without increasing taxation. This will become a lightning rod issue in the General Election.

Governments have a longstanding history of reducing taxes before a General Election to put more money in their voters’ pockets. However, there is scepticism within sections of the Conservative Party that today’s national insurance reduction will be enough to shift the political dial, after the Autumn Statement’s giveaways failed to do so. All eyes are on the polls over the coming days, as pressure grows on the Prime Minister and the Labour Leader, who now must navigate the fallout from today’s Budget.

Share this content:

Navigating the Media in an Election Year

Uncovering, shaping and setting the political agenda, journalists across the media spectrum are important cogs in the wheels of Party decision making – particularly in the lead up to a General Election.

Seeking to understand how media content changes, and adapts to, an increasingly polarised political landscape – and crucially how organisations can navigate this landscape and cut through the noise – WA Communications hosted Caroline Wheeler, Political Editor at The Sunday Times; Sam Rix, Senior News Editor at Good Morning Britain; and Steve Richards, WA Senior Adviser, broadcaster and journalist, for an in-depth panel session.

This session is the latest in a series of WA events looking towards the 2024 General Election with senior political and media figures.

Here are our main takeaways from the discussion, and our advice on how to navigate this shifting landscape:

Setting the Agenda

Although we live in an ever-evolving social sphere, the power of traditional media remains, driving public conversation and painting perceptions of those at the top of party politics.

Sunday newspapers are the key orchestrators of this. Filled with whisperings from the corridors of power, exclusive interviews with key stakeholders, anonymous leaks and briefings and in-depth insights from company-led polls, print news holds influence over politicians, businesses and wider society – setting the weekly agenda and influencing broadcast coverage.

In an election year, with people falling over themselves to have a say on the ongoing Labour-Conservative dividing lines, this influence is more heightened than ever.

To achieve cut through, it will be important to align with the political narrative of the week and draw on ‘big splash’ interviews and regional political activities, offering new perspectives that play into shifting topics of interest.

A Noisy Landscape

The panelists painted a picture of an increasingly crowded media landscape this election period, pointing to strong voices on platforms like X – formerly Twitter – and the growing expectation for ‘all singing, all dancing’ interactive content.

They noted how social media commentary from politicians, journalists and wider society changes media narratives and continually shifts agendas. Less ‘traditional’ channels like TikTok and podcasts are also increasingly shaping political rhetoric, driving news content, and maintaining – or often igniting – public engagement in certain stories.

As we get closer to the General Election, we can expect media outlets to publish more data, audio, visual and short-form video content across Tik Tok, X and LinkedIn, as they continue their effort to keep abreast of the latest political developments.

Surveilling and using these channels will be more important than ever in assessing how and where best to share your voice.

Communication with Today’s Politicians

It is no secret that media have long played into symbiotic relationships with politicians in Westminster, to obtain information and construct stories that shape narratives and connect with the public.

Despite this, the panel outlined the hesitancy and cautious approach they have experienced from today’s politicians, who seem scared by a perceived threat of public-facing exposure. Whilst Conservative leaning papers struggle to show support for Rishi Sunak, Labour leader Keir Starmer struggles to engage with the media at all – a possible stumbling block in his leadership campaign.

Overall, party communication with the media has been relatively weak, with the panel suggesting press offices are poorly briefed and spokespeople poorly guided. There are, however, some glimmers of hope for Labour in the likes of Wes Streeting and Lisa Nandy.

Whilst the parties struggle to embrace media opportunities in the run up to the General Election, constructive engagement from businesses will be welcomed to fill this gap.

Looking Ahead

As the political landscape evolves, the panel predicted several key themes that are likely to shape media discourse in the coming months.

This includes increased scrutiny over Government spending and party finances, particularly in areas related to green finance and cost-of-living. Artificial intelligence is also likely to have an increasing influence in the media, with deep fake clips resonating with social audiences. Beyond this, foreign affairs could play a more influential role in this year’s election, with a focus on the impact of the Donald Trump administration and the implications of the Israel-Gaza conflict.

In light of these changing focuses, keeping an eye on media priorities will be the most effective way to determine which narratives to play into, which journalists and outlets are covering topics of interest to your business, and to pinpoint where you can offer new and stimulating perspectives.

WA Communications works to help businesses navigate the shifting landscape, and land meaningful coverage across national, broadcast, trade and regional media.

For more information on how WA can help, please contact media@wacomms.co.uk or get in touch with LeeFindell@wacomms.co.uk or RachelFord@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

Regaining momentum: Labour’s double by-election win despite political difficulties

Last Friday, Labour gained a double by-election win in the Conservative safe seats of Wellingborough and Kingswood, despite a tough couple of weeks for the party politically.

Labour secured 44.9% and 45.9% of votes in Kingswood and Wellingborough, respectively, with a 28.6% swing in Wellingborough, making it the second biggest Conservative to Labour swing in a by-election since the Second World War.

Critically, this boosts Labour’s tally of seats gained from the Conservatives in by-elections since July to six.

Last month, WA were delighted to host political polling guru Professor Sir John Curtice. His analysis outlined many of the issues at play in these two by-elections – the Conservative Party’s misreading of public priorities, the rise of Reform, yet a mixed record and lack of enthusiasm for Labour.

A strong cause for Conservative concern

Locally, in Wellingborough, Helen Harrison, partner of the constituency’s former MP Peter Bone, emerged as the candidate. The by-election arose after the suspension of Bone following allegations of bullying and sexual misconduct. While Harrison expressed confidence that these distinctive circumstances would not affect her electoral prospects, it would not be unexpected if they had done so.

Conservatives like Jacob-Rees Mogg have pointed to low voter turnout as the crucial element responsible, with 38% in Wellingborough and 37.1% in Kingswood. But when you delve into the details, the argument loses its edge. Low turn-out in by-elections is not unusual, and considering Labour’s prior successes, it seems they have developed a trend of consecutive by-election victories.

Nationally, the Conservatives have faced a myriad of issues that may have impacted electoral outcomes:

On Thursday, the ONS announced that the UK economy is in a recession, adding to voters’ concerns about the NHS and the ‘cost of living’ crisis. This is a significant setback for Rishi Sunak, who pledged to ‘grow the economy’, and instead is now faced with a 0.3% shrinkage in the economy in the last quarter of 2023.

Another influential factor in shaping the by-election results likely stemmed from the government’s handling of immigration issues – where ‘stopping the boats’ is now closely intertwined with ‘stopping Reform’.

The by-election has underscored that significant challenge posed by Richard Tice’s party to the Conservatives. Reform fielded candidates in both by-elections, securing 10.4% of the vote in Kingswood, and 13% in Wellingborough – demonstrating that their appeal translates from hypothetical opinion polling into votes (and more … with Wellingborough’s 13% result for the party a record result, and comfortably exceeding its 10% national poll figure).

Plans to put up a candidate against every Conservative in the upcoming general election means the Conservatives may find themselves engaged in a multi-front battle that hands victory to Labour – Reform splitting the Conservative vote to the extent seen on Thursday could result in dozens more Tory MPs losing their seats.

Tough time for Labour politically.

But Labour has also had a tough time politically. (One poll by Savanta conducted the weekend before the by-election even suggested a seven-point drop for Labour).

One source of this political difficulty stemmed from the abandonment of their flagship £28 billion green energy spending commitment. This decision has proven to be a significant dilemma for Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves – as she tried to balance the overriding priority of demonstrating responsible economic stewardship, with a spending pledge portrayed by opponents as reckless, and the perception that a policy reversal portrayed the party as indecisive and overly responsive to opposition critiques.

A second political challenge had arisen from the controversial remarks made by Rochdale candidate Azhar Ali that Israel had used the October 7th attacks as a justification for invading Gaza. Many criticised the Labour Party for not suspending him fast enough. Given Keir Starmer’s efforts to distance the party from the Corbyn era, especially concerning accusations of unaddressed antisemitism, the handling of this situation created opportunities for the opposition to attack.

A further setback for the Conservative Party than a substantial advancement for Labour?

The outcome is the same nonetheless, Keir Starmer adds a further two seats to his tally of consecutive by-election victories, and the political weather moves on (at least for now) from what has been a difficult few weeks for the Labour Party leader.

The double by-election victory has undoubtedly alleviated concerns within Labour, suggesting that these challenges have not significantly affected voter behaviour.

But for the Conservatives, public enthusiasm has waned, perceived government failure on immigration is pushing voters towards Reform, and those Reform voters are turning out at the ballot box.

While there remains a question regarding the level of enthusiasm among voters for Labour, the party seems to be on a trajectory toward forming the next government – while the Conservatives added a new front to their list of problems.

Share this content:

Tackling the £28bn question

It’s been the political headache facing Labour for nearly a year – questions over exactly how their Green Prosperity Plan will be funded and delivered. The multiple climbdowns and the significant deliberate ambiguity were not enough to fend off their critics, who identified – rightly or wrongly – an area of vulnerability for the party.

The electoral and political implications are dominating the media, but what exactly does this now mean for the energy industry?

For industry, the ambition and targets are more important than the funding

While the media has been focused on the level and sequencing of government funding for the Green Prosperity Plan, for industry this is arguably the less critical issue. Generators and others in the sector want policy certainty and ambition in order to be able to make the case to their boards and investors to deploy capital in the UK.

The 2030 target – even if it is recognised as being virtually impossible to deliver – provides this. While backsliding over the £28bn figure could be perceived as a signal that Labour is wavering on green investment, it’s the 2030 target that really matters. Recommitting to this yesterday was key. The question now is whether Labour is willing to take the bold steps required to deliver it…

As political and media attention shifts to how 2030 power decarbonisation can be achieved, there’s risks and opportunities for the sector

However, the reality is that the political and media focus will simply – and we’re already starting to see this – shift to scrutiny of how this target will be delivered, with critics arguing that Labour now have a hugely ambitious target in place with no investment behind it to enable delivery. The political argument that the government and others will prosecute will be that either Labour are selling a vision to the electorate that they know cannot be delivered and so aren’t prepared for office, or that there will inevitably be ‘secret tax rises’ coming to fund this.

Further backsliding from Labour on the 2030 target should not be expected, but the risk of disagreements opening up within the party over it is unhelpful for industry particularly if enhanced media focus ends up driving up public scepticism over the right route to net zero.

The opportunity for industry now is to highlight even more clearly how it will be private capital that will do the heavy lifting to decarbonise the economy. As Labour – and the media – look even more closely at how power decarbonisation is achievable, now is the moment – in a highly political year – for industry to be explicitly showcasing the projects that will practically get the UK to net zero.

Strengthening the argument for bold supply side reforms?

To achieve private sector delivery at pace, the case for non-financial supply side reforms that enable projects to move from plans to reality in order to achieve 2030 power decarbonisation becomes even stronger. Grid connections and planning reform; swifter, longer-term and more consistent policy decisions; the right fiscal environment to encourage investment are all being pushed.

Ed Miliband has spoken ambitiously about a ‘Covid taskforce’ approach to government, hitting the ground running from day one to deliver the Clean Energy Mission. Industry is getting the right noises from government with a recognition that it gets the scale of the challenge, but if there is any chance of coming even close to the target, these things are now non-negotiable. Labour has already notionally committed to acting on these things, but the industry’s ability to press for these changes at pace and ensure full accountability for delivery has arguably been strengthened significantly this week with funding now reduced.

There are inevitably still plenty of gaps

While the ‘plan’ published yesterday provides a little more detail in some areas – particularly on the Local Power Plan – there are inevitably still large gaps and areas where industry is still lacking detail.

There are also still questions over exactly how key parts of Labour’s net zero vision – including carbon capture – will be funded.

This gives industry the chance to continue to shape the right pathway for delivery. Labour wants solutions – ideally with no or little costs attached – that will help the delivery of its Clean Energy Mission. This is the moment for industry to share thinking on how specific elements of the plan can be implemented, aligning business priorities with Labour’s language, structures and funding envelopes.

Share this content:

Labour and the Civil Service – Access Talks

So, access has been granted. One of the rituals of the run up to a British General Election can begin: the private, official talks between the Opposition and the Civil Service, which allow both sides to prepare for a possible change of Government.

When access should happen is down to the Prime Minister, and Rishi Sunak’s decision last week means he has already cut things fine for his opponents compared to some past Elections (2010 for example). But what happens in access talks, and do they actually matter?

To start with one thing that shouldn’t happen: don’t expect a running commentary in the press. Both civil servants and the Opposition are told to keep the discussions confidential, and past experience suggests this is one convention still observed. There are powerful incentives for secrecy: for Labour, it’s about message discipline running up to the Election; and for civil servants, it’s about building the confidence of your likely future employers.

It also helps to keep things secret when only a few people are involved. And this brings me to the first point about how access talks actually work: they’re tightly controlled and only a few people know what’s happening. For Labour they’ll be overseen by Sue Gray, and I think that will mean an even tighter and more disciplined process than usual.

Sue’s opposite number in Government is her former boss and Cabinet Secretary Simon Case, who’s now back at work. The first job for Sue and Simon will be to agree to some ground rules. One rule, for example, may be that a member of Keir Starmer’s office has to be present at every meeting. Only when the rules are settled will the shadow Secretaries of State and departmental Permanent Secretaries start talking to each other.

I was involved in access talks running up to four Elections from 2010 to 2019. My experience was they were taken very seriously by both sides and they actually mattered. These were discussions right at the top – between the shadow Secretary of State, the Permanent Secretary and just a few others on each side. They were an opportunity for the politicians to ask lots of questions about the department and the real challenges it faced, and for both sides to discuss the practical implications of big new policies. Above all, of course, it meant the senior people could get to know each other. On the official side the people involved were all very senior, DGs or above plus one (senior) link person, and the Opposition team was similar.

So given the secrecy and small number of people involved, what should businesses and other organisations with an interest be doing about access talks? Nothing directly I suggest. But this is still a critical time to engage the top of the Civil Service in every area: the approach just needs to be broader and more subtle than a focus directly on the access talks. Instead, every organisation should be asking itself about the evidence, insight and relationships that it can bring to bear, to help the senior people in departments through this phase and achieve its own goals. And there are plenty of lessons from 1997 and 2010 about how things can either go well for businesses – or badly.

Share this content:

In Conversation with Professor John Curtice

Sir John Curtice, professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, gave his views on the current state of play in British politics in conversation with Tom Frackowiak, Partner at WA Communications. With the Conservatives in “deep trouble” and Labour seemingly headed to power, his analysis of the polls shed a lot of light on the year ahead.

The conversation is the latest in a series of events on the upcoming general election with senior political and media figures hosted by WA.

Deep trouble for the Conservatives…

With polling currently showing a 20-point Labour lead, it is easy to forget that for the first two years of this parliament the Government were never consistently behind the Opposition. The scale of the turnaround in the Conservatives’ fortunes can be put down to two decisive events: the unravelling of the Johnson Government due to the ‘partygate’ scandal, and the ongoing economic impact of the short-lived Truss Government. The first of these allowed Labour to decisively pull ahead of the Conservatives, while the latter pushed Starmer’s party up to 50% in the polls.

Following the dramatic departures of his two predecessors, Rishi Sunak inherited the premiership amid high hopes that the popular former Chancellor could reinvigorate the Conservative brand and pull off a 1992-style election victory.

However, his popularity has waned – having entered office almost 30% more popular than his party, both Mr Sunak and the Conservatives now have -49% favourability ratings. For this reason, Labour’s 20-point lead has remained consistent despite Number 10’s efforts.

Sir John Curtice attributes Conservative malaise in the polls to a misreading of evidence on the issues that matter to voters. While Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor, prioritises tax cuts, the public – including a majority of Conservative voters – favour using the proceeds of increased tax to invest in the NHS and tackle record-breaking waiting lists. With dissatisfaction with the health service higher than in 1997, rescuing the NHS will undoubtedly be a key issue during the general election campaign.

On immigration, an issue prioritised by Number 10, the polling also suggests strategic errors. Not only does the subject not have the same salience to voters as the NHS or the economy, but evidence suggests that perceived government failure on the issue is pushing voters towards Reform UK rather than keeping them with the Conservatives.

A mixed bag for the Labour Party…

While it is undoubtable that the Labour Party owes much of its success to the chaos within the Conservative Party, they have made significant steps forward since 2019. With Jeremy Corbyn bequeathing just 203 seats – the worst general election result since 1935 – to Keir Starmer, the fact that they now look poised to win is a major achievement. 41% of voters now see Labour as moderate and only 19% as extreme, a major reversal compared to 2019.

Nevertheless, weaknesses persist for Labour. Most prominently, Mr Starmer’s personal favourability ratings trail those of his party by between 5 and 10 points. This is a marked contrast to the superstar status of Tony Blair in the run-up to the 1997 general election.

Labour has only a mixed record in its efforts to win back working class Leave voters. Amongst Brexit supporters – who overwhelmingly backed Boris Johnson in 2019 – Labour has gained some support since 2019. Yet more of these voters (17%) have switched their vote from Conservative to Reform.

Labour has also not managed to reassert its traditional overwhelming dominance amongst working class voters, instead seeing a relatively uniform increase in support across class groups.

Furthermore, a plurality of voters (44%) still believe that Labour is not yet ready to form a government. The party may be the bookies’ favourite to win the next election, but it seems that they will not be riding a wave of enthusiasm through the campaign.

Despite these issues, changing electoral geography is turbocharging Labour’s large lead. Data from YouGov’s recent MRP poll – which prompted a great degree of controversy – shows Tory support experiencing its sharpest decline in Conservative safe and marginal seats, making Labour gains more likely. Meanwhile, evidence from the local elections in May 2023 show clear signs of organised anti-Conservative tactical voting among Labour and Liberal Democrat voters. Following the premierships of Johnson and Truss, unionist Scottish voters have shifted their support to Labour from the Conservatives – a trend that has only been exacerbated by the turbulence within the Scottish National Party.

But take everything with a pinch of salt.

As usual, disclaimers about the value of polling evidence must be borne in mind. Shock election results in 1992 and 2015 show that pollsters can get it wrong as methodologies are tweaked to adapt to societal shifts. But it is worth noting that even if the polls are overestimating Labour support, this overestimation would have to be unprecedentedly large for Labour to lose in the autumn.

However, the UK electorate has shown itself to be increasingly volatile over the last decade. Poll watchers can no longer rest of simplistic assumptions. Boris Johnson believed in 2019 that he was headed for a decade in power but was proven wrong. With this in mind, it is not so hard to believe that Labour could win an historic majority in 2024 only to find themselves overwhelmed by the significant economic and international challenges facing the UK today.

Share this content:

A tale of two Cities: Labour’s vision for financial services

A tale of two Cities: Labour’s vision for financial services seeks to balance stability and reform

Labour’s Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Shadow City Minister Tulip Siddiq this morning showcased ‘Financing Growth’ – the party’s long-awaited review of financial services – to over 400 private sector leaders at its annual business forum. The scale of the event is reflective of the extensive engagement that the Labour Treasury and Business teams have conducted with the private sector over the last few years. The advisory panel that fed into this review is made up of leading members of the industry, policy and regulatory spheres – it is clear that Labour officials have put in the hard yards in engaging with the City on this work.

That said, while there are some significant new policies announced in the document, many of the key areas of focus will not come as huge surprise to those who have monitored the Shadow Treasury team’s comments over recent months. This stays true to Reeves’ stated aim of providing stability and security with her proposals, avoiding any major upheaval in policy to promote investor confidence and growth.

Expected measures to foster ‘stability and security’

This continuity is offered in Labour’s policies around consumer protection and financial inclusion; its plans for supporting and promoting the UK’s fintech sector; and in leveraging green finance as a crucial part of their wider environmental initiatives.

Increasing levels of consumer financial protection – particularly the regulation of the Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) sector – is an area which Labour has signposted for some time it will move quickly on should it win power. Labour has used the absence of regulation brought forward on BNPL as a stick to beat the government with over the last few years – as such, Siddiq and Reeves commit in the report to bring forward their ‘industry-approved plan for regulation’ quickly after the election.

The same is true of the proposals for the fintech sector. With Ron Kalifa on the advisory panel of this report, it is no surprise to see Labour seeking to build on many of the measures suggested by Kalifa in 2021 to increase the UK’s international competitiveness. These range from using its AI Strategy to encourage use-cases of the tech in financial services, to supporting the Joint Regulatory Oversight Committee (JROC) in delivering the next phase of Open Banking, and ‘working with regulators and industry’ on a new roadmap for Open Finance.

New announcements on regulation and savings have the potential to spiral

Whilst it is true that many of the policies set out in the report have been previously trailed, there are several new announcements that may have significant implications for businesses across the sector.

The first of these to highlight are a series of possible regulatory reviews and reforms in the name of ‘improving efficiency and promoting innovation’. Labour confirmed it will review how the entire range of City regulators operate in conjunction with one another, identifying areas of overlap and gaps in oversight. This will be supported by a major FCA ‘streamlining’ consultation with industry to align with the Consumer Duty, and a new Regulatory Innovation Office that will monitor performance, introduce new progress metrics and promote transparency. Clearly, a sector-wide review of regulatory mandates has the potential to be extremely impactful: inputting into these consultations and monitoring how the new watchdog shapes the industry-regulator dynamic will be critical for both established players and smaller innovators alike.

Another area of focus for Labour in the review is on measures to ‘reinvigorate’ capital markets and pensions – both from a consumer outcomes perspective and to channel more private capital into growth sectors of the economy. To this end, Labour today committed to undertaking a major review of the savings landscape, consulting across the whole industry and consumer group representatives to not only consider how the public can increase returns and be better protected, but also to encourage greater investment into UK-based assets. This was supplemented by the announcement of measures modeled on the French ‘Tibi’ scheme for Defined Contribution (DC) funds, who can opt-in to invest a proportion of their assets into UK growth assets.

While the exact scope of the review still needs to be clarified, it’s clear that like the current government, Labour recognises the potential value of private capital in generating the revenue it will need to achieve its policy priorities – Reeves speaks frequently about the ‘1:3 public-private investment ratio’ that she will aim for should she become Chancellor. It is clear Labour are exploring all possible policy levers it can pull in order to help achieve this.

Focus on diversity connects FS to the wider Labour policy platform

Finally, it would be remiss to not highlight the focus Labour has placed upon encouraging diversity in the UK’s financial services sector as part of this review – not only in the workforce itself but also geographically. Alongside introducing new diversity and inclusion guidance for the PRA and FCA to hold firms to account on their hiring pledges; and codifying two additional KPIs for the British Business Bank to channel investment into women and ethnic minority-led start-ups; Labour has placed a heavy emphasis on growing regional financial centers outside of London and Edinburgh. This leans on implementing the recommendations of both the Harrington Review into foreign investment and Labour’s own ‘Start-up, Scale-up’ – applying the same regional lens to the Labour FS agenda that exists across nearly all other aspects of the current party policy platform.

With this in mind, firms that are able to demonstrate how their work helps alleviate regional economic imbalances – avoiding mentioning the dreaded ‘levelling up’ – will be at an advantage when engaging with the Labour Treasury team on any variety of policy issues.

Wrap-up

In sum, much of ‘Financing Growth’ was unsurprising by design – in keeping with the regulatory direction of travel in the sector and reflective of the many conversations Labour has had with those in the City over the last few years. However, there are several new policies contained in the report that, given their as-yet undefined scope and ambitious nature, have the potential to pose challenges for firms across the sector and significantly impact the public. Gaining more detail from Labour on these proposals, and shaping the policy development process where possible, will therefore be critical as we move closer to the next election.

Share this content:

Political Update with Steve Richards – unpacking the year ahead

WA Senior Adviser, broadcaster and journalist, Steve Richards gave his views on an exciting year ahead in British politics in conversation with Laura Gabb, WA’s Deputy Managing Director. From Conservative turmoil to the upcoming general election campaign and Labour’s plans for power, a lot is going on.

The conversation is the latest in a series of discussions with senior political and media figures hosted by WA. You can read key takeaways from the discussion below:

Tories face the future with trepidation

Tory MPs are pessimistic about their chances of retaining power, with some senior MPs fearing a 1997-style wipeout – or worse. This reflects fear of an opposition ‘pincer movement’, as Labour target northern ‘Red Wall’ seats, while the Liberal Democrats take leafy ‘Blue Wall’ seats in the south.

Upcoming by-elections in Kingswood and Wellingborough risk further undermining Mr Sunak’s authority. The resignation of Chris Skidmore in Kingswood – and the possibility that he will endorse Labour – reflect ongoing issues retaining liberal Tories who support green policies. Meanwhile, losing a Brexit-voting seat like Wellingborough to Labour would be catnip to Suella Braverman and others on Sunak’s right.

Against this backdrop, rivals are positioning themselves to succeed Sunak if the election is lost. Three likely candidates from the party’s right – Kemi Badenoch, Suella Braverman, and Priti Patel – will vie for a spot on the ballot, facing down the moderate One Nation Group. Kemi Badenoch is seeking to portray herself as the most sensible of these, but this may damage her among the powerful and hardline Tory membership.

A key proxy battle in this shadow leadership contest is the ongoing debate around the Rwanda bill, with moderates like Robert Buckland seeking to water down hardline proposals from the right before the bill is voted on again later this month.

The long campaign ahead

Sunak fired the starting gun on a long election campaign at the beginning of January, as he appeared to rule out a spring election – making it all but certain that the poll will be held in the autumn.

A November election seems most likely given that party conferences are held in early October, with the expectation being that the Prime Minister will use his conference speech to announce the dissolution of Parliament.

The long run-up to the election will give the Tories something they urgently need – time. Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor, will be hoping to use as many levers as possible to demonstrate that the Tories have a viable plan for the future. Not only is the Spring Budget expected to cut income tax, but there are whispers of a further fiscal event in June or July to continue a giveaway to voters. Economic competence is a crucial issue at any election, but it is even more salient given the cost-of-living crisis and ongoing global turmoil.

A sure sign that the long campaign is already underway is the frequent appearances of Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer setting out their stall to the country. While the rhetoric may grow more heated, it’s worth noting that both leaders are addressing a common theme: the need to secure sustained economic growth after fifteen years of stagnation.

There are plenty of opportunities to exercise influence during these crucial few months as election manifestos are finalised and the Government aims to tie up loose ends in parliamentary business. But in doing so, it’s worth crafting approaches so that they address the wider electoral interests of each party.

Labour prepares for power

Reflecting the likely scenario that Keir Starmer wins the election, Labour’s election supremo Morgan McSweeney had aimed to have an embryonic manifesto in place before February. Work is still underway on the document and there is plenty of time to influence its contents before its release early in the general election campaign, but core themes have become clear.

Since 2019, Labour has notably adopted a conciliatory stance on divisive culture war issues – such as immigration, Brexit, and gender – to neutralise Government lines of attack. While Sunak may try to provoke a response on these, Starmer’s office has maintained a strong focus on the bread-and-butter issues of the economy and public services.

At the centre of Team Starmer’s vision for Britain is the idea of ‘mission-driven government’, with policy focused on five goals relating to economic growth, decarbonisation, the NHS, education, and crime. Any attempts to influence Labour before and after the election will need to appeal to one or more of these, with economic growth being paramount to Labour’s long-term vision for supporting the public sector.

Starmer and his shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, are at pains to stress that Labour will not go on a spending binge in government to avoid unnecessarily having to raise taxes or increase borrowing. Capitalising on this, the Tories have made cutting taxes a core part of their appeal to voters. In response, Labour will have to either reverse these cuts or implement dramatic spending cuts to make the sums add up. For this reason, we are likely to see an emergency budget within a month of Labour winning an election, as Reeves decides her fiscal priorities. As ever, these events and their ability to unlock vital funding and incentives are a key target for any organisation trying to influence policy.

Share this content:

Addressing England’s cardiovascular disease emergency – learnings from the new ICS five-year plans

England’s Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) have published their five-year joint forward plans, setting out Integrated Care Boards (ICB)-led priorities to tackle physical and mental health challenges being faced in their populations. We are summarising the key priorities of ICS’s in a series of articles, based on data revealed in our interactive map. This map is free to use, supporting better engagement and collaboration with all stakeholders in the healthcare community – industry, patient organisations, and the NHS.

Here, we focus on ICS five-year plans tackling cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Cardiovascular disease continues to be a top priority

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the top priority in almost two-thirds of ICS plans, second only to cancer, and every ICS has identified it as one of their top priority clinical areas. And rightly so. CVD affects around 7.6 million people in the UK and is a significant cause of disability and death. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, CVD-related excess deaths have spiralled and although we are seeing signs of recovery year on year – the number of deaths involving CVD has remained higher than expected.

So, what are the key approaches being taken to tackle CVD across the nation for the next 5 years? Prevention, targeting inequalities, moving care into the community, identifying risk, and using digital technologies.

Prevention. Every ICS emphasised the importance of CVD prevention. Most plans pledge to tackle modifiable risk factors such as smoking, alcohol, and inactivity. Case example: The Humber and Yorkshire ICB CVD Prevention and Detection Plan 2022-24 covers primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention tactics for CVD, in addition to proposed methods for risk stratification and early identification.

Targeting inequalities. People living in England’s most deprived areas are almost four times more likely to die prematurely of CVD than those in the least deprived areas. So it’s reassuring to see Core20PLUS5 features in every plan and that many ICS plans are tailoring community interventions to help those most deprived. Case example: Dudley is launching a mobile Healthy Hearts Hub to empower residents to manage their own CVD health and will be moving throughout the area to reach the most deprived communities.

Community services. Many ICSs propose to increase care in the community for people with CVD, reducing demand on hospitals and reaching more patients. Some plan to achieve this through Community Pharmacies and Neighbourhood teams, others through digital engagement. Case example: Black Country is expanding community pharmacy blood pressure services and further embedding personalised care at that level through Health and Wellbeing Coaches as part of the Healthy Hearts Project.

Identifying risk. Optimal management of cross-cutting risk factors like high blood pressure and high lipids, to prevent CVD, or diagnose and treat people earlier. In many ICBs, cardiac pathway reforms are being proposed to enable this shift. Case example: Suffolk and Northeast Essex is encouraging the use of Accelerated Access Collaborative pathways to simplify lipid management and encourage adherence to national guidance for optimal management of patients at high risk of CVD.

Digital technologies. Many plans emphasise the monitoring, treatment, and detection of patients with CVD-related conditions, tying into the imperative around community care. This is tied to a much broader drive to scale tech innovation in the NHS whereby each ICB has laid out an extensive digital strategy. Case example: Mid and South Essex is continuing with the successful national pilot BP@home, where residents are self-monitoring blood pressure; they are also rolling out mobile heart monitors allowing people to detect, monitor and manage heart arrhythmias.

What does this mean for industry?

Partnership between ICSs and industry has the potential to change the lives of millions of people around the UK living with CVD.
CVD remains an important focus for ICSs and there are opportunities for industry to support local approaches, drive innovation, upscale successes and help improve service delivery.
The establishment of ICSs promises to motivate uptake of new treatments and technologies, support the reduction of health inequalities, and deliver socioeconomic benefits across the country.

We hope you found this useful – if you would like to discuss in more detail, please get in touch.

Further reading:

Five key takeaways: Engaging with ICS priorities panel session https://wacomms.co.uk/five-key-takeaways-engaging-with-ics-priorities-panel-session/

Engaging with Integrated Care Systems priorities https://wacomms.co.uk/engaging-with-integrated-care-systems-priorities/

What the new integrated care model means for specialised services https://wacomms.co.uk/what-the-new-integrated-care-model-means-for-specialised-services/

About WA Communications

If you would like to discuss how to best work in partnership with Integrated Care Systems, and our analysis of their key areas of focus, contact Lloyd Tingley at  lloydtingley@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

Tax, tax, tax: Hunt’s Autumn Statement was a tax give-away aimed at driving growth

Yesterday’s Autumn Statement marked the penultimate fiscal event ahead of the next General Election; a clear opportunity for Chancellor Jeremy Hunt to tell the House, and indeed the country, that the economy has “turned a corner” in order to turn the tide on the government’s ballot box prospects.

His approach and announcements were clearly aimed at shoring up support across party factions and appealing to the broadest spread of voters, whilst maintaining the traditional focus on balancing the books.

However, with the Conservative Party still behind in the polls and a tough battle ahead to win the hearts and minds of the electorate, the question remains whether Hunt has gone far enough to impact change in a Statement which has been heralded as “sensible, but underwhelming”.

Here are WA’s five key takeaways from yesterday’s speech:

Balancing the party politics

Hunt’s 110 fiscal measures and focus on the Conservative Party’s success in halving inflation were met with cheers from the backbenchers. The politics of the speech were as much about internal party management as they were about external ratings and Hunt notably applauded the effective representations made by backbench MPs in marginal seats such as Bolsover, Wrexham, Clwyd South, and Keighley. It will become clearer over the coming weeks if this has been enough to unite the party’s right with the mainstream, or if more needs to be done in the months to come to create a unified front for the election.

Tax, tax, tax

Hunt’s heavily pre-briefed “rabbit out of the hat” moment was a headline announcement of a 2% reduction in National Insurance contributions, one of many changes rumoured for inclusion in the run-up. It forms part of a series of tax cuts and “cost of living” measures which are clearly aimed at bolstering household and business finances – including an increase to the National Living Wage to £11.44 per hour in April, a freeze for the small business multiplier, an extension of the Retail, Hospitality and Leisure (RHL) relief, and most notably the permanent introduction of the super deduction for large businesses that was first announced in 2021.

Speculation is already mounting that further tax announcements will follow in a pre-election ‘give-away’ in the Spring Budget, and Hunt was clear that the government’s plan will have an immediate real-term impact, but the job is not complete.

Growth and investment at the centre of Hunt’s plan

Hunt’s statement set a clear direction for the immediate future of the UK’s infrastructure, R&D and life sciences sectors. To drive forward innovation and boost productivity, the government is making changes to simplify and improve R&D tax reliefs, and £4.5bn has been allocated to unlock investment in strategic manufacturing sectors including automotive, aerospace, life sciences and clean energy, changes welcomed across sectors.

Planning reforms to speed up approval processes for electricity networks also made the cut, reflecting Hunt’s previous focus on improving connectivity to the grid. However, with investor confidence shaken by recent announcements of a more “practical and pragmatic” approach to the net zero transition, these measures will need to go some way in giving the private sector the visibility it needs to release investment.

Public sector finances: a trap for Labour?

Notably, there were no big announcements on the departmental funding settlements or stipends for local government. So, whilst measures on wages and national insurance will nominally increase public sector worker incomes, there is a question mark over the future spending available to the public sector.

Politics were at play here too, with Hunt boasting that his party hadn’t buckled to the full demands of unions and spoke of boosting productivity through efficiency reforms via the first ever NHS Long Term Workforce Plan. For Labour, who have also vowed to balance the books on public spending but have close longstanding ties to the country’s unions, this presents an immediate challenge to address in Reeves’ first Budget should they win at the next election.

Regardless, a comprehensive spending review will be needed in Autumn 2024 regardless of general election timings, so Hunt may have just pushed the problem further down the line.

Labour’s response: too little, too late

Fiscal statements are said to be fun for the Opposition, but only when the party opposite is delivering bad news. Today’s statement, which included an array of eye-catching pre-election commitments, intended to create dividing lines with Labour, meant that Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves was left with limited room for manoeuvre.

Choosing an economic route, Reeves focused heavily on the “fiscal drag” effect driven by frozen tax thresholds and questioned the real long-term impact of Hunt’s announcements. She also argued that households will hardly feel the benefit of National Insurance cuts, in light of recent council tax increases which have left millions out of pocket. The overarching message: too little, too late to win over voters.

She too is looking ahead to the next election, reassuring Labour MPs that voters will be asking themselves as they reach the ballot box “what has the government done for my family and I in 13 years and are we better off?”. Reeves and her team are already in planning mode for a Labour move to No.11, one where quick fix fiscal changes will be needed to demonstrate immediate impact for households and businesses.

The government will be hoping that today’s package of announcements is enough to also beg the question “what could the government do for me in another five years’ time?” Voting intention polls will give an early indication of this, but time is narrowing for the Conservatives, who now only have one major event left in the form of the Spring Budget before they face the electorate.

Share this content:

Autumn Statement – five takeaways

Fiscal events are always highly political, and you may be forgiven for thinking we are entering a General Election year – with measures to freeze all alcohol duty until 1^st August 2024, a cut in employee National Insurance by 2%, and the government reconfirming its commitment to the triple lock resulting in a rise in the state pension by 8.5% in April 2024.

There will be lots in today’s speech that is welcomed by business – only 110 measures to work through – especially measures ranging from investment in skills and advanced manufacturing, making ‘full expensing’ tax investment relief permanent, and speeding up local authority approvals for infrastructure projects and business planning applications.

For financial and professional services, I have five key takeaways:

Investment: Both the Government and Opposition continue to vie for the ascendency in who can unlock and promote investment into UK infrastructure and fast-growing science technology businesses. On the back of Labour launching its National Infrastructure Council, as trailed, the Chancellor announced measures to take forward the Mansion House Reforms by committing £250 million to two successful bidders in the Long-term Investment for Technology and Science (LIFTS) initiative, and the intention for the British Business Bank to establish a new Growth Fund. The government will also legislate to implement long awaited Solvency II reforms, and published Lord Harrington’s Review of Foreign Direct Investment, accepting all recommendations. Both political parties see investment as central to their political visions for UK growth. It will continue to be a key political background between the two main political parties.

Pensions: Pensions reform continues at a pace, and has the potential to be transformational. Again linked to investment, the government guidance for the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) in England and Wales will be revised to implement a 10% allocation for investments in private equity, and it will consult on how the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) can act as a consolidator to increase opportunities for defined benefit schemes to invest in productive finance. On the retail side, the government’s consultation on a ‘lifetime provider model’ to solve the long-standing problem of small pots, although potentially causing a massive headache for employers, is likely to lead to better outcomes for pension savings. It will also lead to welcome innovation in the sector!

The Future of Payments: On the back of the review, also published today, the government will develop a National Payments Vision and Strategy – published next year – to simplify the landscape and bring together strands of concurrent work currently being run out of the Payments Systems Regulator (PSR) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). With regulatory oversight of payments a key topic of discussion at party conferences this year, this is clearly an opportunity to shape the future framework. It is also a recognition that the current dispersion of oversight doesn’t lend itself to a level playing field between established players and market entrants.

Economic Regulation: The government continues its focus on ensuring regulators take into consideration growth and innovation. Following the secondary objectives for competitiveness and growth placed on the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and the FCA through the Financial Services Markets Act, the government will consult on measures to strengthen regulators’ ‘Growth Duty’. In addition to bringing the three economic regulators (Ofgem, Ofwat and Ofcom) into the scope of the Growth Duty, the government is also carrying out a broader refresh of the statutory guidance, encouraging all regulators to input. And in the fintech sector HM Treasury has the ambition to ‘reduce their [regulatory] requirements on the industry’ by 10% in 2024.

Statutory Instruments: With the Financial Services and Markets Act in place and no significant primary financial services legislation announced in the King’s Speech, the government continues to use secondary legislation, as the vehicle to enact further reforms across the sector. The Autumn Statement supplementary information confirmed that reforms to Solvency II, EU Packaged Retail, and Insurance-based Investment Products (PRIIPs) Regulation, and short selling regulation will be made through statutory instruments.

So, lots to be getting on with across an already packed agenda for financial and professional services.

And one political observation, pointed out to me by a colleague at WA Communications, while we waded through the avalanche of announcements and consultations following the Chancellor’s speech:

The fact that the cut in Employee National Insurance from 12% to 10% that impacts 27 million people is being introduced through emergency legislation from the 6th January 2024, rather than at the start of the tax year on 6th April points towards a May General Election. Maybe it doesn’t, but I will throw it into the mix for debate!

Share this content:

New faces in the Treasury: What Sunak’s shake up of the top team means for the City?

Monday’s whirlwind reshuffle, prompted by Braverman’s removal from Government, has seen both new and old faces enter the Ministerial team. Driven by a need to refresh Sunak’s credentials as a moderate Conservative, this latest round of appointments is marked by the promotion of younger, centrist political figures that have long been tipped for high office.

Sunak’s new Government is a clear signal of his desire to promote a more moderate, professional tone that reassures voters in the Lib Dem facing Blue Wall and appeals to the “anti-Corybn” vote GCHQ have been pursuing. It is also a clear charm offensive, with this new suite of fresh-faced Ministers likely to become active spokespeople for the Party in the run up to the General Election as the Conservatives look to broaden their appeal. An appeal he no doubt hopes to double by bringing former moderate Tory Prime Minister David Cameron back into the fold.

Beyond the broad political direction, this move indicates departments across Whitehall saw sweeping changes amongst their Ministerial teams. HM Treasury is no exemption. Whilst Chancellor Jeremy Hunt remains in post, a number of long-standing Treasury Ministers have been reshuffled out of the Treasury only to be replaced by “rising star” candidates close to Sunak. Whilst Gareth Davies MP remains in his post as Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, Victoria Atkins, Andrew Griffiths and John Glen are all moving on from No.11.

So what will these new Ministers bring to the table?

Deep industry expertise!

Notably for the City is the appointment of a familiar face – Bim Afolami MP – to his first Ministerial role as Economic Secretary to the Treasury. With real life experience in financial services before becoming an MP and as the long-serving Chair of the Financial Services and Markets APPG, Afolami is no stranger to the inner workings of the City. It was a clear choice for a Prime Minister trying to combat the charm offensive spearheaded by Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves.

As frontman of the 2018 Blue Book and champion of “common sense”, he has been vocal on the need for proportionate and sensibly paced regulation, and his open-door policy to City representatives means he’ll hit the ground running in government. With his appointment, we can expect to see a firmer stance on accountability for the regulators, a priority he’s championed from the back benches through the Regulatory Reform Group.

A trusted pair of hands

Laura Trott MP’s promotion from Pensions Minister to Chief Secretary to the Treasury also marks a shoring up of the Treasury ranks with a trusted pair of hands close to Hunt, and with strong ties to new Foreign Secretary David Cameron. Having also been an adviser to Lord Maude during his review into the inner workings of Government, she brings a deep understanding of the machinery of government at a critical time for the Conservative Party ahead of the general election.

Trott will now inherit one of the thorniest of briefs in HM Treasury. From large scale regulatory reform to sizeable infrastructure projects to the unenviable challenge of redirecting HS2 funds, she is set for a high-profile year. Her previous stint on pensions policy could smooth the path for Hunt’s Mansion House reforms, a hallmark policy he wants to see cross over the finish line before voters go to the polls.

A seasoned moderate Minister

Also joining the HM Treasury top team is seasoned Minister Nigel Huddleston MP, who has held four Ministerial briefs since joining the Government front bench in 2020. Having most recently held the International Trade brief and with a pre-election background in business, Huddleston will likely approach his new brief with business sense pragmatism and an eye for detail, as he has been known to do in his previous appointments.

Today’s inflation rate drop comes at a good time for the new Treasury team and will no doubt be welcomed as a positive start for the new cohort. But be in no doubt, the Government needs to demonstrate green shoots of activity in the economy in order to achieve electoral success.

The new faces of Jeremy Hunt’s Treasury team will need to deliver on a suite of regulatory and policy reforms already underway, as well as breathe new life into the economy, in order to deliver for Conservative voters ahead of polling day and sway those that are undecided.

Share this content:

Government pushes on with plan for cryptoassets regulation – but questions remain for business

The Government’s response this week to the consultation on the future regulatory regime for cryptoassets represents a significant, positive step forward – matching other markets around the world – in establishing a regulatory framework to allow crypto and blockchain to flourish as a driver of growth in the UK fintech sector.

The document released this week set out the Treasury’s plan to implement, following industry feedback, many of the proposals for the future regulatory framework of the sector outlined in April this year. The areas covered by the consultation range from fundamentals like the definition of cryptoassets and the broad legislative approach; to plans to regulate core activities such as custody and lending; and to bring centralised cryptoasset exchanges into the financial services regulatory perimeter for the first time.

What the Government is aiming to do with the proposed framework is manage clear tensions in designing policy that improves consumer outcomes; encourages investment and international competitiveness, all the while protecting against market failure – driven by high profile examples like the collapse of FTX. This is a tricky balance to strike. Heading into an election year, the plan outlined this week still has a number of unresolved questions that will need to be worked through with industry and addressed before implementation.

Lack of clarity on timescales

The Treasury was keen to make clear the consensus that exists across the industry for the plan presented earlier this year – highlighting that nearly 80% of respondents were in ‘broad agreement’ – indeed, many of the proposals set out in the original framework earlier this year were taken forward without any modification. This has seen a number of the issues that were raised by critics unaddressed – for example how crypto gambling will be dealt with under the new regime.

In addition, the document was relatively light on detail in terms of when the critical ‘phase 2’ secondary legislation, that will give the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) its new powers to regulate the sector, can be expected, nor on the exact mechanisms for how this will be added to the statute. It was confirmed that legislation would be “laid in 2024” subject to Parliamentary time. This timescale, while offering a general idea of when we can expect forward movement, becomes murkier when you consider the political uncertainty (and crucially, the loss of Parliamentary time) that will occur due to the general election expected next year. Given the state of the polls, it certainly makes Labour’s position on the future regulatory framework equally as important as that of the current Government.

Where Labour stand

Speaking of the Opposition: shadow Treasury ministers were keen to stress to businesses at Party Conference last month that they would not be ripping things up and starting afresh with the Treasury’s current proposals for crypto and the wider fintech sector. Some concerns were raised by shadow ministers as to whether proposals go far enough on consumer protections regarding the promotion of cryptoassets – reflecting Labour’s focus on this issue across many policy areas.

As it stands then, the consensus is that the direction of travel on crypto will remain broadly the same. However, should an incoming Labour government, with this added focus on protecting consumers, inherit a half-finished regulatory regime in late 2024, there remains the risk that the checks and balances on firms contained within the proposals could be made more stringent.

Any additional measures placed upon the FCA in the name of consumer protection (on top of the already greatly expanded powers handed to the regulator as part of this plan) would run the risk of overburdening an already-stretched regulator and adversely impact all firms in the space – not just those who are subject to the specific consumer-facing measures that Labour may seek to introduce. This is a risk firms should consider highlighting to the Labour Treasury team as they consult with business on the future of fintech.

Further friction between innovators and traditional players to be expected

From a wider industry perspective, there remains questions around how new and innovative financial products would be prioritised and onboarded into the proposed framework as they emerge. The lack of detail here is critical in terms of how it relates to recent issues such as de-banking of assets, with its highly charged political debate and subsequent scrutiny from the FCA. De-banking is an example of an issue that is known to disproportionately affect cryptoasset businesses – both those in the DeFi space and beyond. Other markets around the world – including the US and the EU with their Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework – are making changes that seek to resolve this issue, encouraging growth and cross-sector collaboration. The Treasury’s plan set out this week does not yet address this issue – leaving the door open for suggestions from business to prevent the UK from falling behind its international competitors.

Conclusion

Therefore, while its clear that the measures outlined in the Government response this week are, overall, the right approach, the timeline put forward for when this will become a reality remains somewhat unclear, especially given the uncertain year we are anticipating from a political perspective, and factoring in positive progress in other markets around the world. For fintechs and the wider sector, there is still a significant amount of work to be done in making the case to both the current Government and Labour in advance of the next election for a swiftly implemented and proportionate future regulatory framework.

Share this content:

In Conversation with Oliver Gill, The Sunday Times – Five key takeaways

WA Communications was delighted to host Oliver Gill, recently appointed as Industry and Leisure Business Editor at The Sunday Times, for an in-conversation lunch with some of our clients and contacts. Oliver discussed the big stories shaping his brief, which covers the manufacturing, transport, travel, hospitality, and utilities sectors. He also shared some honest advice on how best to engage with Fleet Street’s finest.

Here we share five key points raised during the session, including ways in which communications professionals can fine-tune their storytelling to connect with a range of audiences.

1. Journalists are responding quickly to the changing political winds.

The political landscape is and will continue to be a key influence on the kinds of stories journalists are looking for and how they report on issues across sectors ahead of the general election.

Journalists are becoming increasingly aware of how readers and businesses perceive the effectiveness of the government and opposition and will continue to report accordingly. We can expect papers to declare their party allegiances much closer to the election, but the rule of holding power to account always prevails.

2. Journalist’s preference is always to see something physical.

With hundreds of emails hitting their inboxes on a daily basis, having physical evidence to present to journalists will help to elevate your pitch. Stories can take time to develop, particularly feature pieces, so being able to show them a tangible asset will help to sustain their interest. While this requires careful planning and coordination, it may be the factor that takes your story from pitch to press and will often form the basis of the opening lines.

3. Readers are becoming more switched on to sustainability.

The stories that appeal most to readers are those that resonate with them personally. When it comes to net zero and sustainability, the stories that cut through are the ones that have a direct impact on people’s daily lives. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible for businesses to get traction with their ESG strategies, but for media success, it pays to look for those real-world solutions that people can touch and feel.

4. Engage with media yourself, rather than letting others take your space.

When a business finds itself in the media spotlight, it is far better to engage than let others fill the narrative with negative comment. Organisations that are under fire are unlikely to be able to avoid coverage, but they can certainly influence the shape of the story if they do engage with journalists. A hostile response to a journalist inquiry is unlikely to pay off, as it implies you have something to hide – and the journalist may well keep digging until they uncover that uncomfortable truth.

Offering compelling evidence that counters the journalist’s view will help you to regain control of the narrative or move the story on.

5. A journalist’s favourite story will always be one they believe their readers are going to tell their friends at the pub.

The most compelling stories are those you would tell your friends when you walk into a bar. That’s how journalists are trained. Comms professionals could do well to borrow from that rule of thumb. These stories offer something new or a fresh perspective. Something that makes a journalist think “I hadn’t thought of that” is likely to have the same effect on their readership.

Share this content:

Navigating party priorities: health policy in the political landscape

With Party Conference Season now behind us, we have (some) more clarity on the health priorities of the two major political parties. Now that both the Labour and Conservatives have established their positions, what does this mean for organisations seeking to engage on the commitments made by both sides, as competing priorities divide attention?

In this analysis we show how healthcare organisations can amplify their policy objectives with Government and the Opposition through shared ambitions, as Westminster gears up for a general election.

Prevention is the name of the game

Your policy positions need to align to the prevention agenda.

While political championing of prevention is not new, one of the clear shifts for both parties this year was the central focus on public health and prevention.

For the Conservative Party this is a significant change in direction, fronted by the smoking ban announcement made by Rishi Sunak on the final day of conference; arguably, what could be one of the most significant public health interventions of recent decades. This is perhaps not surprising, given it is unlikely that the Government will have met many of its 2019 health manifesto commitments by the general election and hence a desire to show real change.

For Labour, Wes Streeting’s ‘shift from treatment to prevention’ was reiterated throughout conference. Unlike the Conservatives’ approach of bold policy to demonstrate change, Labour’s position is focused on long-term planning. However, despite talk of 10-year strategies and the shift towards community-centric care, many were left questioning the practicalities of implementation including the rebalancing of investments and community staffing.

Crafting effective policy asks

Your policy asks must focus on levers that can enact change and drive impact.

While ambitious reforms may capture attention, policy teams in Government and the Opposition are facing competing priorities with limited resources.

Wes Streeting has reiterated this distinction, favouring detail and evidence over ‘pledge card policies’. This is especially important to bear in mind when engaging with Labour. Also, while Streeting may have presented his overarching goals in Labour’s Health Mission, his shadow ministers are still getting to grips with the intricate details of their briefs.

It is nuanced and well-articulated policies that will hold weight for Labour and the Conservatives in the run-up to the general election. This means an opportunity to engage constructively by offering expertise, insights, and data that can inform policy decisions. Organisations should invest in refining their precise policy asks that address the current real-world challenges, and where possible, costed roadmaps for implementation.

In it for the long haul

Focus on policy proposals that can unlock cash or productivity

What is abundantly clear is that both parties are positioning their priorities as long-term commitments and ambitions.

For both, this is in part necessity – with reluctance to commit to any new policy proposals for fear they could be held up as uncosted. The other part is about positioning, with parties wanting to be seen as the safe bet for the future. This pivot will arguably be harder to pull off for the Conservatives who have been at the helm for more than a decade. For Labour, it may suggest short term inertia if elected, with fiscal restraint likely to remain front and centre in the first 12-18 months.

For organisations looking to engage with the health policy agenda is greater scrutiny on the financial implications of policy proposals. Political and policy prioritisation is likely to be focused on interventions that can either unlock cash or create an immediate and measurable impact on productivity to unlock capacity in other parts of the system. Engagement should focus on being explicit about where these savings can be made.

About WA Communications

If you would like to discuss how we can help your key areas of focus, contact Giulia Corsi at giuliacorsi@wacomms.co.uk.

Our analysis of the Labour Party’s health policy thinking draws Next Left – WA’s recently published Guide to Engaging with the Labour Party – which explores the people, processes and politics shaping the development of Labour’s next election manifesto, and how businesses in every sector can engage with the party’s plans.

Share this content:

Labour Party Conference: Five key takeaways

As Labour concludes its annual party conference in Liverpool, Tom Frackowiak Partner and Head of the WA Financial & Professional Services practice outlines his five takeaways for business:

Five takeaways from Labour conference in Liverpool:

1. Conference momentum: Labour will be ecstatic with how the conference in Liverpool went! A record number of attendees, speeches from the Leader and Shadow Chancellor that landed a narrative focused on “national renewal” and rebuilding Britian, packed fringe events and receptions. The business community also turned up en masse to listen and engage with Labour’s vision for the UK economy. As one Shadow Minster said to me slightly tongue in cheek, “we are now the party of business”; having been in Liverpool it is hard to argue with that assertion.

2. Labour engagement will be difficult: Businesses in Liverpool were highly complementary of the efforts made by the Labour team to engage with their sectors, but many still struggle to secure individual meetings with Shadow Minsters and their advisers to have more detailed discussions on policy direction. Again, looking at the number of businesses in attendance in Liverpool this is unsurprising. Clear thought and consideration need to be given to how you achieve cut through! How is your business essential to Labour’s programme for Government?

3. So, listen to the words from conference: To get cut through, business need to show how they will help a Labour Government “build”, “invest”, “innovate” and deliver a “new direction for skills”. With aspirations to be a “Mission Government” how does your businesses corporate agenda align with Labour’s five national missions? Can this be framed in the short, medium, and long-term?

4. Still a lot of policy detail missing: While Labour has set out an overarching vision for Government there is still a lot of detail that businesses to hear for planning and investment decisions. Currently Labour’s ‘national wealth fund’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting for its economic vision for the UK economy. In sectors like financial and professional services – which only has four paragraphs in the final 112-page National Policy Forum paper – there is an eagerness and anticipation to know more.

5. Labour haven’t won the General Election: While clearly momentum is with Labour and national polling gives the Party a consistent double-digit lead over the Conservatives, there may still be over a year to go until a General Election. While there is a clamor from business to get to know Labour the General Election results of 2015 and 2019, plus EU Referendum should be a warning that election results can often ‘surprise’. Any strategic approach to advocacy and engagement should adopt a holistic or multi-stakeholder approach.

Share this content:

From crisis to opportunity – the Education inheritance for a Labour government

As the Labour Party gathers in Liverpool next week, flush from a big by-election win and sitting on a healthy 20-point lead in the polls, attention will turn to what Labour will say about how it is going to govern.

For any incoming government, a major priority area will always be the education system. Education and Skills is central to Keir Starmer’s five missions and is one of the most prominent parts of the National Policy Forum report that will set the framework for the Labour manifesto.

The reality is though, that from early years through to university and beyond, the sector is facing systemic challenges. Whether it is the difficulties in the recruitment and retention of teachers; the failings of the apprenticeship system; the rising funding pressure pushing some universities to the brink of failure; the spike in pupil referrals; or school buildings crumbling. There are crises to be dealt with everywhere.

To discuss the legacy that Labour will be left with and what they can do to ensure that the education system is fit for purpose, I was delighted to welcome senior representatives from an array of organisations across the education sector to a roundtable discussion on what an incoming Labour government could do to break down the barriers of opportunity.

While the demands and challenges from each part of the sector are considerable, some of the key things to watch out for that came from that informative discussion are as follows:

Crisis managing schools. The first order of business is to address the personnel and workload difficulties facing schools. It is therefore entirely understandable why Labour has decided to stand by their pledge on business taxes and VAT on private schools to fund more teachers and mental health support in schools. Solving the immediate crisis in schools must be their top priority.

Incremental change not revolution. The education sector always seems to be in a permanent state of revolution, with new Quangos, systems, frameworks and products imposed on the sector. In many ways the sector does not currently have the capacity to manage a major curriculum or structural upheaval. You only have to look at the exasperated response from the education sector to Rishi Sunak’s announcement on replacing A Levels to understand the wariness of continual upheaval. A new Labour government could be bold just by saying what it isn’t going to do, pulling back from its interventionist instincts, allowing the sector experts the room to problem solve, and adopting an incremental approach to change so as not to heap further pressure on a sector already struggling to cope.

Rekindling a love of learning. Having said the above, there is a need to address the fact that Britian seems to have fallen out of love with learning. Whether there is a need to focus less on drilling Maths and English and more on socialisation skills in early years education; bringing more creativity and diversity back to the school curriculum; using technology to reconnect people to learning in more convenient ways; or investing in lifelong learning for those embarking on a second or third career; the challenge for a future Government will be reengaging and restoring faith in an education system that delivers for the British public at all stages of their life.

Addressing the skills challenge. Falling productivity, under attainment at levels 3 & 4, poor use of the apprenticeship levy, and the challenge of ensuring people have the training and skills to do the jobs needed in our rapidly decarbonising and AI-enabled economy, will all be in the in-tray of the new Skills Minister. The question for Labour will be where and how they want to address it. Either further devolution of skills funding and power to cities and/ or taking skills out of the DfE and closely attaching them to either the departments for Business or Work could reposition skills at the heart of the economy.

Recognising cultural shifts. The last Labour government boldly committed to a target of 50% of young people going to university, recognising the importance of this to driving social mobility. As they look to return to government, they see a system whereby young people and their parents are questioning the potentially poor return on investment against the high levels of debt attached to a university education, and where the mental health crisis facing young people is encouraging families to reconsider what is valued: educational outcomes or health and wellbeing. While there is no suggestion that Labour will retreat from its long-term goal of 50% of young people in higher education, it is clear there needs to be other pathways for young people in schools, and pathways with as much opportunity and prestige as that offered by a university education.

The last time a Labour government was elected, its central mantra was ‘Education, Education, Education’, and the Blair and Brown years saw the Labour government take bold decisions and heavily invest in education at all levels, trying to make good on this mantra.

Starmer’s Labour will not be in as fortunate a position this time and will need to make choices on where they can spend limited money and think creatively about how to use the resources they do have in a different way.

For those organisations businesses and institutions looking to ensure that their particular part of the sector gets the attention and resource it needs, then you need to be able to make a strong coherent case, showing how you can make effective uses of resources and deliver opportunities for all.

Share this content:

Sunak shatters consensus on HS2 and opens new questions on UK transport policy

In the last 14 years we’ve had four General Elections, six Prime Ministers and nine Transport Secretaries. We’ve also had consensus among the leaders of the big political parties that HS2 is a good thing and needs to happen. Yes, it has been trimmed along the way, and phases have been delayed, but the idea has survived – and Ministers have been proud to talk about the benefits.

Yesterday all that changed when Rishi Sunak announced he was cancelling the rest of HS2 – everything except Phase 1 from Euston to just north of Birmingham. What’s more he didn’t just cancel it – the way he spoke about it was deliberately critical. HS2 is not just the ‘wrong project’ but the ‘ultimate example of the old consensus’. It’s difficult to imagine any Minister in this Government talking positively about HS2 again.

Here are a few reflections on what this announcement means.

First, the risk premium for new infrastructure in the UK. This is a public sector project but one that has been highly visible around the world. The inward investment strategies of some of our largest cities outside London have been based on it. A whole structure of advice and planning – the National Infrastructure Commission – started at the same time as HS2. Whatever the merits of the decision, investors will see it as another reason to be wary of government. They may think (unfairly) the UK just can’t do infrastructure well. Both major parties could usefully think about how to reassure them.

Second, it’s not just a consensus about HS2 that has gone: transport policy is now more unstable than at any time in the last 15 years. Expect to hear more from the Conservatives about car drivers and private individuals, less about active travel and modal shift; more about towns and suburbs, less about our biggest cities. There’s an obvious political dimension to this but the Prime Minister no doubt believes in it too. It’s also possible to discern another force at work: the Treasury, one institution that consistently opposed HS2. George Osborne overruled his officials when he was Chancellor, but it’s not difficult to imagine their advice to Rishi Sunak – the enormous risks of mega-projects, their poor returns compared to smaller schemes, especially roads.

Third, the Government has now created a huge range of hard questions by its commitment to Network North. Transport infrastructure is complex: it takes years to plan, get consents, design and build successfully. The plan includes everything from extending existing schemes (£2 bus fare) to new projects that sound just as challenging as HS2 (£12 billion for Liverpool-Manchester, over £2 billion for Bradford-Manchester). But the money that has been saved on HS2 would, mostly, not have been spent for years: when will these new projects happen, who will lead them, how will they be funded? Expect DfT to be busy for years answering these questions – and note caveats in the official document about costs, business cases, benefits and funding profile.

Finally, whatever happens to these plans, the transport sector needs to think long and hard about the story it wants to tell, and how to respond to this challenge. Even if Sunak’s term as PM is short, the story he is telling about transport is not going to go away – nor is that old consensus going to re-emerge.

Share this content:

Railing against the consensus – Conservative Party Conference and Transport

After weeks of speculation, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has used his keynote speech at Conservative Party Conference to wield the axe against HS2’s Birmingham to Manchester leg.

The announcement is the latest shift from the Prime Minister that impacts the transport sector and reiterates the prominence of transport issues as we head towards an election in 2024.

What happened at Conservative Party Conference?

HS2 cast a shadow across the Conference. Whilst rail featured heavily on the fringe – covering topics from rail reform, contracting, rolling stock and decarbonisation – the debate over HS2 predictably dominated discussion.

Leaks meant that industry, Ministers, backbenchers, and regional stakeholders all sought to make their case ahead of the announcement, with West Midlands Metro Mayor Andy Street unsuccessfully trying to fight a rearguard action. Many on the fringe and across the sector will be frustrated by how No10 has handled the comms for this announcement, especially considering reports first emerged weeks ago.

Sunak’s alternative to HS2 is the reinvestment of £36 billion into the new “Network North” plan. Spending will be spread across new road, rail and bus projects aimed to improve interconnectivity across the North and beyond. However, there is little to cheer for the rail sector with DfT subsequently confirming that only about 30 percent of the funding will go to rail, with the remainder for local transport and roads, and no new capacity for north-south rail passengers.

Whilst rail dominated Sunak’s remarks, Transport Secretary Mark Harper reiterated the government’s focus on motorists.

His ‘Plan for Drivers’ brings together 30 measures aimed at improving car journeys at expense of bus lanes, low traffic neighbourhoods and travelable 15-minute communities. It is the latest example of how the Conservatives want to project a ‘pro-car’ image, and position Labour as ‘anti-motorist’.

Other modes of transport – plane, maritime, active travel and more – were largely absent from the focus of senior politicians in Manchester.

The reaction to Conference

Sunak is realistic his announcements will not be welcomed by industry or many politically and predictably the immediate reaction has been largely negative. This was borne out by the criticism from prominent Conservative and Labour Party figures who have been quick to raise concerns and reflect doubt about the Network North alternative.

On social media, for every positive post there are three negative.

Stakeholder reaction

The Prime Minister’s gamble – like with the delay on petrol and diesel cars – is that it reignites support for the Conservatives among the voting public that he needs to win over in more rural and suburban parts of the country. He will be cheered to see positive support from several Conservative MPs in critical swing seats in the North.

What to look out for from Labour Conference

Yesterday’s announcement is the latest attempt in transport policy from Sunak to create a wedge issue between the parties. Labour must decide if it will support the government’s plans or risk supporting a project widely recognised as poorly run at the expense of many alternative projects that the electorate may prefer.

Like with continued support for the 2030 ICE ban in favour of EVs, Labour is caught between a rock and a hard place. Labour will need to use the Conference to set out its plans and give industry more confidence about what the future could look like, without falling into the Conservative bear trap.

For business, the transport battleground will require careful navigation. To be heard, sectors will need to recognise the competing priorities of both parties and how their case can align with them without becoming the focal point of a new debate. This calls for a balancing act of discreet engagement married with public communication that builds support with both.

To discuss how to achieve this balance, please get in contact with me on jamiecapp@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

Five key takeaways: Engaging with ICS priorities panel session

WA was delighted to host a panel session with Dr Layla McCay, Director of Policy and NHS Confederation and Mike Bell, Chair of NHS South West London integrated care board (ICB) and WA Health Senior Adviser.

At the session, WA’s Head of Health, Dean Sowman, explored Layla and Mike’s perspectives on how the life sciences industry can meaningfully engage with, and play a role in delivering integrated care systems (ICS) priorities.

In light of a 30% cut to operating budgets and industrial action absorbing the bandwidth of executive teams, ICSs are currently heavily focused on short-term operational priorities. We have outlined five key factors to engage effectively against this backdrop:

1. ICSs are delaying some action until the general election

Whilst both the Labour and Conservative parties have communicated support and optimism for ICSs, the reality is that political uncertainty and operational pressures mean that many ICBs have little bandwidth to implement their ICB led five-year joint forward plan.

Instead, ICSs are increasingly deferring important decisions until there is a stable administration which can ensure the preservation of essential funding and objectives. The overarching concern is that the exact vision of ICS working to respond to local population needs will be overshadowed by national pressures.

Whilst this is a considerable challenge, the take home message for organisations looking to engage is the importance of timing ─ the hope is that following the winter period, which is a particularly politically sensitive time, ICSs will have greater bandwidth to begin to implement their strategies.

2. There’s no shortcut to engaging with all ICSs, and no one-size fits all approach

When looking to secure policy changes, there is currently no shortcut to speaking to all 42 ICSs. We are starting to see some ICSs coalescing or developing strategic multi-ICB structures where some ICBs lead on certain workstreams on behalf of others. This trend is likely to become more commonplace – so engagement may become more streamlined in the future.

For now, the best route to engage with multiple ICSs comes through existing forums, including NHS Confederation’s ICS network and NHSE’s Academic Health Science Networks (AHSN).

3. Medicines optimisation and management is a priority with positive examples needed

One key barrier to ensuring medicines optimisation is that current financial models are created to show benefits to local service providers – some of which are not covered by ICS budgets. There needs to be an overhaul of where the service is delivered, where the money flows and where the savings are realised. While there is clarity on this being a problem – at present there is no solution.

NHS Confederation would welcome examples of impactful collaborations between ICSs and industry as there is currently a shortfall of tangible examples.

4. New evidence and ideas to support the delegation of specialised commissioning are welcomed

The delegation of specialised commissioning to ICSs remains a concern. Prescribing budgets will remain with NHS England, but services deemed ready for integration will be delivered locally. There are outstanding questions as to whether individual ICSs are equipped with the right workforce and expertise, and what multi-ICB structures could be formed.

This is especially pertinent in the case of rare diseases. Given their low prevalence in local areas, rare diseases are unlikely to be a core focus for ICSs, as evidenced by WA’s analysis which found that just five of the ICB five-year plans featured rare diseases.

However, there is optimism that the transfer of specialised commissioning responsibilities offers the opportunity for a reset. If done right, it could ensure the repurposing of specialised commissioning budgets across the whole pathway, challenging local systems to reduce spend on tertiary services, and instead finding new ways to act earlier.

5. Understanding where each ICS is placing strategic emphasis is critical

Each ICS is at a different stage of maturity and there is distinct variation in size, scale and local characteristics, meaning a one-size fits all approach to engagement will not work. As a first step, understanding where you may wish to begin engagement and how to frame this in line with local priorities is essential.

At the end of June 2023, 40 of the 42 ICBs had published their five-year joint forward plans setting out their strategic vision to tackle the health issues faced by their local population.

To support industry, WA has undertaken an in-depth analysis of the plans to create an interactive map showing the level of priority each ICB is placing across 27 themes. Understanding the ICBs that are prioritising your areas of interest, can support you in identifying meaningful collaborations and partnerships aligned to an ICB goals.

About WA Communications

Share this content:

Resetting net zero: the implications for business?

One of the key questions on the minds of business representatives attending Conservative Party Conference in Manchester this week will be just what the implications of the Prime Minister’s reset on net zero are. Industry will be looking for reassurance from ministers over the coming days that the broad net zero agenda remains in place and for confidence on other policy measures.

Last week, WA hosted a webinar with Nathalie Thomas, former Energy Correspondent and writer of the FT’S LEX column and Sam Hall, Director of the Conservative Environment Network to explore whether the political consensus on net zero is broken, and if it is, what that means for business.

These are our key takeaways:

1. There may have been limited substantial policy changes, but it has still caused uncertainty

The Prime Minister’s speech gathered significant interest, but on the substance, it arguably moved the dial less. While the phase-out date for petrol and diesel vehicles has shifted back five years, the ZEV mandate proposals announced by the government in recent days showed there will still be a very significant increase in EVs as a proportion of the market by 2030.

There are large swathes of the net zero agenda – particularly on industrial and power decarbonisation – that have not been impacted by these specific proposals. However, Sunak’s speech still caused concern and disruption to many of these businesses. For businesses and investors the sense that long-term policy frameworks could change so suddenly, has cast doubt over the certainty and stability of other policy areas.

2. It’s all about the politics

As we enter a critical general election campaign businesses need to recognise that politics is ruling the day. Ideas may stand up on pure policy and technical terms, but if they don’t fit into the government’s political agenda they’re unlikely to be taken seriously, and policy already in train that doesn’t meet this test could be under threat.

This means it is essential for business to fully understand the different factions and priorities within government, and knowing who’s influencing No10 and key departments. Messaging and policy asks from businesses need to be aligned with these political trends to succeed.

3. But how effective was the political trap the government tried to set for Labour?

The motivating factor within government was to force Labour into having to defend policies presented by government as expensive and disruptive to consumers. No10 wanted to create a ‘wedge’ between the parties. The Labour Party appear to have avoided this with a pragmatic commitment to reinstate the 2030 ICE phase-out date and by suggesting they will review the approach to domestic heating if they enter government.

The Conservative Party’s position in the polls has stabilised, and in some cases improved since the speech, but it is still to be seen whether it changes the fundamentals ahead of the general election. Currently, that doesn’t appear to be the case.

4. Businesses can do more to communicate the benefits of the green transition

Businesses are understandably frustrated at the policy instability. However, it also places the spotlight on the responsibility that businesses have to make the case for net zero and the green transition. The Prime Minister’s renewed focus on consumer affordability makes it even more critical for businesses to show that the agenda – and specific policies that will fit within it – will reduce costs for consumers and offer the best value for taxpayers and consumers.

Equally, the promise of ‘green jobs’ is made regularly, but there’s a renewed opportunity in the run-up to the next general election for businesses to be more specific and tangible about this – where are these jobs, what will they look like, how can they show they are ‘real’ and not just numbers from a spreadsheet?

This will make it much harder for policymakers to row back on the wider agenda in future, with clearer acceptance of the benefits and value, with net zero not just perceived as a cost.

Share this content:

Labour Spotlight – Key people for financial and professional services

Under Keir Starmer the Labour Party has reset its relationship with corporate Britain and reestablished itself with the financial and professional services sector (FPS) through a sustained charm offensive in the City and beyond.

Led by Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves and closely supported by Jonathan Reynolds, Shadow Secretary of State for Business, and Tulip Siddiq, Shadow City Minister, this strategy is paying dividends. Bloomberg reported that the majority of money managers and traders backed a Labour government at the next General Election being the best outcome for the City.

While the Labour party can be pleased with establishing a receptive audience across FPS, which anybody who has recently attended an event with Rachel Reeves can testify, significant challenges remain.

Economic Growth

Primary among these challenges is delivering on the first of Labour’s five key missions for Government: ‘Secure the highest sustained growth in the G7 – with good jobs and productivity growth in every part of the country making everyone, not just a few, better off’. With the UK economy suffering from continued weak growth – currently forecast by the OECD to have the second lowest growth across the G20 in 2024 – high inflation and a cost-of-living crisis, the shadow team will be at the forefront of explaining, and then implementing, this incredibly ambitious target, if Labour forms the next government.

So how will Labour jumpstart UK economic growth? Plans are already being set out. Rachel Reeves sees the transition to NetZero as a significant opportunity. The party’s Green Prosperity Plan crystallises this thinking and scale of ambition, whilst also recognising the threat to UK competitiveness of the Inflation Reduction Act and European response. Equally, a robust Industrial Strategy is being developed under Jonathan Reynolds to set out a framework for a stable, long-term planning and investment. The FPS will be a critical partner for Labour in delivering on both these headline economic policies and has welcomed Labour’s commitments to reform planning laws, especially for renewable energy projects.

However, many questions remain on policy detail. For example, how will a Labour government meet its commitment to deliver 100% clean power by 2030? Especially, while delaying its pledge to invest £28bn annually in green investment until the middle of the next Parliament (2026), on the grounds of fiscal responsibility.

Financial and Professional Services

The last few years has seen major policy reform across the FPS sector. The Financial Services and Markets Act has created a UK regulatory framework for financial services, payment services and financial market infrastructure. The current government has set out its future vision for FPS through the Edinburgh Reforms and recently the Mansion House Reforms, with significant impact for the insurance and pensions sectors.

Labour has played an active role in this reform process, but again questions remain over how this policy landscape will evolve under a newly formed Labour government. Will it stick with the current vision for the regulatory framework for FPS in the UK? Will it fully implement the Mansion House reforms, given the shadow team have announced their own headline policy on pension reform? Will it align with the government on delaying some NetZero targets? How will it regulate the Buy Now Pay Later Market? How does it see the development of Open Finance? Will it continue with audit reform? How will it manage the tension between the supervisory role of regulators, with the ‘new’ secondary objective focused on competition. The list goes on!

Brexit

If this was not enough, Keir Starmer’s recent meeting with President Macron in Paris, and France and German proposals for a tiered EU membership has put Brexit in the media spotlight again. Labour is clear that there is no intention of re-joining the single market in a first-term Labour government, and the FPS sector has largely moved on from Brexit.

However, the review of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement in 2026, and Starmer’s commitment to get a “much better” Brexit will ensure that 10 years after the EU referendum vote the UK’s relationship with Europe will remain a live issue for FPS.

WA Communications

WA’s Financial and Professional Services practice has put together a top line summary of the Shadow Cabinet and Ministers who will deliver on Labour’s ambitious plans for FPS and the UK economy. These are the people that your business needs to know and track as they develop the policy detail to achieve the ‘highest sustained growth in the G7’.

Labour Spotlight: Key people in Financial and Professional Services [PDF]

If you would like to find out more about WA’s Financial and Professional Services Practice and the services we provide, please contact Tom Frackowiak at Tom.frackowiak@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

Sunak draws battle lines over environment

The Prime Minister has moved to put clear blue water between himself and his predecessors in Number 10 and has broken the political consensus on how to reach net zero.

By delaying deadlines for phasing out new petrol and diesel cars until 2035 as well as scaling back requirements on phasing out new gas boilers, Rishi Sunak is seeking to give voters a clear choice between Tory and Labour environmental policy.

His decision generated favourable headlines in right-of-centre media but has alienated powerful voices in the business lobby.

Marc Woolfson, WA’s head of Public Affairs, draws eight early conclusions from the announcement.

This is a highly political move to create clear dividing lines with the Labour Party on net zero policy – as well as who should pay and when. The government is betting that voters will welcome the removal of costly and inconvenient interventions on home heating and insulation.

The political strategy behind this was to force Labour to take contentious positions and make financial commitments that could damage its economic credibility. At a political level, Number 10 will feel happy that the PM’s statement has landed well with the audiences it was intended for. It has been lauded by right-leaning media. But there are questions over how effective it has been in damaging Labour.

At first blush, Labour appears to have managed to avoid the ‘bear traps’ that have been set for the party, taking a nuanced approach to the various measures announced in Sunak’s speech. It has vowed to reverse the PM’s decision to kick the ban on new petrol and diesel cars down the road. In contrast, it has committed to assessing measures designed to decarbonise heating more fully if it wins the election.

Many of the reasons Sunak gave for implementing the delay echo concerns that many in industry as well as would-be drivers of electric vehicles have already raised – notably on EV charging infrastructure, lack of access to grid connections and an underdeveloped UK battery industrial supply chain. Interesting, then, that powerful voices such as the Ford motor giant and the SMMT industry body have been among the loudest voices protesting against the announcement.

As ever, the devil will be in the detail. Across the economy – particularly in the power sector – reforming grid infrastructure has been the number one concern of businesses for some time. The rhetoric from the Prime Minister gives industry confidence, but there will be a need to see exactly what this means in practice and whether it can bring forward the time it takes to build new infrastructure.

Massive investment is needed to overcome these challenges, which requires confidence and a stable policy framework. Sunak’s announcements, whilst framed as pro-consumer and (at least partly) in line with the concerns of business, are likely to weaken the UK’s attractiveness as a destination for global investors. The potential future economic gains and jobs that have underpinned the political consensus up to now may also be under threat.

Beyond the specific measures, the general mood music will leave a lingering concern amongst businesses that as the election gets closer, Number 10 may feel that it is politically convenient to scale back other elements of net zero policy. Those parts of power or industrial decarbonisation that are seen as particularly costly or disruptive to the public, such as critical electricity pylons to connect new renewables projects, or essential low carbon technologies that come with significant price tags may be particularly vulnerable. Recent scrutiny of a consumer levy to fund new hydrogen projects may offer a glimpse of what is to come.

It’s a useful reminder to business of the importance of looking at new proposals through the lens of consumer affordability. In the run-up to the election, clear evidence of how specific projects and policy ideas deliver best value for money for taxpayers or billpayers will be crucial.

Significant details still need to be fleshed out, following the headline announcement. Labour also has to decide whether to hold onto positions which opponents in Parliament and in the media will portray as anti-consumer. The party must hope that its Industrial Strategy can convince a sceptical public that there are major gains to be made. Whether this will resonate on the doorstep in the heat of an election campaign remains to be seen.

Our analysis of the media coverage of Sunak’s announcement shows that he has won the staunch backing of the popular press and right-wing commentators. While he generated huge media interest (14,000 mentions across traditional media), coverage has been broadly neutral.

The same could not be said for social media, where the great majority of posts are critical.

Join our webinar on Wednesday 27th September, to explore what these recent Net Zero policy changes mean for transport and energy businesses — Chaired by WA Director Angus Hill, with insights from Nathalie Thomas, writer of the FT’s Lex investment column and the paper’s former energy correspondent, and Sam Hall, Director of the Conservative Environment Network.

Date: Wednesday 27th September
Time: 4.00pm – 5.00pm
Location: Zoom Webinar

Please RSVP to events.rsvp@wacomms.co.uk

Share this content:

The State of Integrated Care Systems: Priorities

At the end of June 2023, 40 of England’s 42 Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) published their Integrated Care Board (ICB) led, five-year joint forward plans.

The long-awaited plans set out each ICBs strategic vision to tackle the health challenges their population faces. They have been developed by examining local need, taking into account an array of local health stakeholders priorities.

To ensure the plans are impactful NHS England issued three core principles that they must all follow:

The plan being fully aligned with the wider system partnership’s ambitions.
The plan building on existing local strategies and reflect universal NHS commitments, for example, reducing health inequalities.
The plan being delivery focused, including specific objectives, trajectories and milestones as appropriate.

With only loose guidance, and in line with the ambitions of integrated care, ICBs delivered plans in a range of formats, with a range of different priorities and approaches to improve healthcare locally.

Now that their priorities are set, industry, patient advocacy groups and other key stakeholders need to now be engaging with these evolving bodies. However, this is challenging given the great divergence in their approaches, making it harder to have an in depth understanding of local priorities and initiatives they can support ICBs to achieve.

To help improve this understanding and support strong collaboration between the private, third sector and ICBs, WA Communications has undertaken an in-depth analysis of all 40 ICB five-year joint forward plans.

Methodology

Our data, displayed in a brand-new interactive map, has been created following a deep-dive analysis of all 40 ICB plans, and any standalone documents published to alongside the plan.

To do so, we prepared a four-point scale (0 to 3). On the scale:

Three indicates that a plan has a significant amount of detail on a specific area – this could be a clear dedicated section, consistent presence throughout the plan, or a separate publication.
Two indicates a paragraph focused on the specific area.
One indicates that the area is mentioned but without any detail.
Zero indicates no mention at all.

In total WA Communications have analysed 27 areas of focus in ICBs five-year joint forward plans, including specific conditions, performance objectives and cross-cutting health themes. Full data can be viewed via our new interactive platform.

Data map

Our five key takeaways

Highly prevalent conditions which are focal points of the NHS long term plan and the yet to be published Major Conditions Strategy, are unsurprisingly a huge focus for ICBs, with 90% of plans dedicating a whole section to cancer, and 65% on cardiovascular disease. In cancer, plans predominantly focused on early diagnosis and case-finding, whereas action on CVD centred on prevention.

However, prioritisation of other common health challenges differs, with nearly half of plans not mentioning ophthalmology at all and two thirds of plans either not mentioning or placing a low priority on obesity.

Rare diseases only feature in five plans, demonstrating the likelihood that the roadmap for integrating specialised services will not be carried out in full, and by every ICS in 2024. Instead, it is likely designated ICSs will lead the delivery of specialised services.

Health inequalities feature heavily in all but one plan, aligned to the ambitions of the NHS mandate and Core20PLUS5 with a clear focus on access, experience and outcomes.

Notable cross-cutting priorities featured in plans include personalised care and improvements in data and digital, key areas which ICSs will be looking to partner with industry on.

About WA Communications

If you would like to discuss how to best work in partnership with Integrated Care Systems, and our analysis of their key areas of focus, contact Lloyd Tingley at lloydtingley@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

Buy Now Pay Later: stalled regulation risks hitting responsible lenders and consumers

Today the Treasury’s Future of Payments Review call for input draws to a close and in due course, Chairman Joe Garner will set out his recommendations on how the government can deliver world-leading retail payments.

The regulation of Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) products and services continues to demonstrate the intense political scrutiny of retail payment journeys and consumer finance more broadly.

Despite some progress made by the Government, a timeline implementing secondary legislation to bring this interest-free BNPL option under the remit of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulator remains unclear. Recent speculation over the Government’s delay has prompted fresh concern, particularly amongst Labour politicians, that regulation will be hindered and that consumers will potentially be put at risk.

This delay is said to be driven by a desire from ministers to maintain consumer choice on interest-free consumer credit products during the cost of living crisis and ensure providers stay in the UK market. If speculation is to be believed, this approach is symptomatic of the Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt’s overarching ambition to drive economic growth and market competition.

The draft secondary legislation, through the Financial Services and Markets Act, is supported by the FCA, with its Chief Executive, Nikhil Rathi recently informing the Treasury Select Committee that legislation is required to prevent consumer harm. And leading market players, such as Klarna have also called publicly for proportionate regulation of the sector.

Labour have looked to exploit the delay to demonstrate a commitment to consumer protection – a hallmark of their positioning in the lead up to the General Election. And in a recent letter to the City Minister Andrew Griffith, Shadow City Minister Tulip Siddiq reiterated that Labour would work with industry to regulate the BNPL sector, having previously raised amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act on the undertaking of credit checks, access to the Financial Ombudsman and consumer protection under the Consumer Credit Act.

This continued political scuffle over the shape and timing of BNPL regulation creates uncertainty for the market. Yet despite this uncertainty, there is an opportunity for BNPL providers to establish themselves as a partner to government, help to shape what “good” looks like and show progress on self-regulation.

Our recent research found that 42% of MPs cite evidence of consumer outcomes as the biggest factor in informing their policy decision making and 44% want to see consumer data and insight, so providing evidence of good consumer outcomes is key for the BNPL sector. In the pre-election period, it will be crucial to strike a balance between showing commitment to the market while highlighting that consumer care is at the heart of all operations.

Share this content:

In Conversation with Steve Richards — An Agenda-Setting Return to Westminster

WA Senior Adviser, broadcaster and journalist, Steve Richards and WA’s Head of Public Affairs, Marc Woolfson, gave their take on an eventful first week in the return to Westminster including the far-reaching reshuffle of Starmer’s Shadow Cabinet, as well as predictions for party conference and the repercussions of upcoming by-elections that are all to play for.

The conversation is the latest in a series of discussions with senior political and media figures hosted by WA, and we have outlined some key takeaways from the discussion below:

Leaders attempt to get a grip

Over the last two weeks, Sunak and Starmer have been getting new top teams in place ahead of a critical political period. Sunak attempted to capture momentum heading into the first week of term starting with a reshuffle of critical people into critical roles. This has been dwarfed by a nightmarish back to school week with the RAAC scandal dominating headlines and Labour capitalising on the government’s perceived negligence.

This week, Starmer carried out an extensive reshuffle of his Shadow Cabinet, coinciding with former civil servant Sue Gray’s first day as his Chief of Staff. The reshuffle saw many changes made, including the widely reported demotion of Lisa Nandy from the Shadow Levelling Up brief – a move some within the party deemed bold, somewhat brutal, and reflective of Keir’s win-at-all-costs mentality.

Angela Rayner has inherited Nandy’s Levelling Up brief which is set to deliver a historic transfer of power from central government to local and regional authorities. However, whether or not this shift in power will become a reality remains to be seen, given the substantial financial implications.

As anticipated, the most senior members of the Shadow Cabinet, and those with responsibility for Labour’s ‘five missions’ remained in post. Ideologically, there has been a power base increase of (what could be called) Blairite centrists. With a focus on fiscal rectitude, reform to create efficiencies, and ensuring all policy commitments are scrupulously costed – a position Rachel Reeves and her team are ardently championing.

This reshuffle, combined with the 20-point lead in the polls, has resulted in an uneasy excitement within Labour, as the outline of the next government begins to take shape and policy development gets in full swing.

Party conference fever

Unlocking economic growth via industry investment, transformative tech and R&D and will be a golden thread running through each conference.

For the Tories, this focus is reflected in the news that the UK is expected to re-join the EU’s flagship science research scheme, Horizon. And Sunak’s party conference speech will be an important attempt to show he and the party have a vision that goes beyond the next few months.

Echoing the rhetoric of Blair’s 1997 campaign, Labour will lean heavily into the theme of science and technology to regenerate public services and generate growth. Shadow Business Secretary Johnny Reynolds is set to outline detail on the industrial strategy – how the private sector and government can collaborate to facilitate fertile grounds for inward investment. This, alongside the green recovery programme – championed by both Starmer and Reeves – is regarded as the engine for economic growth Labour is committed to. However, it is unlikely we will gain clarity on the finances behind these strategies until given the green light by Reeves.

Starmer remains laser focused on delivering his “five missions”, meaning any policy recommendations put forward by businesses should aim be framed within these ambitions.

Bellwether by-elections

The upcoming by-election in Rutherglen and Hamiliton is a pivotal moment for Labour in Scotland. It is a litmus test for whether Labour’s messaging is landing well in Scotland and if won, is indicative of the electorate moving in their favour.

In Nadine Dorries’ contested seat of Mid-Bedfordshire, tactical voting between the Lib Dems and Labour may secure a blue defeat, but the Tory’s could win on a split opposition vote. A loss in this seat will no doubt stoke Tory fears that the Lib Dems are gaining traction in the so-called Blue Wall and will have implications for Sunak’s campaigning tactics. The Tories will also put up a fight against Labour in the election for Chris Pincher’s constituency of Tamworth.

Looking ahead, the most important event in the Commons calendar will be the Autumn statement on 22^nd November, followed by the Spring Budget in early 2024. It is expected that Chancellor Jeremy Hunt will amplify the UK’s post-Covid growth rate as a triumph of the Tory’s economic policy that has then allowed for tax cuts. Whatever shape and size these tax cuts take, Labour will not be in a position to oppose them.

We are gearing up for an exciting, potentially election-defining, political run in the lead up to Christmas. To learn more about what this means for you, get in touch with WA’s team to see how we can work together.

Share this content:

Ruthless Starmer Appoints a Team To Win and To Govern

Most shadow cabinet reshuffles do not matter very much. This one does for several reasons. Most fundamentally Keir Starmer hopes this will be his last reshuffle before the general election. Barring unforeseen circumstances his new team is the one that will form the next government if Labour wins the election. But there is another bigger reason why the reshuffle matters. Starmer is at the height of his powers in relation to his party, a leader well ahead in the polls. He is in the rare position for a Labour leader of being able to do more of less what he wants without fearing dissent.

This is Starmer’s team of choice and therefore sheds light on the type of government he seeks to lead and who he calculates will help him to win the election. He acted with characteristic ruthlessness but he had the rare space to be brutal.

One shadow cabinet member described the changes to me as an ‘elite level Blairite coup’. The frontbencher, who remains in the shadow cabinet, noted that five former special advisers from the Blair era now have prominent posts. They join several of those in Starmer’s office who used to work with Blair in some form or other. Starmer makes many calculations in promoting the rise of those that worship at the Blairite altar. He and his shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, are obsessed with following New Labour before 1997 in making no significant spending commitments.

Labour’s Blairite wing are the true believers in the argument that ‘reform’ and ‘technology’ are the key to revising the UK’s economy and public services, not big spending increases. Starmer wants ‘reform’ to be a driving theme at the party conference next month.

Meanwhile the likes of Liz Kendall, Pat McFadden and Peter Kyle are effective interviewees. The previous shadow cabinet had few impressive performers. Starmer also wants to show in vivid colours that Labour has made big leaps away from the Corbyn era. There is no more effective way of doing so than including in his top team those that are as far removed as it is possible to be from the former Labour leader.

But it is too simplistic to argue that the new shadow cabinet is ‘Blairite’ whatever that term means in the current context. Other factors came in to play. His elected deputy, Angela Rayner, needed a meaty brief and she has got one with the Levelling Up remit. Rayner is a pragmatist but is no Blairite. She will need to be extremely supple. Her predecessor, Lisa Nandy, had pledged an historic transfer of power away from the centre. Nandy assumed Starmer agreed with her as this was the main theme of his new year speech in January when he spoke of communities “taking back control”. But there are inevitable tensions over how much power the centre will want to retain rather than give away to mayors and councils. Rayner will be Deputy Prime Minister giving her some leverage over wider government policy.

Some close to Starmer wanted Ed Miliband sacked. This has not happened. Miliband helped Starmer secure his seat in the 2015 election. The two live close to each other although do not speak often these days. But Starmer remains committed to the so called green recovery plan even if he has wobbled over the ULEZ policy after losing the Uxbridge by-election.

I’m told that Sue Gray, Starmer’s new chief of staff, was one of those supporting the appointment of three front benchers to shadow the cabinet office, rather than one. This is unusual. Gray knows the cabinet office can be a driver of change in government but can also be a department where ministers pull levers and not much happens. Now Pat McFadden, Nick Thomas Symonds and Jonathan Ashworth will be preparing to pull various levers from the cabinet office if Labour wins. Thomas Symonds will be responsible for improving the Brexit deal , a complex challenging task which he has already discreetly begun from opposition. The appointment of Hilary Benn as shadow Northern Ireland Secretary is also significant in this context. Northern Ireland and Brexit remain thorny issues in spite of Sunak’s improvements to the protocol.

In terms of policy making the reshuffle has little practical impact in the short term. The shadow ministers responsible for Labour’s so called ‘missions’ are all still in place. Meanwhile Starmer’s office is as controlling as Blair’s used to be in the build up to 1997. He and Rachel Reeves will make the key policy decisions. Currently shadow cabinet members are preparing their conference speeches, but the leader’s office is taking a close interest in what each of them are proposing in various drafts, often sending back detailed revisions and cuts.

Of more immediate importance to the fate of Starmer and indeed Sunak are the by-elections coming up. If Labour do not gain Rutherglen in Scotland from the SNP, a seat they won in the 2017 general election when Jeremy Corbyn was leader, there will be no substantial revival there at the general election. If Labour wins Starmer has a fresh narrative, Labour is back in a part of the UK they used to dominate.The Mid Beds by-election is also a big test. Tactical voting becomes tricky when both Labour and the Lib Dems want to win as is currently the case in that seat.

After the next couple of months of by-elections, party conferences and an Autumn Statement from the chancellor the outcome of the general election will probably be clearer and what Labour will do in government will also be less foggy than it is now.

Share this content:

NHS England’s medicines optimisation guidance: What are the opportunities to improve uptake of medicines at ICS level?

The NHS has been plagued by difficulty when it comes to variation in the uptake of NICE approved medicines. With the establishment of ICSs, there has been an attempt to position medicines as strategic enablers of improved patient outcomes and NHS productivity and efficiencies ─ rather than just a clinical intervention for patients. The publication of NHS England’s medicines optimisation guidance 2023/24 last week signals a shift to create a national framework around this ambition, which NHS England (NHSE) has linked to integrated care board (ICB) priorities. Reading the guidance, the financial imperative is clear ─ the broader goals of medicines optimisation e.g., reduced wastage, improved outcomes, and improved safety, are consistently correlated to helping systems ‘deliver financial balance’.

However, with financial constraints placed on ICBs and the ongoing operational pressures facing staff, the root perception that medicines optimisation equates to doing more with less must be tackled first.

NHS England’s new guidance sets out 16 national medicines optimisation opportunities for 2023/24, and signposts to best practice resources to support implementation. NHS England recommends that ICBs choose at least five medicines optimisation opportunities.

What does Industry need to know and do following publication of this guidance?

Here are a few of our thoughts:

Start with thorough analysis of the issue: Before rushing to fix the problem of variation in uptake of NICE approved medicines between and within ICSs, we must understand the differing barriers to low uptake in local systems, and map the opportunities, including accounting for why previous initiatives may have fallen short of ambitions.

Demonstrate value across the whole patient pathway: Demonstrating value to the entire system has never been more important, as the savings should be better realised at ICS level, and therefore secondary impacts may hold greater weight. Where specialised services will be delegated to ICSs, it is important this optimisation guidance is implemented with regard to these forthcoming changes ─ a detailed review and re-design of patient pathways is anticipated after the transition in commissioning responsibilities.

Empowering patients and clinicians, and incentivising primary and secondary care structures to support implementation: NHSE highlights shared decision-making and the use of local financial incentives as levers to support successful implementation but includes limited further detail. Understanding a patient’s preferences for different treatments and empowering patients from all backgrounds to have open dialogue with their clinicians can help to improve timeliness for starting, substituting, tapering, and stopping medicines. A consultation on the future of the quality and outcomes framework (QOF), which targets GP practices, is due this summer and must consider tackling variation in access to medicines as a central objective – speculation of continued reduction in the number QOF indicators may mean fewer financial levers to support implementation.

NHS regional teams are decision makers: Regional NHSE teams will support ICB leaders to select national medicines optimisation opportunities. Whilst ICBs will be accountable, prioritising engagement with both ICBs and NHS regional teams is key to having influence.

Sharing best practice can influence annual prioritisation of the 16 opportunities: NHSE encourages several routes to sharing examples or case studies with NHS regions to improve uptake of the most clinically and cost-effective medicines and inform the 16 opportunities. Priorities will be updated as required on an annual basis. From a health inequalities perspective, this is crucial to preventing a counter-intuitive postcode lottery.

The Innovation scorecard is set to become more detailed: As of April 2023, the scorecard now tracks regional variation in prescribing for certain groups of medicines at ICB level. NHSE will be ‘evolving it’ to measure uptake against the estimated eligible population at ICS level. More detail is required on how this will be used to drive accountability and course-correction.

As we look to implementation, many questions remain. Will we see ICSs prioritise the same five ‘opportunities’ and what does it mean for progress in the opportunities that are not selected? How should system partners tailor their approach to targeted interventions in each ICS, each with differing local barriers? Finally, what additional strategies can help ensure that healthcare inequalities are not exacerbated? The ambition is high and must be matched by collaborative action at national, regional and local levels.

Share this content:

Will consumer scepticism and the cost-of-living crisis remain a roadblock to rolling out electric vehicles?

With just over six years to go until the UK government’s ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles comes into force, decarbonisation policies, EV charging strategies, and infrastructure plans abound – but consumers still need to be convinced that electric vehicles are cost-effective and practical.

Electric vehicles are the cornerstone of the UK’s transport decarbonisation agenda, exemplified in the government’s ambitious deadline for ‘all vehicles to be able to drive a significant distance with zero emissions’ from 2030.

The debate on the practicalities of the ban and the impact it will have on consumers is dominating political debate and it means understanding the challenges facing motorists and their experiences is essential.

With 83% of new vehicles registered in 2022 still fuelled by petrol or diesel, WA polled 1000 members of the public to find out their views on EVs and the potential barriers to adoption. Explore our findings below.

Will consumer scepticism and the cost-of-living crisis remain
a roadblock to rolling out electric vehicles? [PDF]

To find out more about WA’s work supporting high-profile organisations on sustainable travel, net zero, and energy issues, please contact Jamie Capp – by email jamiecapp@wacomms.co.uk or on 07910 004 035.

Share this content:

Do your duty: The financial regulatory shake-up of the vicennial

As the long-anticipated consumer duty comes into force today the financial services sector faces the biggest regulatory overhaul in over two decades. One marked by a notable willingness from the FCA to take “robust action” if the sector fails to comply – an indication of the more interventionist stance the regulator has pursued in recent years.

The duty reforms, driven by FCA concerns over sustained consumer detriment and poor customer service, mark a landmark moment for the market. The scope of the 120-plus page document is broad, but its four key pillars are: products and services; price and value; ensuring that consumers understand products; and making sure they get support.

And whilst the sector has had since July 2022 to prepare itself, the impact will be far reaching and could cost the industry up to £2.4bn. Banks, building societies, insurers and investment companies are amongst those impacted, as well as motor finance, product warranties and store cards. For many, it means older financial products which do not meet the higher standards will be removed from the market in a move which the FCA hopes will spur competition and drive innovation.

Whilst the consumer duty has been broadly welcomed by industry, politicians and consumer champions alike, its implementation will not be plain sailing.

The rules are still up for interpretation

The FCA is known for not being overly prescriptive in its rules. It tends to lay out guidelines and leave it to firms to interpret them. The same can be said for the consumer duty which has been simultaneously criticised as too interventionist and too vague – a difficult balance to strike. For many firms, identifying where the new rules need to be applied and the value of making these changes will be a significant undertaking.

Sections of the market have been missed

The new rules will only apply to sections of the market and products which are already regulated by the FCA, meaning that anything outside this far-reaching definition will not be held to the same standards. This is particularly key for the Buy-Now-Pay-Later sector, where recent speculation that the government will delay the timetable for new regulation, will no doubt be met with more robust criticism as the standards gap widens.

It’s going to get political

Political scrutiny of the financial services sector has been heightened in recent weeks – with attention turning to customer screening processes, passing on of savings, and reporting and governance standards. A regulatory requirement for “higher standards” across the market adds to the arsenal of MPs looking to hold the sector to account.

As we approach the next general election, politics will become simple and populist as parties focus on winning votes. That means even technical regulation can become a lightening rod for support or dissent.

The Conservative Government will point to the introduction of the consumer duty as a sign of its commitment to its voters and draw on the duty’s principles to make new interventions. Action on banks withdrawing accounts, for example, fits neatly when framed by the new consumer duty. On the other hand, the 120-page document provides the Labour Opposition with a foundation on which to launch its consumer-centric approach to financial services and a stick to beat the Government with if it fails to take – or ask the regulator to take – action where providers fall short.

For providers, this means there is a need to review the risks and opportunities the consumer duty presents and ensure that the action they are taking to champion consumer interest shines through with politicians and the media alike as scrutiny mounts. Getting the evidence base right will be key to securing long-term impact amongst those shaping the future operating environment.

For further information or a presentation on how WA Communications can help you, please get in touch with Natasha Egan-Sjodin by email – natashaegan-sjodin@wacomms.co.uk or on 07706 325 417.

Share this content:

The roadmap to Party Conference

Labour’s National Policy Forum plays a leading role in shaping the party’s election manifesto.

Chaired by Anneliese Dodds and made up of around 200 representatives of Constituency Labour Party, Labour Councillors, affiliated trade unions and socialist societies, and the Parliamentary Labour Party, it oversees the party’s Policy Commissions, and is currently drafting indicative policy documents ahead of the party’s annual conference in October.

Over the weekend, the Labour Party held its first full National Policy Forum meeting since 2014. (Snap elections in 2017 and 2019 meant that under Corbyn, the policy-making process was expedited to ensure the Party could launch its manifesto on time ahead of respective general elections. Unlike his predecessor however, Starmer has had the benefit of having a long run-in to the policy making forum that will inform the basis of Labour’s next manifesto).

This has resulted in greater transparency of the outline of the platform Labour will look to take to the next election.

Whilst the meeting of the National Policy Forum is a private meeting of the Party and the manifesto will not be publicly available until Party Conference, LabourList obtained a full list of the draft policy platform earlier this year.

In advance of the meeting, Starmer and Reeves have been keen to set the tempo by adhering unfailingly in their commitment to absolute fiscal discipline should they come to power, and have proudly declared that nothing in their manifesto will be uncosted. Starmer asserted to delegates that a Labour Government “is not a magic wand” to undo the last 13 years, recognising that his Party – should they come to power – will inherit a bleak economic outlook. This approach has not come without criticism, and accusations that Labour are not being bolder in their policy development led to major unions Unite and GMB walking out from what has reportedly been ‘hostile talks’ at the meeting.

Despite concerns over controversial policies such as not scrapping the two-child benefit and promising revisions to anti-protest laws, the Labour Leadership saw off the more radical proposals from the left wing of the party, and avoided any formal votes on amendments; meaning that the draft policy document presented to members after this weekend will be the one debated at Party Conference this October*.

Over the Summer period Labour will look to hone its messaging around these policies, consider how to market them to the electorate and ensure the rumblings from the more disenfranchised elements of his Party are addressed.

Labour will begin to slowly change the dial from development of policy to consolidation of it, and businesses should be aware of the narrowing window between now, Conference, and into early 2024 to try and influence manifesto development.

For Starmer and his team, the weekend will bring relief. Despite some friction, he has a clear mandate from his Party and its delegates to take forward to Party Conference in October. Buoyed by the by-election victory in Selby, Starmer has done enough to knit together warring factions to present a united front to the electorate as the general election begins to come into view.

* Whilst the manifesto would normally be based on elements of policy developed by the NPF and voted on by members at the party’s annual conference, there is no formal obligation for the manifesto to include policy put forward by the NPF and the party’s membership.

Next Left, our recent Guide to Engaging with the Labour Party, sets out the party’s policy-making processes and timeline in more detail.

Share this content:

How can government and business collaborate to create ‘good’ economic growth?

I’m a great believer that there’s something you can call good economic growth. That’s growth which creates real wealth and good jobs, but does so in a way that is lasting and respects the greatest sources of wealth we have – the planet and its people.

There’s never been a time when bringing these things together has been more important – whether to improve the state of Britain’s economy, or to address the most profound challenges of climate change and biodiversity.

For all our recent turbulence, Britain has giant strengths. These can create immense opportunities when we bring them together well: not just great companies and entrepreneurs, but also some great public institutions including our universities, legal system, and the Civil Service. These are globally respected and have huge potential as sources of value.

Most of my 30 year career in and around Government was spent doing what I’ve just described – trying to bring Government and business together to create lasting benefit for society. Then I called it micro-economic policy, and it’s what I did at HMT for 15 years – whether getting private investment into infrastructure or creating a better tax regime for entrepreneurs. It’s also what I did on the Board at Ofcom: I spent 7 years helping to set up the regulator and then run it. It was also a big part of the nearly 10 years I spent as a Permanent Secretary, or CEO-equivalent, across the Department for Transport, Home Office, and for a little while the Department for Business.

In fact one of my proudest achievements as a Permanent Secretary was helping to shift the mindset at DfT so that it was a bit less focussed on extra concrete and steel – the traditional answer to transport problems – and more focussed on radical innovation. The UK’s strong story on EVs today can be traced back to the partnership we created a decade and more ago between business, government and academe: to my mind that’s a model for government and business working together.

Chairing WA’s Advisory Board now gives me the opportunity apply this experience to help WA’s team and clients. One of the reasons I was keen to join WA was that its own approach – the emphasis on collaboration – is really well aligned with my own. And real collaboration starts with really good understanding: not just of the policy challenges and constraints that might be faced by the firms WA advises, but the longer-term goals and the sense of opportunity.

And my hunch is that after the Election, whoever wins, that theme of good growth is itself just going to keep on growing.

Share this content:

Unpacking the by-elections – In Conversation with Steve Richards

WA Senior Adviser, broadcaster and journalist, Steve Richards and WA’s Head of Corporate Communications, Lee Findell, unpacked the triple by-election and assessed the implications of the results and what they mean for political parties on the first day of Summer Recess. Even though the temperatures outside will remain cool, something tells us this will be a heated summer break for political parties.

This morning’s conversation is the latest in a series of discussions with senior political and media figures hosted by WA, and we have outlined some key takeaways from the discussion below:

Immediate by-election implications

The results from Selby and Ainsty are an extraordinary win for Labour, marking the biggest swing since March 1990 at the Mid Staffordshire by-election, when Labour overturned a Tory majority of 14,654. They also reveal that rural areas and farming communities have become increasingly disillusioned in the Conservative Government and serve as an indication of what might happen on a national level – especially in the North of England – at the next General Election. Perhaps more worryingly for the party in power is the Liberal Democrat win in Somerton and Frome. Despite the Conservative Chair Greg Hands saying that Labour has lost its deposit during his morning round, Liberal Democrats picking up Conservative seats signals that tactical voting is back.

The results in Boris Johnson’s former seat of Uxbridge and South Ruislip on the other hand meant that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak did not awake to headlines which would have triggered immediate discontent and trouble in his Party. Sunak was given a protective shield – but it may be a deceptive one given the by-election in Uxbridge is characterised as a single-issue campaign. That issue being Labour’s own London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s creation – ULEZ.

Instead of euphoria, today the top of the Labour Party is feeling something more similar to anger. Anger towards its green ‘champions’, Sadiq Khan and Ed Miliband who have allowed the green agenda to bypass the immediacy of Labour’s cost-of-living platform. The results in Uxbridge have two big implications for the Labour Party. Firstly, Starmer will now face a lot of pressure to evaluate Labour’s green agenda to make sure there is nothing within it that the Conservative party can seize like the ULEZ charge. We have already seen two events that challenge that proposition, one being Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves pulling back on the £28 billion and the second being the back and forth on stopping all exploration in the North Sea which undermined and put at risk Scottish Labour who cannot go into the September by-election on a job losing platform. Secondly, the Uxbridge by-election highlights the fundamental contradiction in Labour Party policy of taking back control and transferring power to local communities – something Keir Starmer championed at the beginning of the year. Shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Lisa Nandy described this as a historic transfer of power, and at the time this meant that moving forward the focus needed to be switched from central government to local authorities. The reaction to the Uxbridge by-election, and the ULEZ policy blame-game raises questions of who will be in control under a Labour government – the centre or the local. It also appears as though Labour’s over-cautious approach made the Party vulnerable to single-issues campaigns, and without an overriding purpose and mission to fall back on as the alternative, the top of the Party will be engaging in heated debates over the summer and leading up to conference on how best to tackle this gap.

Sunak’s glimmer of hope?

The Prime Minister can breathe a (very small) sigh of relief as instead of an unequivocal media onslaught, voices will once again emerge claiming Sunak may after all have a narrow path to victory. Going back to the ULEZ issue, the PM might also face pressures to water down the Government’s climate propositions in attempting to stay in the good graces of motorists. However, this will not be an easy electoral calculation to make. The PM is also likely to undertake a cabinet reshuffle, cementing teams that will lead the Government into the next General Election. This is because Sunak must at least try to convey a real sense of moving on and change. What the nature and size of that reshuffle will be is difficult to determine. Chances of Sunak sacking Chancellor Hunt – low, Braverman – risky, Barclay – likely, Gove getting a promotion – 50/50. If the reshuffle does not happen by the end of today, it is highly unlikely it will happen next week. So we can expect the reshuffle and Sunak’s attempt at reemergence in the first week of September.

A strong reemergence from Sunak will be a challenge as many Conservative MPs consider the Prime Minister an electoral liability for the Party. Why? To start, Sunak has not managed to cut through the public and many wonder what his political purpose actually is. Also, despite having a formidable office in Downing Street, the Prime Minister has not succeeded in managing the Party and is not doing any better against his five priorities. What does this mean for business? In practical terms, from September onwards the focus will be entirely on the election. The legislative programme will be carried over in September when Parliament will sit for a few weeks before dispersing for party conferences. Upon return, there will be a King’s Speech targeted solely on winning an election, featuring no significant pieces of legislation. Then all eyes will turn to the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement, followed by a cosy break for Christmas and then the Spring Budget which will be the last, and most important, fiscal event before the General Election.

And what about Starmer?

Albeit for different reasons, it is not much rosier in Starmer’s garden. Starmer’s reshuffle will likely come in September and will be a significant one. Rumours are Nick Thomas-Symonds, current Shadow Secretary of State for International Trade will end up in the Cabinet Office which would have interesting implications for Britain’s relationship with Europe. Angela Rayner might get the levelling-up brief, while Lisa Nandy could get demoted to Leader of the House. And what to do to about Ed? It is likely Miliband will keep his post given his and Starmer’s close relationship, and the fact that Miliband helped Starmer get elected. However, following Uxbridge businesses will have to carefully frame the dialogue around green policies and Net Zero with the Labour Party. While Labour’s overarching climate change commitment is unlikely to change, the Party will scrap anything that is remotely equivalent to ULEZ in a way that it takes away focus from the cost-of-living crisis, or worse, adds to the financial burden of voters. Starmer will look at every policy area from an electoral perspective, i.e., winning at the next General Election. A different challenge for businesses will be trying to delve deep to work out the gap between the surface narrative from Starmer and Reeves leading up to the election and what Labour will do in power.

The race is on for third place in Parliament

By-election results have also shown that after a troublesome few years, the Liberal Democrats are back as a significant political force. Depending on what happens in Scotland, including the by-election in September and the investigation into Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP leadership, the Liberal Democrats have a real chance of becoming the third force in Parliament. Starmer does not want to form a coalition Government with the Liberal Democrats, nor does he possess the necessary political skill to navigate the challenges that come with it. This may be why Labour are in Scotland every weekend.

General Election speculation

Despite speculation that Sunak will try to go for an early election, this is highly unlikely. While he is behind in polls, Sunak will wait. So the General Election is still expected in October or November next year. But before that, a major event will the local elections in May, including the London mayoral election which will determine the whole pre-election mood and be treated as a great pre-election test.

Our key takeaway – businesses should prepare for a busy first week of September and after that for a political environment entirely engulfed in the next General Election.

Share this content:

2023 Mansion House speech analysis: common sense reforms that may require more sector management than the Chancellor would like

In his annual Mansion House speech, delivered last night to City executives, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt turned his focus towards the UK’s largest pension funds in his latest attempt to boost the flatlining UK economy, and address the lack of inward investment into the UK’s growth industries.

As part of the “Mansion House reforms”, Hunt set out proposals to channel £50 billion from Britian’s direct contribution (DC) pension funds into high growth companies – such as life sciences and high technology. At the centre of this is a “compact” signed by the UK’s nine largest DC pensions providers, committing these fund managers to voluntarily invest 5% of their assets into unlisted equities by 2030.

As well as the compact agreement focusing specifically on direct contribution firms, the Chancellor also outlined a package of other policies for pensions, including exploring expanding the role of government in establishing investment vehicles; a consultation on doubling existing private equity investments in local government pension schemes; and a call for evidence on the role of Pension Protect Fund, amongst other measures.

Hunt also confirmed the Government would continue implementing a series of capital market reforms (many of which were already announced) that aim to make the UK a more attractive place for companies to list – aiming to reverse a steady decline in listing numbers in recent years. The most notable of these was the backing of new recommendations from Rachel Kent’s investment research review. The proposed changes would partly roll back the EU’s Mifid II rules, which barred stockbrokers from providing research for free by “bundling” it with share trading services for which clients pay a commission.

The flagship announcement on pensions has broadly been received well by the City and the sectors of the economy that stand to benefit from the investment (most notably tech and life sciences). This is seen by industry as a rather overdue set of reforms, bringing the UK more in line with economies like the US and Australia who have been able to generate much higher returns for consumers in their pensions schemes.

There remains skepticism as to whether a non-binding agreement will be strong enough to push direct contribution fund managers to meet the target and provide the investment the government is promising – the headline £50 billion figure will only be met if the entire DC sector follows the lead of the 9 signatories.

Either way, the UK’s science and technology sector will benefit hugely from the extra funds channeled into it through VC and private equity, even if the £50bn figure isn’t reached – an extra £2bn to the sector would still amount to twice the funding in the Government’s 10-year semiconductor strategy.

Not every measure announced by the Chancellor has been met with praise from affected stakeholders however – Quentin Marshall, chair of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea pension fund (the UK’s largest), being quoted this morning saying he “had not seen the evidence” to support the plan for the DB local government pension schemes that the Chancellor is proposing.

As he demonstrated in his March Budget with the removal of the pensions cap, Hunt clearly believe this is key to reinvigorating the UK economy, and again had no problem in announcing policies that have previously been trailed in a similar form by his Opposition number Rachel Reeves. Based on the similarities in the measures announced in last night’s speech and those trailed by Reeves at a speech in New York 6 weeks ago, it’s clear that both parties are in a very similar place on pensions and investment policy – which will be a welcome piece of continuity for the markets and industry.

Crucially however, the plan announced by the Chancellor last night does not include a requirement for the money to be invested in UK companies – firms would be free to find high-growth investments elsewhere if they so choose. It should be expected that Reeves and Labour would not be as open as the current Government on allowing fund managers to prioritise foreign firms to UK ones.

Overall, the reforms announced yesterday evening by the Chancellor were a common sense, in many ways overdue, set of policies that attempt to put keep the City, and the wider UK economy ahead of comparative rivals around the world. It makes London’s capital markets more able to invest in the high-growth industries that the Government is so keen to foster.

However, given the voluntary nature of the compact agreement, a robust implementation period and close monitoring of fund managers by the Treasury will be critical – the Chancellor may need to crack the whip harder on the City than his ideology would usually allow.

Share this content:

Labouring to the point

Even though the energy crisis has taken a back seat in the news cycle, the impact it has had on consumers, their behaviour, and overall public awareness of where their energy comes from, is stark.

However many industry commentators believe that, to date, very little has been done by the Government to prevent such a crisis from happening again.

With several complex, but complementary, policy issues remaining high on voters’ agendas, the Labour Party has been tentatively navigating complex waters as it sets out its stall ahead of the next General Election, looking to capitalise on perceived current inaction.

Climate change, energy costs, and energy independence is a challenging trifecta to find a solution to at the best of times, let alone when the overriding priority is to project economic competence and fiscal trustworthiness.

An additional twist in the tale for Keir Starmer has been the dramatic way in which Scotland has electorally come into play, which 12 months ago he could only have dreamt of. Labour is now facing the very real prospect of tangible, double-digit Parliamentary gains north of the border, which could make the difference between a clear majority, or a hung Parliament.

Balancing each of these considerations has seen a number of previously solid commitments become softened, watered down, or changed altogether.

Two headline pledges, no new oil and gas licenses, and investing £28bn a year in green infrastructure, have been the main casualties.

The latter has been slightly amended so that instead of the full annual investment starting immediately, it’ll be built up to in the first half of a Labour Government. This has generally been interpreted as a pragmatic move, as deciding what to invest that level of money, finalising deals, and then spending it within 12 months was perhaps always an unrealistic timeline.

The former has been somewhat more eventful. Rifts have opened within the Labour front bench; and the unions, most notably the GMB, have started flexing their muscles. In addition, Anas Sarwar’s political capital has grown exponentially, making him an even more influential figure in the Party machine.

The result? A fudge. Labour will now honour any licences issued before the election, their position on CCS has suddenly become very positive, and the previous ban on new licences has now been limited to only blocking new exploration licenses, a minor but crucial difference, specifically aimed at keeping Scotland in play.

Beyond it being a fantastic case study for observers as to how the levers of power within the Labour Party work, it’s also a strong indication as to how seriously Keir Starmer is taking the Party’s policy development, not letting anything jeopardise any chance he may have of becoming the next Prime Minister.

‘Next Left’ – WA’s recently published Guide to Engaging with the Labour Party – explores the people, processes and politics shaping the development of Labour’s next election manifesto, and how businesses can engage with the party’s plans.

We will shortly be releasing a deep-dive specifically exploring the Labour Party’s emerging energy sector policies. To receive a copy, please email angushill@wacoms.co.uk.

Share this content:

In Conversation with Steve Richards

WA Senior Adviser, broadcaster and journalist, Steve Richards and WA’s Head of Public Affairs, Marc Woolfson, provided their take on the latest developments in Westminster and Whitehall, and unpacked what this means for anyone seeking to engage with the Government and understand the potential priorities of a Labour administration.

This conversation is the latest in a series of discussions with senior political and media figures hosted by WA.

Yesterday morning, Steve shared his insights on the mood at No.10 before providing reflections on the Government-in-waiting and Starmer’s preparations to ‘take back control’ of the country.

We’ve outlined five key takeaways from the discussion below:

1. General Election still predicted for Autumn 2024

At the time of our conversation with Steve, the Privileges Committee had just released their report on how Boris Johnson misled the House. Following the resignation of Johnson and Nigel Adams over the weekend, Sunak now faces (at least) two challenging by-elections in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, and Selby and Ainsty. Amidst this upheaval, some in Labour are hoping for a snap election.

Steve, however, is still setting his sights on an election in Autumn next year. From his viewpoint, although there will be continuing challenges for Sunak arising from this event, Johnson’s exit from the Commons marks a significant diminishment of his political prowess and danger to Sunak.

Unless we see a significant closing in Labour’s lead, Sunak will likely delay the election in the hopes the tide will change by next year.

2. Zombie Parliament: Sunak’s five pledges

Beyond firefighting a constant stream of internal upheaval and scandal, Sunak remains focused – if not obsessed – on achieving the five pledges he set out in January (halve inflation; grow the economy; reduce national debt; shorten NHS wait lists; and stop the boats). Halving inflation by the end of this year is a must as Sunak cannot afford to approach an election with rising inflation rates.

As a result of this focus, there is talk of a ‘zombie parliament’ at Westminster. For the foreseeable future, activity in Parliament will mainly be used as a mechanism for building up to the election rather than to pass any weighty pieces of legislation. As an example, long-awaited proposed reforms to modernise the UK rail industry have fallen by the wayside.

Ultimately, there simply isn’t much legislative time available to the Government with preparation for the party conference in October, and long recesses pushing MPs back out to campaign in their constituencies.

Anyone seeking to engage with Government on legislation over the coming months may struggle unless it falls within the remit of Sunak’s five priorities.

3. Keir and Reeve’s cautious policy: Nothing without funding

Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are taking a cautious approach; every piece of policy is submitted to Keir’s office for scrupulous checking for any claims that might imply an increase in spending.

The party’s proposal to scrap ‘Non-Dom’ tax status – which Labour says costs the Exchequer £3.2bn – is increasingly the answer to almost any question about the viability of its spending plans.

But with Jeremy Hunt rumoured to be looking at announcing exactly this move in the Autumn Statement, effectively removing this potential uplift from Labour’s plans, Kier is especially nervous about any discussion on spending.

Labour is also being very quiet on their policy plans and recently rowed back on commitments in their green recovery programme and on universal childcare.

In line with this preference for fiscal responsibility, as well as Blairite influences at the heart of Keir’s team, Labour is driving their focus towards policies that symbolise change without spending money, including technology, innovation, and AI.

4. Labour and business: Now until Autumn is the prime time to engage with Labour

Between now and Conference is an important time for industry to engage with Labour if they are looking to shape the direction of policy.

Starmer wants Labour to look like the party on the edge of forming a Government by the time Party Conference comes around in October. Speeches will need to be policy-rich, trailing their manifesto, which is already being drafted.

Labour is sincere in its claim that its door is open to business. Industry interest in the party serves as a reassuring recognition that they are viewed as the next likely candidate to form a Government. If Starmer wants to realise his mission to get the economy growing faster than any other country in the G7, Labour will need close relations with businesses to achieve this ambitious goal.

Jonathan Reynolds (Shadow Secretary of State for Business and Industrial Strategy) is expected to announce further details of Labour’s industrial strategy at Conference, formalising their goodwill towards industry.

However, if in power, relations may be more strained as Reeves seeks to fill her funding gap, with the potential for businesses to face new ‘stealth taxes’. Industry will benefit from putting in the groundwork now, during a period when Labour is reticent to reveal any tax rises that may make headlines during the pre-election test period.

5. Public sector and unions: The challenge ahead for a Labour Government

Winning the election will only be the first hurdle for Labour. Should they win, they are set to inherit a challenging landscape, especially in the public sector.

Unions present a considerable challenge. Labour hopes relations will improve through greater goodwill and by restructuring who is involved in negotiations. However, as New Labour did in 1997, Starmer plans to stick with Conservative spending plans for the first two to three years, so will not have the money to meet the pay demands of the unions.

On the NHS, Labour’s plans have been ambitious but vague. Although they highlight scrapping non-dom tax status as a means to pay for recruitment into the NHS, internally, Labour knows this will not be enough. Moreover, Wes Streeting has asserted his ambition to ‘reform’ the NHS but has not defined this ubiquitous term. Internally the party is divided on their position over the use of the private sector to meet capacity.

Starmer is also acutely aware that he has U-turned on many of his leadership pledges, including plans to abolish university tuition fees. At present, the current model for higher education would not see much change, however, if in power, university schemes and the graduate tax are areas Starmer may revisit.

The theme of the first term of a Labour Government will be dominated by one question: where’s the money coming from?

Share this content:

Hope for The City… or just agreeing to talk?

Amidst the challenging economic picture facing Rishi Sunak’s government, from mortgage rates to food inflation, any potential good news story has been seized upon by Downing Street. The latest of these came on Tuesday with the announcement from the Treasury that Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt had signed an agreement on post-Brexit regulatory cooperation with his counterpart on the EU Commission, Mairead McGuinness.

As a signal of intent for those within the industry, this is undoubtedly a positive step – indicative of a thawing of relations and a commitment to regulatory cooperation that will be critical if the City is to move on from the temporary arrangements that have hung over the sector for the last few years. It is also a clear reflection of the Government’s desire to woo industry leaders ahead of the next General Election; a charm offensive being mirrored by Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves MP and her team. Reassuringly for the City, this is one area of policy in which businesses and investors can expect a degree of continuity – Labour have been consistent in calling for a deepening of ties between the UK and EU on financial services in particular.

Amongst other things, the deal includes a commitment from both sides to work to improve transparency; reduce uncertainty; solve cross-border regulatory issues; and where appropriate, improve interoperability of standards. There is enough meat on the bone here to shape conversations with regulators and use as a springboard to push for the all-important conversations around UK-EU market equivalence.

That said, it’s important not to overstate the deal as it stands. While key players have welcomed the direction of travel, nearly all of the praise has been tempered by the fact that an announcement of this ilk has been long overdue – and still fundamentally amounts to an agreement to talk to one another.

The new Forum is committed to meeting “at least” twice a year. With the current arrangement on equivalence set to expire in June 2025, you would expect that regulators – along with their political masters – would need to meet much more frequently than the minimum 4-5 sessions mandated in the MOU in order to hash out what would amount to a landmark regulatory agreement.

Moving from voluntary cooperation on these relatively small-scale issues to a broader agreement on UK-EU equivalence remains the ball game, though. This leaves significant room for industry to inform policy and regulatory decisions going forward. We know from our research that MPs particularly value both data and consumer case studies when considering their views on financial services policy or regulatory reform.

Demonstrating where closer cross-border alignment will help achieve party economic growth ambitions will be critical – as well as how industry can help drive the UK’s global economic competitiveness. This will help strike the right chord between the regulation-light approach of the Tories and Labour’s focus on consumer outcomes.

Overall, Tuesday’s announcement was an indication that with 2 years remaining of temporary equivalence, the government is keen to pursue closer alignment with Europe on financial services. How this will be received by the harder-line MPs within the Conservative Party will be one to keep an eye on going forward – but given that this is a position shared by Labour, it will provide welcome continuity for the markets and industry.

With the signing of this MOU and the Financial Services and Markets Bill about to become law, an important window of dialogue between regulators on both sides of the Channel is about to open up. There’s a long way to go before the long-term future of UK-EU financial services is decided, and it remains a critical time for industry to be engaged in the process.

Share this content:

In conversation with Matthew Taylor — Chief Executive, NHS Confederation

This week, WA was delighted to host NHS Confederation Chief Executive Matthew Taylor. WA’s Head of Health Caroline Gordon led a discussion exploring Matthew’s perspective on how to tackle the big challenges facing the NHS, and how partners can work together to support the system.

Bringing decades of experience from both inside and outside government, Matthew expanded on his agenda-setting NHS Confed Expo speech which outlined five key ways to improve the UK’s health.

A few things we learnt:

Big change is possible, but it needs a big political vision

Matthew’s ambition for the UK to have a cross-cutting ‘health strategy’ – not just a set of policies for the NHS – is a hefty aspiration, particularly when government departments tend to work in vertical silos. Getting health policy into housing, criminal justice and levelling up policy is challenging.

But it can be achieved if the Prime Minister owns it from the centre, owns the mission, and insists on a cross-government structure that is focused on delivery. A clear vision is key.

Show the savings

The argument for investing in prevention and out of hospital care – often described as upstreaming – is well established and widely shared. However, persuading those holding the purse strings, whether centrally in the Treasury or locally in Trusts, is challenging. Too often ‘invest to save’ arguments are rejected, because in the past, new investment has not always led to the promised savings.

Two possible solutions: First: make the case by modelling the long-term savings. The NHS Confederation has been working hard to demonstrate the cost effectiveness and productivity benefits of investing in smarter healthcare. Second: know how the savings will be realised – ideally within a reasonable timeframe. Reassure the budget holder that you have real evidence that investment will pay off.

Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) – one year on

As the dust settles on the Hewitt Review, the emerging ICSs continue to evolve. There is significant variation in their size, approach, and progress (not necessarily a bad thing if we want to experiment with different models) and the system is learning together all the time.

It was recognised that it can be challenging for stakeholders to engage with the new structures, even when they want to share ideas that could help ICSs achieve their ambitions.

Some ideas for reaching new local decision makers:

Securing local clinical endorsement can unlock doors – and bringing together enthusiastic clinicians from different ICSs to form ‘coalitions of the willing’ can be a great way to cultivate collaboration with the NHS and share best practice.
Utilise networks like the NHS Confederation’s ICS Network.
Accept that the new system doesn’t respond to one-size-fits-all – it’s going to require a more tailored approach than before.

The discussion was practical, realistic, and thought provoking, providing lots of new ideas for engagement with the NHS as it changes.

To find out more, or to discuss how WA can support your engagement with the NHS, please contact Caroline Gordon at carolinegordon@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

Mission Impossible? Labour’s plan to tackle health and social care

What’s the substance of Labour’s health mission?

Labour’s recent ‘health mission’ unveiling is their most comprehensive offering on health policy yet. Labour would look to shift care out of the hospital and into the community, placing more attention on preventing rather than treating ill health. They would look to modernise the NHS, embracing digital and technological innovation to improve efficiency in the NHS. Their proposals also focus on making the NHS a more attractive place to work, to improve recruitment, training, and retention. And, aligning with current priorities in the health service, Labour would commit to tackling three of the country’s biggest killers: cancer, heart disease and suicide.

On the surface, the health mission lacks depth. However, it landed well, securing positive headlines on this most politically salient of issues.

Beyond the headlines, WA’s engagement with senior figures in the Labour Party and across British politics are reassuring, suggesting that far more detailed policies are in development. Health system leaders we have spoken to are optimistic about the proposals they have been consulted on. We also know that there is more opportunity ahead: Starmer is willing to grant freedom to those he trusts on policy development, tasking them to ‘think bold’.

Are Labour’s health ambitions achievable?

Prioritising community care, prevention and tackling health inequalities over the delivery of acute and elective care aligns with what the NHS needs. But Labour might find it difficult to achieve if they triumph at the next General Election. Waiting lists are at an all-time high, ambulance services are under considerable pressure and the NHS is under extreme financial scrutiny.

The urgent demands on the health agenda may limit Labour’s ability to deliver radical improvements in the NHS. Despite the positive reception of their policy offer among health system leaders, Labour have already discovered how difficult it can be to take everyone with them when proposing more radical change; Wes Streeting’s early announcements on primary care reform generated significant pushback from doctors’ unions.

In this crucial period for manifesto shaping, Labour will need to balance Starmer’s call for bold thinking with solutions that are politically palatable. Labour will need to develop policy solutions that combine quick wins with long-term innovative thinking. Health stakeholders will need to share policy proposals that align with short and long-term ambitions and show awareness of the balancing act required from Labour.

Is Labour’s mission-led approach likely to succeed?

When New Labour revived a crisis-ridden NHS it was transformative. However, it took a considerable amount of time and relied on heavy investment; neither are a luxury available to Starmer in the current political and financial climate.

The scale of the challenge lying ahead of Labour means they won’t be able to fix the NHS in one electoral term. Solving the health and social care crisis isn’t all about money and if Labour wants to follow through on their mission-led approach to health policy, they will need to invest the right money in the right areas.

Despite the challenges ahead, Starmer is convinced that bold thinking is the key to successful and progressive policy development. Working in partnership and embracing innovation from all sectors could be pivotal in this approach.

More information about Labour’s policy-making process, the battlegrounds for business, and how organisations can get heard can be found in WA’s Guide to Engaging with the Labour Party.

Share this content:

A life sciences package the Government hopes will take the sting out of VPAS

Today’s comprehensive life sciences package is a vote of confidence in a sector whose consistent real terms growth over the last decade is something the Government is keen to sustain.

And it’s hardly a surprise – negotiations on the Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing and Access (VPAS) began just three weeks ago, following months of comment in the media about the rebate disincentivising research, and about the NHS needing to ensure value for money at a time of significant resource stretch.

But are today’s measures sufficient, or are they just tokens to soften the difficult conversations around VPAS and medicines access? They include:

£650 million (including both previously announced and genuinely new) funding targeted towards manufacturing, skills and infrastructure:

- £121 million to improve commercial clinical trials as part of the Government’s response to the Lord O’Shaughnessy Review. This includes through reducing trial approval time, developing a new approach to contracting, providing real-time’ data on clinical trial activity, and creating new clinical trial acceleration networks (CTANs)
- £154 million to upgrade the UK’s biological data bank
- Up to £38 million for a Biomanufacturing Fund
- £10 million new funding to bolster UK health resilience
- £42.7 million for a new centre in Liverpool to research the connections between mental, physical and social conditions

Relaunching the Academic Health Science Networks as Health Innovation Networks with a focus on boosting innovation by sharing best practice between the NHS, academia, industry and local communities
£10 million for the MHRA to establish new regulatory recognition routes using approvals from Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, Switzerland, Singapore and the USA
An Innovative Devices Access Pathway to support med-tech innovators to generate the evidence they need for regulatory approval

Announcements have been cautiously welcomed as a means to deliver the UK’s ambition to be a science superpower. But Lord O’Shaughnessy himself has said that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating: rapid implementation will be key to driving maximum impact.

And while these measures will help to address sector concerns about system delays and limitations to research routes, VPAS is still the big priority. These announcements won’t shift that focus. As the ABPI said in their quote for the Government’s press release: “Improving research is only one part of the equation. To get innovative medicines to patients and fully capture the growth opportunity, we must also fix the commercial environment”.

Many of today’s announcements are also not new. The regulatory recognition routes were announced in the Spring Budget, as was a plan to expedite approvals of clinical trials. CTANs had been leaked to the media some weeks ago as ‘clinical trial pop-ups’. Reiterating these measures as part of a wider package of life sciences policies is designed not only to butter up the industry but also to position the Conservatives as the party of science and innovation with voters as eyes start to turn to next year’s election.

How successful these measures will be in making the UK a life sciences superpower, and overcoming the system and regulatory barriers to investment, remains to be seen. But with Sir Keir Starmer stating in his speech to launch Labour’s health mission this week that “science and technology are game changers”, the Government can be sure that they won’t be the only ones trying to woo the life sciences sector.

Share this content:

What do the Bank of England, dog food and Percy Pigs have in common?

The answer is that they have all been in the news in the last few weeks thanks to a piece of external communications. You would be forgiven for missing these stories though as all too often we focus on ‘bad’ corporate communications, we forget what ‘good’ looks like.

As the following brands have reminded us, a proportionate or well-thought through comms strategy is the difference between making headlines for the right or wrong reason.

Marks and Spencer v Fabio’s Gelato

It’s a classic David and Goliath story.

When a Hertfordshire-based ice cream parlour decided to create a ‘Percy Pig ice cream’ decorated with the swinish sweets, Marks and Spencer quickly contacted the owner demanding the ice cream was renamed.

It would have been easy for the retailer to go in guns blazing with a cease and desist letter as many brands have done before – after all, they own the trademark for ‘Percy Pig’ and are legally entitled to protect it.

But M&S have clearly learned lessons from their public spat with Aldi on the discount retailer’s take on the infamous Colin the Caterpillar cake. The legal battle finally ended earlier this year with an out of court settlement but the issue remains a popular social media meme.

This time the high street retailer wrote to the ice cream parlour asking them to change the name in a letter that even its owner branded ‘polite and fair’. The light-hearted letter explained their reasoning, offered some alternative names and was even accompanied by some free Percy Pigs.

While this is an appropriate approach – after all, a local ice parlour is in a different league to one of their main competitors – this shift in tone is telling. And M&S have clearly demonstrated that free treats will always help sweeten the deal.

Sorry seems to be the hardest word

Earlier this month the Bank of England’s chief economist, Huw Pill, sparked headlines for his comments that people in the UK need to ‘accept’ they are worse off and stop trying to maintain their real spending power through higher wages or passing costs on to customers. Widespread backlash from small businesses, consumer groups and unions duly followed with his comments branded as ‘out of touch’ and ‘outrageous’.

He has now apologised for his comments, admitting he should have used ‘less inflammatory’ language and that in the future he will use ‘different words to describe the challenges we all face’.

While this apology does not change what he said, it shuts the story down and means the Bank of England can move on and regain its credibility as a leading voice in the finance sector.

Interestingly – and perhaps even intentionally – although Pill acknowledges he misspoke, his most recent comments double down on his original warning about the economic challenges the UK is facing.

The stark reality is that the Bank of England has a tough job ahead to settle the economy, but when it comes to such a sensitive issue as personal finances, words matter.

Pets before profit

“It may sound weird to be actively selling a product that we hope gets discontinued, but that’s part of our purpose… because we want to make a difference.”

So started a BBC interview with the marketing director for dog food business, Wilder Harrier. The Canadian firm’s ‘Sustainable Fish’ dried dog food is made from an invasive species of fish called silver carp, which has destroyed native fishing stocks in the USA’s Mississippi River.

By capturing silver carp to sell as dog food, the company is tackling what one Canadian province is calling ‘the most severe threat’ to their waters – while building strong brand loyalty with more than 10,000 bags sold to date.

Wilder Harrier’s approach to actively pursuing ‘a diminishing supply of [the product’s] main ingredient’ is refreshing, and a clear example of putting the natural world before profit.

In a communications world increasingly drowned out by greenwashing, it is more important than ever before for brands to have a clear social purpose.

To find out more about how WA can support with ‘good’ corporate communications, contact Associate Director RachelFord@wacomms.co.uk

Share this content:

Local elections tell a national story

Thursday’s local elections were the first clear and real sign of the political pendulum swinging back in Labour’s favour.

After months of doubts in the opposition that it was too good to be true, the results highlight the clear and real prospect of Labour returning to power. Meanwhile for the Conservatives, it paints a stark picture of the blue wall and red wall crumbling before them.

Local elections are the opportunity to check in with the electoral mood. They offer a partial, incomplete view of what could happen in a General Election, but one that points to a brutal ejection from office for the Conservatives.

Party faithfuls in both Labour and the Conservatives will point to the overall voting numbers as a sign it is still all to play for. The BBC national vote share projection put Labour at 35% to 26% for the Conservatives, a smaller gap than many national polls currently suggest. Whilst these headline numbers suggest a hung parliament, the results and mood paint a bleaker picture for Rishi Sunak’s party.

The Conservative coalition is crumbling

Beyond just losing the typical political bellwethers that signal who will lead the next government – for example, the Conservatives losing Swindon and Plymouth to Labour – Conservatives saw areas previously counted as safe seats for the party slip away. Losing Medway to Labour and Stratford-upon-Avon and Maidenhead to the Liberal Democrats is approaching a political catastrophe for the party.

Repeating these results in a year would leave the Conservatives with a shell of the parliamentary party they currently have. Even a minor improvement would not avert a painful loss for the government and it means they need a plan to respond to these damaging defeats.

Fighting on two fronts poses significant political challenges for the government when it is fast running out of time. With around 18 months until an election, it needs to find a blend of policies that can appeal to the shires and northern communities that made up its successful electoral coalition. This is a tall order and means it must find policies it can deliver now with minimum fuss.

Labour’s march to power continues

Meanwhile, Labour has passed its first major electoral test since becoming the front-runner to form the next government. With it will come even greater scrutiny on what it plans to do, and what will form the basis of its manifesto. Starmer and his team will take nothing for granted and will continue the approach that has built this lead. Newly controlled Labour Councils will offer the first glimpse of the party’s style and priorities, with the leader of the opposition taking a special interest in their policy programmes.

Labour will also have an eye on the other opposition parties following Thursday. They will be hoping the Liberal Democrat and Green gains reflect the electorate’s willingness to vote for the candidate best placed to dislodge Conservatives and therefore are swayed to vote Labour in 2024. Starmer and his team may look for ways to encourage this in the months ahead, and thereby avoid a significantly larger contingent of third party MPs that they may need to rely on in a hung parliament.

The national impact of local politics

For businesses, the local election is the restatement of the political expectation. Labour is on the march to power, with the Conservatives wounded and needing a significant change in fortunes to avert a big defeat.

As parties respond to the shattering of the red and blue walls for the Conservatives, businesses must be alive to the policy responses and political opportunities this has created. The competitive electoral map may be wider than at any point in recent memory and with it comes the prospect for new political issues and debates to come to the fore.

To discuss these issues and what it means for you, get in touch with us at jamie.capp@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

‘Stopping the 8am rush’ – Is the plan for recovering access to primary care an oversimplification?

The primary care access plan is finally here. A comprehensive plan to mull over but difficult to have a full view in the absence of the workforce plan. It is coined by DHSC as “the first step to address the access challenge ahead of longer-term reforms”, but this is not to undersell its transformative potential. Primary Care Networks (PCNs) are now fully focused on delivering this plan which spans the introduction of better phone and online systems, pharmacies supplying medicines for more conditions, and more staff and more appointments – anything else will be deprioritised.

The plan has been widely praised as championing innovation. However, there is a feeling that the plan doesn’t duly assess the risks and benefits of what has been put forward and ─ is perhaps an oversimplification from DHSC and NHSE.

On a micro level, in this blog we explore the potential impact on access of changes to the role of pharmacy, the Investment and Impact Fund (IIF) and Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF).

Broadening the role of pharmacists presents both opportunities and risks

Pharmacy First has arguably elicited the strongest discourse and feelings both good and bad. Outwardly, a number of high-profile pharmacy leads are supportive of the initiative but there is cautiousness amongst the health sector. In conversation with David Thorne, Transformation Director at Well Up North PCN, he noted the following challenges:

1. Interoperability: It is vital that GP and pharmacy systems speak to each other, and we avoid the fragmentation that has bedevilled GP systems to date. Currently, robust systems are not in place to inform pharmacists of what medication someone is on to support their prescribing decisions ─ apart from placing faith in very early use of the NHS App. We need consistency and safe links, especially when looking to enable people to use a pharmacy distant from their GP practice.

2. Pharmacy closures:  In theory, the enhanced role of pharmacists could make primary care more accessible. However, data reports that pharmacy closures have disproportionally been in the most deprived areas of England ─ so there is a risk that positive changes to the role of pharmacists’ conflict with national priorities around health inequalities. One of the main drivers of the shortages of community pharmacists is the PCN recruitment of pharmacists to work in primary care roles.

3. Right Place, Right Role: Community Pharmacies may not be able to develop responsive clinical governance systems that adequately respond to case mix escalation, for example when superficially routine consultations escalate to issues of drug/alcohol misuse, mental health and safeguarding. How can we support pharmacists to develop the skill, time and governance systems to manage the types of conversations that GPs have?  Extensive training and public awareness will need to accompany these changes.

This is far from a done deal with negotiations on the £645 million supportive investment ongoing. Further, there will be a consultation on upholding patient safety considering greater prescribing powers for pharmacists.

Polling results conducted by WA communications in March 2023 of 1,000 members of the UK public highlight that whilst there is public support for a greater role for pharmacists, there is some way to go to building public awareness of the services pharmacists can provide.

51% of the public are confident that their local pharmacist could provide them with high-quality medical advice for a minor health condition.
The public are more likely to turn to pharmacists (39%) first for a minor health concern, than GPs (33%) or NHS 111 (14%). This is particularly the case for women (46%) and those aged over 55 (54%).

A word of caution surrounding progressive changes to the IIF and QOF

Further details of the streamlining of IIF and QOF were announced within the plan. Redirecting £246 million of IIF funds represents a major shift with 30% to be awarded by ICBs (integrated care board), conditional on PCNs achieving agreed improvement in access and patient experience. DHSC/NHSE guidance is that access improvement plans should prioritise supporting those with the lowest patient satisfaction scores.

Local flexibility must be at the heart of the re-design of incentives, without arbitrary access quotas for certain groups such as ethnic minorities or LGBTQ+, which could lead to under-funding and deepening inequalities. It seems that DHSC/NHSE are cognisant of this, explaining that the plan is designed to move towards a “more equitable approach that will benefit all patients” and “does not call out specific cohort of patients” for that reason. This must be pulled through at an incentive level to ensure certain PCNs such as rural PCNs who may have small numbers of certain communities, are not caught out.

NHSE further announced that, through a consultation this summer, they will explore how to link QOF to key strategies such as the upcoming Major Conditions Strategy. Ultimately, ICBs new commissioning powers will mean ICBs very closely performance manage PCNs. This goes against the ‘neighbourhood’ aspect of integrated care reforms, which will only seek to become more complex as preventative care models are adopted.

As always, implementation will be the true test. The plan comes with no standardisation frameworks or action plans attached. This passes the buck to PCNs and/or ICBs to operationalise, which risks fragmentation in the absence of nationally led advice.

Share this content:

The policy platform that will shape Labour’s manifesto

Last week, details of the Labour policy handbook that serves as the initial blueprint for the party’s next manifesto was circulated, ahead of the next meeting of Labour’s National Policy Forum (NPF).

The full summary of policy positions was revealed online by LabourList.

The policies included will be subject to scrutiny and debate by members involved in the NPF, with amendments able to be filed until June. The National Policy Forum will meet in July to discuss its contents ahead of the Labour Party Conference in October, where voting will take place on the programme presented. Following this, once the official timeline for the next General Election has been called, Labour will hold a Clause V meeting to decide which policies make it to the manifesto.

Further detail of this process can be seen in WA’s Guide to Engaging with the Labour Party:

Following months of accusations levied against Keir Starmer that his leadership lacks ideological rigour – and whilst it remains far from a completed manifesto – the leaked documents give us an idea of what the policy direction for the UK could look like under his stewardship. Labour have signalled that their next manifesto will ‘under-promise and over-deliver’.

As such, with vital discussions and developments in the policy-making process still to take place in the coming months, NEC members will be fighting for space on what Labour will choose to fight the next election on.

Businesses should follow the next few months of the policy development process closely in anticipation for party conference – a key milestone in the policy-making process, with the shadow cabinet told to present a credible alternative plan for government at the gathering.

Reaction from those involved at the ground level of Labour policy towards the leaked document has been generally positive, but there are still disagreements in the direction of some critical areas.

Below WA’s sector specialists have set out what the initial policy handbook means for each key policy area:

Energy

Energy is set to take a leading role in Labour’s offering at the next General Election, with the Policy Forum recommending ambitious targets on energy infrastructure, building to the ultimate goal of delivering clean electricity by 2030.

Specific targets include doubling onshore wind capacity, quadrupling offshore, and tripling that of solar. Given these technologies currently have around 14GW of installed capacity each, hitting these targets would involve commissioning over 20GW of wind and solar every year from 2024 to 2030, no mean feat, given the current speed of planning and Grid approvals.

In addition to renewables, there is strong support for nuclear and hydrogen, and a recognition that the likes of floating offshore wind, CCS and marine energy will require Government assistance in their developments.

As for the other side, it’s clear the forum doesn’t want to see any expansion in the use of fossil fuels, pushing for no more oil and gas licenses, maintaining the ban on fracking, and avoiding using coal, and no mention of biomass.

There is no clear message on decarbonising tougher sectors, such as energy-intensive industries or aviation, meaning there is still opportunity to influence in these areas.

Financial Services

The party has shown significant commitment to partnering with the financial services sector and protecting the UK’s reputation as a global financial leader. Central to this is its headline economic ambition to secure the highest growth in the G7, delivered through the Green Prosperity Plan and driven by inward investment aligned to the Paris-agreement targets.

They have also outlined plans to introduce long-term policies relating to consumer protection in emerging markets, including in the buy-now-pay-later sector which has been a bedrock issue for the party whilst in Opposition. Businesses should anticipate a review of regulatory barriers and potential risks.

Health & Life Sciences

Nothing in the proposals will come as a surprise for those following Labour’s core offering during the Starmer and Streeting administration. Detail is light and centred primarily around the issues that currently drive the debate in health: tackling the workforce crisis and cutting waiting lists.

Notably absent from the proposals is a focus on reducing health inequalities, despite both the Conservatives and numerous think tanks sympathetic to Labour correctly identifying it as one of the health challenges holding back growth across areas of the country. Critically for Labour, these inequalities are often most prevalent in areas they will need to win at the next General Election. Streeting is expected to set out Labour’s position on this in due course.

A strict focus on addressing only the major systemic health challenges is typical for a party in opposition, but Labour will at some point need to set out its plan to address the knottier challenges that require targeted action: cancer; obesity; the ageing population; and cardiovascular disease to name a few. This next phase of the manifesto development will look to examine these areas in more detail, and businesses should be alert and on-hand to offer potential solutions in these spaces.

Addressing these critical challenges will not be quick, and Labour’s success in delivering against its objectives will be measured in years, not months. As the manifesto develops, Labour must look to balance its top-level agenda for reform against ‘oven-ready’ wins early into their potential Governance to ensure they are seen to be progressing against their own objectives in the minds of an electorate increasingly losing faith in the health service.

Transport

As anticipated, Labour’s flagship transport policy is the renationalisation of rail. Labour intend to bring the railways back into public ownership as contracts with existing operators expire. The scale of ambition for rail does not stop there, with the document setting out intentions to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail and High Speed 2 in full. This will be underpinned by a long-term strategy for rail that’s consistent with Labour’s fiscal panning and gives communities more of a say on their local rail services.

With GB Railways still in formative stages ahead of a potential Transport Bill in the King’s Speech and no guarantee of it completing its parliamentary stages before a general elations, there remains significant uncertainty and a range of potential outcomes for the rail sector. For commercial interests in the sector now is the time to carefully set out a vision for how they’d align with Labour’s agenda and rebuild trust in the network.

Devolved governments and local authorities can also expect more responsibility over what Labour calls “the broken bus system”. Communities will be granted powers to franchise local bus services, lifting the ban on municipal bus ownership. With franchising still in its infancy in the northern metro areas, the next few years will be essential to assess how local control is working and define a model that will work in rural, semi-rural and other non-metro areas.

In addition to public transport, Labour are also seeking to turbocharge the just transition to more affordable EVs by helping households to manage the higher upfront cost of vehicles. To ensure EV infrastructure is able to keep up pace, Labour are planning a programme of electrification, including accelerating the rollout of charging points in left behind areas. A package of incentives may well be needed to help address an emerging challenge around access inequality.

Childcare, Education & Skills

Shadow Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson is determined to ensure that education is at the heart of Labour’s programme for Government, as it was when the party last came to power in 1997.

Labour recognise that one of the most significant challenges facing the country today is the need to rebuild the economy and ensure that workers have the right skills required to support the jobs of the future. This cuts across different departments and policy areas, but remains a core ambition of the Shadow Education Team, who want to deliver a “landmark shift in skills provision”.

Where Labour differ from the Government in this regard, they have linked future skills needs closely to their ambitions for the green agenda, they want to devolve adult education and skills budgets to metro mayors and combined authorities, and they want to give businesses more flexibility to use skills funding to meet specific employer needs.

Another key priority of Labour’s is to reform childcare, right from the end of parental leave to the end of primary school. These plans are still light on detail – perhaps because of the need to work around the announcements made by the Government in March’s Budget, and perhaps because of the funding implications required to meet their ambitions for a so-called ‘childcare revolution’.

Looking ahead, Keir Starmer is set to launch his opportunities mission ahead of the summer recess in July – we look forward to seeing the detail then.

Share this content:

The next phase of Open Banking?

Fin Tech week 2023 has kicked off with HM Treasury’s long-awaited recommendations for the next phase of Open Banking in the UK.

With 29 actions over the next two years, this is a clear roadmap for the Joint Regulation Oversight Committee (JROC) to deliver and progress is undoubtedly being made. Amongst the measures, the report sets out plans to:

Test a commercial model for open banking and establish a future open banking entity;
Increase the total number of active Open Banking users in the UK;
Rapidly grow the scale of investment in Open Banking.

More detail on the future entity for Open Banking and the transition of the OBIE is also expected shortly, as well as plans to create a smart data scheme under Part 3 of the Data Protection and Digital Identity (DPDI) Bill.

However, there are still questions over digital identity, use of smart data, and the transition to Open Finance. Further clarity is needed for industry to press ahead with investment, innovation and expansion to ensure the UK remains a leader in open banking.

So how can businesses and organisations in the sector shape what comes next? The WA financial services team shares their advice on what the sector should do.

1. Input is still needed on where barriers to progress exist

The JROC report sets out Treasury’s blueprint for how open banking can be pushed further and reach an increasing number of users. As part of their vision JROC are looking for sector input so they can better understand what is needed to ensure the sector prospers.

This is an opportunity for businesses to:

Outline where regulation hasn’t matched pace with innovation
Highlight where policy clarity is needed, particularly in terms of interdependencies
Demonstrate where open banking functionality can be used in other markets

2. UK consumers still need clarity on what Open Banking means for them

Whilst Government and industry alike has heralded the success of Open Banking implementation in the UK, there is still work to be done with consumers to educate them on what it means for them. Our research – conducted in January 2022 – shows that only 41% of consumer have heard of open banking, and of those only 36% could explain what it does.

Businesses need to:

Build a clear case for how open banking functionality is used in every day life
Address and demystify concerns over data security and sharing
Help consumers realise the benefit of open banking for their financial health

3. MPs and policy makers want to build their understanding

With the Retained EU Law Bill radically changing the way policy and regulation is made post-Brexit, There is a clear gap for businesses and industry bodies to shape MP understanding of Open Banking functionality and how it is implemented.

When businesses think about engaging MPs, our survey from earlier this year shows that:

MPs want to see evidence of consumer outcomes – 42% said they wanted to see case studies and examples of good outcomes for customers
They want a deeper understanding of consumer data and insight – 44% say they need evidence points to help shape their opinion
Solutions, rather than problems, are the way to engage – only 22% of MPs want to hear about the challenges facing the sector, compared to the 37% who are eager to hear from businesses on how they can be solved

In June, WA will be joined by experts from across the sector to discuss the future of Open Banking and Open Finance in more detail, with fresh insights and advice on how businesses and industry can shape long-term thinking in the space.

To find out more, or to register to attend the event, contact WA Director Natasha Egan-Sjodin at natashaegan-sjodin@wacomms.co.uk

Share this content:

In Conversation with Toby Perkins MP – Unlocking opportunities to ‘earn while you learn’

Last week, WA Communications hosted a roundtable with Toby Perkins MP, Shadow Minister for Further Education and Skills, to discuss Labour’s approach to skills and lifelong learning, with a particular focus on the party’s views on degree apprenticeships. Bringing together key players within the HE, apprenticeships, and skills sectors, the discussion highlighted the potential of degree apprenticeships for learners, industry, and the economy.

Perkins shed light on Labour’s current thinking around the skills agenda, confirming the party’s support for degree apprenticeships, advocating for FE and HE to “work hand in hand”, and calling for more investment in skills. However, he also stressed that spending the current levy funding should be the priority.

At the event, WA Associate Director, Lorna Jane Russell previewed WA’s latest education research report on degree apprenticeships, presenting the findings from original consumer polling and setting out the challenges – and potential solutions – to expanding these qualifications throughout the UK. We will launch these publicly next week.

Key Insights from the Roundtable:

1. Degree apprenticeships have the potential to be a valuable opportunity for policy in lifelong learning, especially in the context of increasing education costs and the skills shortage. However, they are still not widely available, and there is a lack of awareness about them among the public. There is also a perception gap about the prestige of degree apprenticeships, which may deter potential applicants.

2. To increase access and participation in degree apprenticeships, there is a need for new models that can widen participation and increase access to industry placements, especially for disadvantaged students who are currently underrepresented within the sector. This should be coupled with initiatives to support young learners in making the transition from school into work, including greater support throughout the qualification.

3. The government has adopted an employer-led approach to degree apprenticeships, which means less investment and fewer opportunities for students. This approach may also limit the development of new models that prioritise access and participation, rather than just meeting the needs of employers.

4. Universities and skills providers alike want to see more flexibility and fewer regulatory burdens in order to widen their degree apprenticeship offerings. Employer investment in skills is also down, and the apprenticeship levy needs reforming to be more flexible and help SMEs attract apprentices.

5. Finally, there is also a need for investment in upskilling the existing workforce to deliver future jobs in decarbonisation and technology. Degree apprenticeships could play a role in this upskilling effort by providing a pathway for workers to gain new skills while also earning a degree and gaining work experience.

So, what’s the upshot for the skills sector?

The cross-party consensus about the need to invest in skills training and degree apprenticeships favours skills providers, though universities that work with employers to offer degree apprenticeship qualifications will benefit.

Labour’s promise of flexibility in their approach to the apprenticeship levy presents significant opportunities for skills providers to expand their degree apprenticeship offerings, and for universities to access a new funding stream.

However, higher education could lose out to FE and apprenticeship providers in post-18 education reforms, so they will need to demonstrate how they can work alongside skills providers and local FE colleges to play a critical role in delivering on the reskilling agenda.

While for policymakers, degree apprenticeships have the potential to be a valuable opportunity for lifelong learning and addressing the skills shortage, more needs to be done to increase access and participation, support new models, and revise funding and regulatory frameworks to support students to ‘earn while they learn’.

If you have any questions or are interested in learning more about WA’s education team, please contact Lorna Jane Russell, WA Communications, at lornarussell@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

IVF – what to expect when you’re expecting returns

A recent World Health Organisation report finds that about one in six people worldwide experiences infertility. Unsurprising, then, that this year would-be parents around the world will spend an estimated £12.8bn on fertility treatments, a figure growing at an annual rate of 10.3%. The UK IVF market – valued at around £420 million in 2018 – is expected to reach £760 million by 2026.

WHO officials highlight that IVF remains “underfunded and inaccessible to many due to high costs, social stigma and limited availability”. In the UK, IVF is provided through a mix of NHS and private services, and regulated through the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, passed in 1990. The Act has been updated only once, in 2008, despite the sector having witnessed scientific breakthroughs and an accompanying shift in public perception in the time since. Both factors have contributed to a significant growth in demand. As attitudes and access to IVF have evolved, sector stakeholders have started to highlight issues: regional variations in NHS funding, poor regulation of treatment ‘add-ons’ and perceived profiteering.

Although the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends three cycles of IVF for women under 40, some Integrated Care Boards offer only one cycle, or only offer NHS-funded IVF in exceptional circumstances. In the absence of national standardisation, and at a time of squeezed public sector budgets, the recent years have seen a steady decline in the number of IVF cycles funded by the NHS. Data shows that NHS-funded cycles in England fell from 40% in 2014 to 32% in 2019. In Wales, they fell from 42% to 39% over the same period, and in Northern Ireland they fell from 50% to 34%. Scotland is the only devolved nation to have seen an increase in the proportion of IVF cycles funded by the NHS, up from 58% to 62%.

Reflecting these developments, IVF has attracted media and political interest, with MPs from across the political spectrum becoming more vocal about the issues in the sector.

Launched in Summer 2022, the Government’s Women’s Health Strategy acknowledged the need for action and announced NICE would be updating its guidelines on fertility, with changes expected to be published in November 2024. The strategy removed the requirements for same-sex female couples to self-fund fertility treatment before becoming eligible for NHS-funded care and committed to exploring the possibility of publishing data nationally on IVF provision and availability. Several Labour MPs, including senior Shadow Cabinet members, have criticised the strategy for failing to get to the heart of the problem, claiming that increased transparency around available funding doesn’t do anything in improving provision or tackling the postcode lottery for fertility services.

According to HFEA, in 2019 the average birth rate per embryo transferred (IVF attempt success rate) was 24%. It comes as no shock that would-be parents have increasingly been opting for add-on treatments in hopes of improving their chances of conception. Add-on procedures are optional extras that are offered by clinics on top of normal fertility treatments. There is currently little direct evidence that add-ons, which can add up to £2,500 to the cost of each attempt, improve the chances of success. In the absence of available evidence, and the growth in demand for add-ons, in June 2021 the Competition and Markets Authority issued guidance for fertility clinics to ensure they don’t mis-sell add on treatments. Still, HFEA’s 2022 National Patient Survey found only 46% of people who used add-on treatments felt their clinic has clearly explained how likely the add-on was to increase their chance of conceiving. This debate is part of the reason why HFEA has been calling for reforms to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act for years.

It was only earlier this year that the Government asked the independent fertility regulator to submit reform recommendations for consideration. Now HFEA is seeking additional powers to enforce standards, including the ability to introduce economic sanctions on non-compliant providers. The lack of control over fertility treatment add-ons by HFEA have enhanced the criticism of the poor regulation and fuelled the ‘profiteering’ debate.

Given the mounting scrutiny, increasing size of the sector and the fact that the Women’s Health Strategy had already set out that government would consider changes to regulatory powers to cover fertility treatment ‘add-ons’, it is likely HFEA’s recommendations will be accepted. Even if parliamentary time is squeezed, and the Government doesn’t make progress ahead of a General Election expected in late 2024, women’s health will be high on Labour’s agenda should it form the next government.

Labour MPs have been vocal on a number of women’s health issues, with menopause awareness in the workplace being the most recent example. And with the Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, Anneliese Dodds, calling for a “national conversation” on women’s health and wellbeing, it is safe to assume Labour would take a more interventionist approach in government.

With 3.5 million people struggling to conceive in the UK, and the proportion of IVF cycles provided by the NHS steadily declining, private provision of IVF remains a growth industry. Considering the WHO’s recent findings and calls for better policies and public financing, the regulatory landscape is likely to tighten, so those looking to invest in the sector will need to keep an eye on both regulatory reform and updates to NICE fertility guidelines. The policy agenda of a potential Labour government, which is more likely to scrutinise profit-making delivery models in the health space, should also be a key consideration.

However, tighter regulation needn’t be discouraging, especially if it is followed up with better public financing. As we have seen in other sectors, if done well it is likely to build confidence and present growth opportunities for high quality providers committed to doing their best for patients. And that should motivate investors to drive the innovation that will deliver better outcomes for patients – and reward all expecting stakeholders in the long run.

Share this content:

The Hewitt Review unpacked

In July 2022, Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) were formally established with the intention of delivering joined-up services along a place-based approach, improve outcomes in population health and tackle health inequalities across the country.

Yet, just six months into their formation, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced a review to be undertaken by Patricia Hewitt, former Secretary of State for Health and current chair of Norfolk and Waveney Integrated Care Board.

The review sought to consider the oversight and governance of ICSs, examining the balance between greater autonomy and accountability for these emerging structures.

Hewitt’s paper, published yesterday, reiterates the significant potential of the new NHS structures to deliver more strategic and sustainable healthcare – albeit with refinements. However, with a muted response from the DHSC and NHS England on timelines for responding to the review’s findings, there are questions over whether core recommendations will be taken onboard with any sense of urgency.

What stood out?

Prevention and population health

The review reiterates the big opportunity of prevention and proactive population health as key to sustainable solutions to immediate performance pressures in the NHS. This is a well-trodden message – but one that continues to be easier to write about than deliver.

To address this gap, Hewitt argues for a change in how the health and care system operates. This includes a shift in resources, to which she recommends a 1% increase in the NHS budgets going towards prevention. She also calls for a Government-led national mission on health improvement, with prevention, the reduction of health inequalities and the social determinants of health as musts, rather than ‘nice to haves.’

This sentiment is in keeping with other recent policy reports on prevention and early intervention, such as the recent Health and Social Care Committee inquiry into prevention which received over 600 stakeholder responses.

Largely missing was any focus on industry partnership beyond high level commentary on evolving pathways and vendor management. This suggests that treatments are still not seen as a key part of the approach towards better population health.

The potential of delivering on placed-based priority and need

A big theme in the review is the need for a shift from a top-down, centralised system of managing the NHS to a bottom-up system, responsive and responsible to local communities.

To facilitate this, Hewitt recommends a reduction in national targets with no more than 10 national priorities and the development of ‘High Accountability and Responsibility Partnerships’ (HARPs). These are additional mechanisms aimed at incentivising integration across all partners of a local system.

However, integration and true place-based care cannot be fully achieved without local government and social care involvement. This has already been somewhat muted with the decision to create two local bodies – healthcare-led Integrated Care Boards and wider community involvement through the Integrated Care Partnerships. And there is an irony that on the same day as Hewitt review was published calling for better integration of health and social care, a £250m of budget committed to support social care innovation and training was withdrawn. Without a genuine joined-up approach, the opportunity for integration is unlikely to be truly realised.

Decisions on accountability and governance

Fundamentally, the review was commissioned to consider the oversight and governance of ICSs. However, it is not immediately clear whether this question has been answered and the critical question of whether ICBs or NHS England manages Trusts has been fudged.

The review recommends that any intervention from NHS England direct to Trusts should come through the ICB structures. However, it then peddles back on that ambition by stating that it needs to be proportionate to the strength of the relationships, leadership and challenges facing a local system.

Therefore, there is still considerable room for NHS England to be involved in the performance of local care providers. This takes away from the intended freedoms and flexibility at the forefront of the ICS model.

Better funding flows

The review does not call for any additional funding for NHS services but rather scratches beneath the surface to offer a remedy for how operationally government spending on health can achieve value for money.

Hewitt identifies “over-complex, uncoordinated funding systems” as an impediment to achieving this principle. She calls for ICS funding to “be largely multi-year and recurrent” and for budgets across health and local government to be better aligned.

Greater financial autonomy as well as simplified and coordinated funding behind ICSs has been welcomed as a recommendation. However, the varying degree of maturity of ICSs across the country, as recognised in the review, risks investors needing to adopt a more cumbersome and tailored approach depending on the ICS.

What’s next?

As yet, next steps remain unclear. The Government will respond to the central recommendations, but not immediately. Clarity around responsibility and accountability between NHS bodies may take more time. Many other key points may be chalked up as ‘requiring further consideration’.

Jeremy Hunt – who commissioned the review – retains his interest in health improvement and is keen to drive better outcomes and efficiencies for patients and the public purse. How far he is prepared to loosen the grip on NHS budgets remains to be seen.

Share this content:

Powering up?

Yesterday’s Powering Up Britain announcement had been trailed as a gamechanger for the country’s energy transition: the UK’s response to IRA in the battle for green investment. But to what extent does it shift the dial on the government’s priorities and give confidence to investors? WA’s energy team reflects on what it means and looks ahead to what’s coming next.

1. Yesterday’s announcements mark an important albeit incremental drive to ‘power up Britain’

Much of the commentary following yesterday’s package has focused on the relatively limited nature of the announcements: there was very little in the way of new funding announced, many policies from existing strategies and publications repurposed, significant reforms that are urgently needed – for example on planning reform for onshore wind – pushed into the future, and the number of specific projects backed on the low scale of expectations.

All this is true, but the fact that ‘Powering up Britain’ was neither radical or fast enough to meet key national ambitions, doesn’t mean it’s not welcome or important. Industry repeatedly calls for a renewed focus on ‘delivery’, with key targets and objectives already agreed. Yesterday’s announcement represents movement on ‘delivery’ – the hard policy grind that is necessary to move progress to targets forward.

Upcoming announcements on grid connections and onshore wind will also be critical to increase the pace of renewables deployment.

2. Picking winners (and losers)

Governments – particularly this one – dislike being seen to be ‘picking winners’ and choosing which businesses thrive. However, it’s a core theme of yesterday’s package, particularly picking the early leaders within technologies. Yesterday showed that government is committed to backing a broad range of technologies – as the Energy Minister Andrew Bowie reiterated at a dinner hosted by WA earlier this week. However, not every project within those technology types will progress – there will be winners and losers.

Across different sectors – from new nuclear to CCUS and hydrogen – government is using competitions between projects and firms to identify which they will back. This isn’t new – in effect this has happened with the CfD regime within renewables for some time – but it’s now been embedded across the sector. This very starkly exposes that within the UK energy market, project developers and investors are dependent on government permission and support to progress. There are clear commercial consequences – the impact on the share price of both the winners and losers of CCUS and hydrogen competitions yesterday neatly demonstrates this.

One critical consequence of this is that it makes it even more essential for those wishing to progress projects to make a strong case for their individual investment and to be able to differentiate it from competitors. As well as having a strong technical case, this means telling a story. How will this specific project or technology tangibly improve the local community by delivering economic growth jobs and a strong supply chain? How will it meet the government’s ambition for low cost, homegrown power more effectively than other solutions? Do you have influential champions for your project? It’s no coincidence that Teesside was a big winner on CCUS and hydrogen yesterday, with a Mayor in Ben Houchen who has made this a priority. In an election year, showing the political ‘win’ as well as technical competence is critical.

3. Home decarbonisation is the piece of the puzzle policymakers still struggle to solve

The one part of the decarbonisation challenge that arguably lost out yesterday was home decarbonisation and domestic heat. It’s a problem that successive policymakers have struggled to grapple with, but the measures announced yesterday will not yet do enough to fundamentally address the scale of the problem.

Take the government’s announcement on the establishment of a Great British Insulation Scheme. The 300,000 homes this will focus on are just a drop in the ocean of the number that need to be improved. Unlikely power decarbonisation, addressing this is much more piecemeal and requires significant consumer engagement and behavioural change.

The second big challenge is the choice of technology to heat those homes. This is one area where the government is – perhaps understandably – less keen to pick winners, worried about the political consequences of mandating higher cost solutions that will require significant disruption to consumers.

However, yesterday’s announcement conceivably gave the biggest steer yet that the government is leaning towards electrification over hydrogen as the primary solution for homes (albeit ultimately there will need to be a mix of technologies) with an extension to the Boiler Upgrade Scheme and a vision that in the future, “people’s homes will be heated by British electricity, not imported gas”.

4. Bigger things to come?

This package of announcements is important, but not enough. It is a critical step in providing clarity on the competitions, policy frameworks and future schemes required to encourage external investment but it won’t be a gamechanger.

Industry will be looking ahead to see what’s beyond this that might fundamentally shift the dial, and there’s two things to consider:

Greater financial firepower at the Autumn Statement?

The Chancellor has promised that the government’s full response to IRA will come in the Autumn, arguing that it will be ‘different – and better’. Those looking for a game changing moment – matching the simplicity the IRA mechanism – have the next six months to make the case for what this looks like.

While we’re currently in a fiscally constrained environment, the government has signalled that it will turn the spending and tax cutting taps on ahead of the next election. The argument needs to be made – partly through Lord Harrington’s review into foreign investment – as to how deploying it to support the green transition will give the government the greatest political impact. However, the delay in getting this full response to IRA and the Chancellor’s insistence that the UK isn’t about to enter a subsidy race, should constrain confidence amongst the industry.

A future Labour government?

In stark contrast to the incrementalism of this government, is the radicalism of Labour’s plans on energy. In his speech earlier this week, Ed Miliband highlighted the differing approach a Labour government would take – more ambitious targets, greater public spending (£28bn in borrowing per year and a new national wealth fund),and a much more muscular and interventionist role for the state (including a public sector energy company, Great British Energy). The ambition and pace can’t be doubted, but there remain questions over the deliverability and the solidity of this level of public spending in a challenging financial context.

WA’s upcoming report into Labour’s energy plans will delve much deeper into this, looking at the outstanding questions that remain.

Share this content:

Scottish National Priority: how the SNP leadership contest could shape the NHS

This SNP leadership election will, for the first time in almost a decade put a new face at the forefront of Scottish politics.

While independence is unsurprisingly at the top of the agenda for the candidates, healthcare is a key battleground: a recent Ipsos poll found the NHS is the issue of greatest concern for Scottish voters.

Scotland is facing a healthcare crisis. The gap in life expectancy between the least and most deprived areas now stands at 13.3 years for men and 9.8 years for women, A&E waiting times are increasing, and the Government is set to miss key targets this year in NHS recruitment and tackling elective waiting lists.

How do the leadership candidates plan to address the healthcare crisis?

Humza Yousaf

With almost two years of health and social care experience under his belt, Humza Yousaf expectedly has the most developed set of healthcare policy goals, stating that he will make the NHS a priority as First Minister. As such, his ability to follow through on campaign commitments will be closely scrutinised if he is selected at the end of March.

A proponent of progressive taxation, Yousaf would raise taxes on high earners to generate a billion pounds for health and social care by 2024.
His ambition for the healthcare system starts with the workforce; ensuring that healthcare workers remain the highest paid in the UK and improving working conditions for front-line staff.
Yousaf also wants to invest in GP practices in deprived areas, increase GP training places and expand the Hospital at Home model to combat record NHS waiting times.

Kate Forbes

Kate Forbes has also leant on her experience as Finance Secretary for the policy basis of her campaign.

Forbes has placed emphasis on an ambition for growth to support investment in public services should she succeed in the leadership contest.
She has also suggested an overhaul of the health service would be necessary and has ambitions to:
- lift medical school caps;
- improve delayed discharges; and
- empower front-line workers through improvements to working conditions.

Uniting both Forbes and Yousaf is their commitment to delivering the controversial National Care Service, an NHS-style centrally managed care service pitched as a solution to social care. Scottish Labour has framed the plans as a ‘power grab’ from local authorities; however, given the state of the social care sector across the rest of the UK, the SNP’s ‘top two’ are eager to promote Scotland’s solution.

Ash Regan

Despite being the clear underdog in the contest, the third and final leadership candidate, Ash Regan, proposes solutions that demonstrate the political breadth of the SNP.

Regan has taken a leaf out of Steve Barclay’s playbook, announcing a desire to cut red tape in the NHS by reducing the number of managers and dropping targets.
She also intends to hold an ‘NHS summit’ to understand the issues facing front-line staff.

While Ash Regan is unlikely to triumph in the contest, she represents the scale of the challenge that Kate Forbes or Humza Yousaf will have in uniting the Party to tackle the issue of greatest concern to Scottish voters, and the broad spectrum of policy ideas that lie within it.

Regardless of who is voted in as Party leader, the Health and Social Care in-tray will be busier than every other department. Before the next General Election, the incoming First Minister, and their new Health and Social Care Minister will need to drive significant improvements in healthcare if they want to have any chance of matching the flawless electoral performance of their predecessor.

Share this content:

E-scooters at a crossroads

E-scooter manufacturers, providers, schemes and riders have been left waiting for certainty on their future.

After last year’s Queen’s Speech, Ministers confirmed their intention to legislate on e-scooters, moving beyond the time bound and limited role e-scooters currently have. Two Prime Ministers and 3 Transport Ministers later, the future of e-scooters is back up in the air.

The Transport Bill – that would have been the vehicle for legalisation and legislation – has been a casualty of upheaval at the heart of government. Now Ministers and officials are left having to bid for parliamentary time again, with even fiercer competition for time in the last King’s Speech of this government before an election.

Despite the transformational role e-scooters could play for travel, particularly in urban areas, there is a risk that new decision makers have lost track of e-scooters’ congestion busting, cost saving and carbon cutting benefits. The Ministers, advisers and champions that secured the announcement from government have moved on, and the new crop have yet to make a full throated endorsement.

In the face of this challenge, WA’s latest transport temperature check polled public attitudes to e-scooters to analyse the challenges in the road ahead.

Whilst there is still a route to legalisation and legislation, we have found that more of the public is opposed to e-scooter legislation. It means advocates start on the back foot, and need to both convince the sizeable number of ‘don’t knows’ (one in four people) and address the concerns of opponents. Safety risks to other road and footway users is the most commonly cited reason for opposing legalisation, driven by persistent coverage of dangerous incidents.

If these and other concerns are not addressed, the case for legalisation will diminish. Ministers, advisers and officials will either be unwilling or unsuccessful in their bids for time to act in the King’s Speech later this year, with Number 10 instead deciding to focus on less controversial and easier to deliver policies.

In turn, Labour has been able to stay largely silent on the e-scooter debate. There is a narrow window to ensure Labour’s transport team prioritises e-scooters, to keep pressure on the government now and ensure it does not drop off the agenda completely should they win.

The next 6 months are critical if the industry wants to escape the legal limbo it is in. Only by delivering a gear change in engagement can the industry secure its long term future and make sure that the key political decision makers in both the Conservatives and Labour understand the benefits e-scooters will deliver for their agendas.

Doing so will help build a new consensus on the future of e-scooters, but missing this opportunity means the wheels could fall off completely.

Share this content:

Budget Analysis with Jim Pickard and Kitty Ussher

On Thursday 16^th March, WA Communications hosted Jim Pickard, Deputy Political Editor of the Financial Times, and Kitty Ussher, Chief Economist at the Institute of Directors and former Treasury Minister, to discuss what the Budget means for businesses and the big unanswered political questions following Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s statement.

Chaired by WA’s Head of Public Affairs Marc Woolfson, the panel discussed the revised economic forecasts, Hunt’s focus on supply side policy, the upcoming challenges for the government, and policy areas that did not attract significant attention in the Budget.

Our panel outlined five key takeaways during the session:

The single biggest piece of good news in the Budget for business is the improved economic forecasts, which will provide greater confidence over the coming year and the government will have more money to fund its priorities. This meant the Budget was far easier for Hunt, with fewer difficult decisions to make, helping the government present a more optimistic picture and focus on delivering its central ambition of more economic growth.

The government has bet on supply side policy to deliver on its priorities and spur medium term economic growth, but it still might not be far enough. The focus on high growth sectors, getting people back into work and time limited investment support may not be a silver bullet to the UK’s wider productivity problem across the wider economy. Furthermore, Hunt has now used up a lot of the fiscal headroom meaning if the gamble doesn’t pay off or a new crisis emerges, the government could be in fiscal trouble.

The long-term implications of the Budget may not be down to the individual policies announced, but the continued impact of ‘fiscal drag’ on households. it may be a big money maker for the Treasury, but it has also contributed to the highest tax burden in decades. With the cost of living continuing to bite, and the importance of standards of living in determining elections, expect debates on tax cuts to continue in the coming year.

The government’s Net Zero agenda was notably absent from Hunt’s Budget, and a significant gulf between rhetoric on new technologies like CCUS and the plan for delivery. Whilst Energy Secretary Grant Shapps has a ‘Green Day’ scheduled later this month to set out further action on the UK’s energy security and decarbonisation ambitions, there is scepticism this will be a big or defining moment and risk that government is becoming complacent in the face of big pushes to attract global sustainable investment from the US and EU.

Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt are happy to constrain Labour by stealing their policies. The continued windfall tax and childcare reforms mean Labour may find it difficult to disagree with the substance of the Budget. Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves may need to refocus their attacks and priorities in the face of the Budget, with training and Net Zero early contenders for more attention.

To learn more about what the Budget means for you and other takeaways from the Chancellor’s Statement, get in touch with WA’s team to see how we can work together.

WA regularly host high-profile political figures and leading journalists to explore the intersection between politics, the media, and business – our recent event speakers include Rachel Reeves, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer; Chris Giles, FT Economics Editor; and Katy Balls, Political Editor at The Spectator.

To be the first to hear about our upcoming events, follow us on LinkedIn or email events.rsvp@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

Will the ‘Back to Work’ Budget work?

Sunak and Hunt are emerging from a bruising few months.

The cost of living crisis, questions about the fiscal competence of the Conservatives, and languishing poll ratings meant the duo face a political and economic mountain to regain momentum ahead of an election.

Today’s Budget therefore had to serve two purposes. It needed to continue the government’s response to the immediate economic and financial challenges facing businesses and households. It also had to offer a plan for the future, responding to Labour’s recent polling dominance.

Hunt responded to this challenge with a lengthy statement, which put meat on the bones of the Prime Minister’s five priorities and set out a direction for how the government plans to grow the economy.

Here are our key takeaways from Hunt’s Budget:

Economic growth is the central mission of the government

The more positive fiscal outlook – driven by falling energy costs and wider economic changes – has given Hunt more headroom to act. He used it to focus on supporting businesses and driving economic growth, which has become the defining mission of the government.

He will seek to achieve this by supporting businesses that invest through the capital expensing policy, further support for life sciences and creative industries and even producing a ‘Quantum Strategy’. It reflects a more targeted, transactional approach to this government’s relationship with business and prioritisation of high potential and high growth sectors. For those that invest, or have a plan to do so, this government wants to help those plans come to fruition.

The programme for growth can only be delivered with business help

The flip side of this Budget is a reflection that the government has limited resources, time and money to make big things happen. Governments of the recent past would highlight big infrastructure programmes to drive growth and support the economy. Even Hunt highlighted these types of policies in his last statement.

This Budget strikes a different tone. Through a mixture of tax changes and funds, government wants businesses to work closely with central and local government to deliver its priorities. The new Investment Zones are the clearest example of this, with government wanting combined authorities, universities and businesses to work together to drive regional transformation. It means that whilst the Government has set an overall direction, it is now looking to others to fill in the detail and help make its plans a reality.

Stealing a march on Labour

Labour has been on the front foot, with Starmer’s national missions defining the early battleground for the General Election campaign. Hunt’s statement began the Conservative Party’s fightback, stealing his headline childcare policy from Labour. By capitalising on Labour hesitancy to release specific details, the government has now taken the initiative in this debate.

Questions on the pace, scale and ambition of the policy are likely to follow in the days and weeks ahead, but the biggest impact could be on Labour. This episode is a lesson for Starmer and his Shadow Cabinet. By not fleshing out their platform, they are now at risk of a significant ‘love bombing’ operation from Sunak and Hunt. For businesses and public affairs professionals, it means Labour may accelerate its policy development and programme of big announcements.

The election starting pistol has been fired

This budget will focus minds in the Government and Opposition. Hunt focused his statement on the audiences that could provide a route to retaining power. More money for red wall constituencies, support for older voters and backing for businesses that could help fill the party’s coffers set itself up for the coming battle.

Meanwhile Labour faces a wake-up call that the road to power will not be straightforward and that there is still fight left in the Conservatives. A mixture of targeted funding, retrenchment of core messages on the value of work and businesses and the assault on Labour’s programme is the clearest demonstration of how the Conservatives plan on rebuilding their political momentum.

Sunak and Hunt will hope this Budget is the beginning of a long road back from the dismal poll ratings they face, and for Labour marks the first stern challenge they have faced since taking a commanding lead. The reaction to the Budget will define whether this is a turning point, or another nail in the coffin of the Conservatives.

To find out how the Budget is landing, and what it means for businesses, you can join our Budget analysis webinar by signing up here.

Share this content:

Spring Budget: warm words, limited progress for the life sciences industry

It is no surprise that the Chancellor called out the importance of the life sciences industry to the UK in today’s Spring Budget. Intensive industry engagement over recent months made its inclusion as a critical industry inevitable.

During his lengthy speech, he gave a few positive signals on the Government’s intent to boost the sector. He went out of his way to praise industry, particularly for its role during the pandemic, before making two new headline announcements.

First, Hunt announced an enhanced tax credit scheme for small and medium sized R&D businesses.

20,000 companies will receive £27 for every £100 they spend. This has already been celebrated by the UK BioIndustry Association (BIA), and is clear recognition of the need to do more to support biotech companies to develop breakthrough treatments in the UK.

Second, he announced new reforms to regulatory approvals in an attempt to speed up access to innovative treatments.

From 2024, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) will allow for fast-track approval of medicines and technologies already approved by trusted international regulators, such as the US, Europe and Japan.

The intention is to support companies to bring innovative treatments to patients faster, while encouraging further investment and priority launches in the UK.

This announcement comes as industry has become increasingly vocal over their concerns that the UK is losing ground as a launch market. In 2023 alone, AstraZeneca cited a sub-optimal business climate as the main reason for building a new $400m plant in Ireland, instead of the UK, and AbbVie and Eli Lilly exited the Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing and Access (VPAS).

This pressure has clearly cut-through, and industry should be pleased their voice is being heard.

But, will this new MHRA process actually make the difference the Government hopes and change the direction of travel? Potentially not.

As heralded by Hunt in his speech, the MHRA was the first in the world to approve a vaccine for COVID-19. The regulator is already efficient and new schemes to speed up regulatory approval, such as Project Orbis and the Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway (ILAP), are already in place.

The biggest barrier to providing swift access to innovative treatments is NICE’s capacity to swiftly appraise the increasing volume of company submissions, and the subsequent potential for protracted negotiations with NHS England. Quicker licensing will do nothing if the resource and full system alignment are not in place.

There are also questions around how the process will be implemented. It could easily become a perverse incentive, with companies prioritising regulators with more appealing launch markets, such as the FDA, in the knowledge that the MHRA will fall in behind any license anyway.

It would also be naïve to view any announcement of this kind outside of challenging VPAS negotiations, kicking off in earnest this month as the ABPI set out their proposal of a 6.88% fixed rebate rate, which was swiftly, and strongly rebuffed by both the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England. Ultimately, companies remain deeply concerned about the attractiveness of the UK.

Labour could steal a march if they take a bolder, whole medicines pathway approach to access. Because while it is a good sign that the Government still acknowledges the critical importance of the life sciences sector, whether the bigger issues are addressed any time soon remains to be seen.

Share this content:

How not to do crisis comms: a Beeb masterclass

‘No-one mishandles a crisis quite like the BBC’ – so said one anonymous source in yesterday’s Sunday Times. This comes as a Tweet from the W1’s best-paid presenter, denouncing Government immigration policy, left the Corporation floundering amid its biggest communications crisis of the year so far.

The BBC has been suffering from a well-documented ‘brain drain’ for several months, losing top billers Emily Maitliss, Jon Sopel and Louise Minchin to private rivals – leaving an unsettled company culture it its wake. This perhaps explains why a scandal of this magnitude was a long time coming, playing as it did, into both the culture wars, and the BBC’s own wavering sense of identity.

The first mistake made by the corporation was to overlook the core pillar of any crisis communication plan – preparation. The BBC Comms team should have recognised that with an employee base made up of high-profile, prolific Twitter users, a social media storm was always at the top of the risk register. As Lineker’s Tweet started to send shockwaves through the media, a pre-agreed protocol and dedicated crisis team should have leapt into action, rolling-out a well-rehearsed damage limitation exercise. As it happened, the BBC’s response was both agonisingly slow, and lacking any real clarity. With the Tweet published on Tuesday afternoon, it took until Friday for an official BBC decision on Lineker’s position to be communicated. At this point the statement released was that Lineker had ‘decided he would step back,’ teeing up the inevitable: Lineker himself making it clear the decision was not mutual.

Far from defusing the situation, this confused response further exacerbated it, detonating the long-ticking time bomb of dissatisfaction at Broadcasting House.

If the BBC’s failure to act quickly and decisively was its first failing, its second was underestimating the mutiny brewing amid its own staff. As Lineker’s colleagues fell behind him, refusing to appear on-air out of solidarity with the former striker, the story inevitably snowballed – rapidly becoming an internal comms issue as much as an external one. An apologetic email to staff from Director General Tim Davie seemed to do little to extinguish the revolutionary flames, with ‘senior reporters’ briefing against the Corporation and staff chats leaked to the Sunday papers.

All of this points to the importance of including internal comms as well as external in any crisis plan. The two are often inextricably intertwined, and disgruntled employees – if not effectively communicated with – can quickly become the story more than the original incident.

The mishandling throughout the week resulted in the inevitable – a painful climbdown from the BBC after days of standoff. Lineker is back on air and the BBC is attempting to maintain a ‘business as usual’ façade – but the damage has been done. In the end, with the BBC long hailed as a bastion of British journalism, the surprise was not the crisis itself, but its handling, given the 2,000 professional communicators in its ranks. In an organisation brimming with journalistic talent, a single Tweet was enough to bring it to its knees.

To find out more about how WA can help advise in a crisis, contact RachelFord@Wacomms.co.uk

You can find out more about the services we provide here.

Share this content:

The challenges that remain for tackling variation in CVD prevention in England

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is one of the leading causes of morbidity, disability and health inequalities, affecting approximately 6% of the adult population in England.

To provide greater understanding on the state of CVD prevention services across England, the NHS Benchmarking Network publishes an annual CVDPrevent audit report. The latest iteration is much more oriented to looking through the lens of health inequalities and regional variation in care, highlighting the significant issue of a postcode lottery in cardiovascular care across the country. This new angle of focus of putting inequalities in the spotlight in the CVDPrevent report rightfully signals that this is where the focus should be for both health system leaders and industry working in this space alike.

The report indicates some positive highlights for example with the prescription of anticoagulation drug therapy for those with atrial fibrillation at high-risk of stroke rising to 88.9% – only 1.1 percentage point below the national ambition to reach 90% by 2029.

However, there remains some distance to go on the road to recovery from the pandemic with hypertension services particularly lagging behind others and health inequalities and variation remaining prevalent. Notably, individuals from a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic background were identified as being the least likely to be prescribed an appropriate drug therapy, receive monitoring, or be treated to target with similar issues present across sex, age and deprivation level.

Alongside variation in treatment and management, there is also significant variation in local approaches to CVD prevention. Our research and analysis of ICS strategies, planning documents and data relating to CVD-prevention, has found that there is a significant level of variation present in the level of planning for CVD prevention services, as well in care and outcomes.

It is therefore particularly welcome to see the recent prioritisation of CVD services on the national policy agenda through the intention to publish a Major Conditions Strategy later this year and more recently through the appointment of Professor John Deanfield as the first ever Government Champion for Personalised Prevention. Both developments recognise the issue of inequality and unwarranted variation in the absence of a dedicated Health Disparities White Paper.

However, the test of any such policy is whether it can be implemented uniformly to impact change across the country and not exacerbate variation as well as whether it can truly trickle down and impact at the local place-based level. To do so these policies will need to balance national direction with a sufficient amount of autonomy to allow for population-based CVD prevention strategies, an ambition of newly formed integrated care systems.

Although the report demonstrates that progress is being made in this hugely important disease area, it is clear to see that much work remains to be done. Promising policies with high potential are a welcome sight to see and only time will tell if they can truly make the impact they set out to achieve.

Share this content:

Girls just wanna have funds

“It’s OK if you don’t know.”

Ahead of International Women’s Day, WA hosted an all-female panel of financiers to discuss how firms are better engaging with women to improve financial understanding and awareness, and where the industry, policy and the media narrative around women in wealth needs to evolve.

On the panel, Etiksha Patel, Lead Private Banking Director, Metro Bank; Karen Kerrigan, COO, Moneybox; and Elizabeth Caley, Independent Financial Adviser, Aegis Financial Planning Limited discussed what makes women tick when it comes to money and financial products, and how they can better engage with their finances for themselves and for their friends, children and colleagues.

Women make up 49.6% of the global population and are widely predicted to control 60% of the UK’s wealth by 2025, yet 72% of us feel like we’re not understood by the finance industry.

This feeling of exclusion is perhaps why only 10% of women prioritise making long term investments which, when women’s pensions on average are £100,000 less than men’s due to the gender pay gap and childcare commitments, seems a very low proportion.

Elizabeth Caley, who focuses on supporting women, reassuringly said that it’s OK if you don’t understand something relating to your finances: “no one said you should have this knowledge. There seems to be shame attached to it but it’s OK if you don’t know, that’s why we’re here.”

Similarly, Etiksha Patel believes that having someone to talk to and trust in the bank makes a huge difference to women’s confidence and attitudes towards their finances. She said: “women benefit from in-person contact because we like to ask questions. Financial knowledge becomes accessible if you can ask in-person questions.”

The sector can’t shy away from the fact that it has, for too long, been dominated by men, and Etiksha crucially said: “It’s important to have women representing women who need answers because it makes asking the questions easier. This is where the change is going to come from.”

However, women are playing catch up on the education, word-of-mouth advice and knowledge they missed out on growing up because most of the time. There is a question over where responsibility for financial education lies – across all genders – and whether regulatory or policy reform is needed to ensure knowledge and access is instilled early.

With products such as Lifetime ISAs, women are likely to buy into the goal that the ISA can help with, such as buying a home, rather than simply having the product to make more money. Interestingly, Karen Kerrigan said that MoneyBox’s Lifetime ISAs are held by an equal split of both men and women, but that’s not because they’re marketed differently.

Reform of the ASA standards for financial products, or the introduction of the consumer duty, will go some way in shaping how products are marketed and communicated to consumers going forward. We’re seeing a greater focus on firms needing to ensure their comms are “socially responsible”, and the last’s years decision by the ASA to sanction irresponsible “influencers” has marked a firmer stance on how products are communicated.

Though work is still needed to shape the financial services world to meet the needs of women, much has changed in the last 20 years. At the end of the discussion, each panellist was asked what advice they’d give their younger self. Elizabeth said reap the rewards of compound interest early and learn the value of not rushing to spend, but saving to have more. Karen highlighted the importance of creating a habit early, and Etiksha said she would tell herself that it’s OK to ask questions and to feel confident doing so.

Hopefully, as more of us chat about our money and what we do with it, we’ll help each other, break down the stigma and put ourselves and younger generations on the same starting line as men.

Because who run the world? Girls.

Share this content:

The Labour Party and Carried Interest – why does it matter?

Carried interest. What does it mean? Why does it matter? If you know the answers to those questions, feel free to skip a couple of paragraphs. But for everyone else, carried interest sounds so opaque that it couldn’t possibly be of any interest (excuse the pun). So why does the Labour Party keep going on about it?

Whenever you hear Sir Keir Starmer or Rachel Reeves talking about the economy, chances are they’ll mention carried interest. Not usually by name – that would be too direct for politicians – but in more generic language. Official Labour Party documents talk about “closing tax loopholes for private equity fund managers.” Reeves claims that “private equity bosses say that their income is capital gains…we would close that loophole.”

These are all references to carried interest. But what is carried interest?

It’s more straightforward than it sounds.

After the return of capital to investors, private equity fund managers typically receive 20% of a fund’s overall profits as payment for sponsoring and managing that fund. So far so simple. The controversy arises because private equity managers only pay capital gains tax (a rate up to 28%) not income tax (a rate of up to 45%) on carried interest. The majority of countries where PE is well-developed have a favourable tax regime for carried interest.

Many will argue there is good reason for this. The profits of private equity funds come from the sale of assets. It is reasonable that they attract capital gains tax. Others argue that a fund’s profits basically amount to income for private equity managers and should be taxed as such. Labour is clear about which side of the argument it supports. Reeves has claimed that taxing carried interest as capital gains is “absurd” and gives “tax breaks for fund managers averaging £170,000…as they asset strip some of our most valued businesses.”

That doesn’t sound like the basis for a great relationship between Labour and the private equity sector. But the Labour Party is not alone in calling for a change. A similar debate has been raging in the United States, where carried interest is also taxed as capital gains. Initial drafts of the Inflation Reduction Act would have required fund managers to hold an asset for five years before receiving the advantageous tax rate. The Senate Democrats argued this would raise $14 billion over 10 years – a relatively modest revenue-raiser in the context of the US economy. But according to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, the Act would also ensure “the wealthiest corporations and individuals pay a fairer share in taxes”. A political rather than economic motive.

Back in the UK, the Labour Party is trying desperately to appear pro-business. In a speech to the CBI in November, Starmer said that Labour Party was “not just a pro-business party but a party that is proud of being pro-business.” So why the attack on private equity? As in the United States, the money raised from changing the tax rules on carried interest would bring in relatively little – around £440 million a year. Which means, as in the United States, the motive can’t be primarily economic. It must be political.

This is because Labour is eager to appear pro-business in order to gain economic credibility, but it isn’t afraid of criticising business when it’s politically expedient to do so. And those sectors of which the public may have a less positive impression – such as private equity – are first in the firing line. By pitting wealthy financiers, whom Labour argues are avoiding tax, against ordinary working people who pay their fair share, Labour aims to present itself as the party of economic justice. Redistributing wealth from a small number of financial elites to support the greater mass of ordinary people.

In other words, the Labour Party is looking to get the keys to Downing Street and will do whatever it can to appeal to voters (as all political parties aspiring to government should do). It believes that increasing tax on carried interest and bashing financiers will achieve this. Which means that carried interest, as niche and as dull as the term may sound, is actually rather interesting, particularly as a microcosm of Labour’s economic approach in the round.

Share this content:

Mission Zero: Chris Skidmore’s independent review and America’s Inflation Reduction Act

America’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is one of several major pieces of legislation underpinning the bold new economic agenda of the Biden administration. Its name is misleading as it will have little impact on US inflation but is the combination of a domestic industrial policy and an ambitious strategy for net zero, offering $369 billion in investment and tax breaks over the next ten years.

Across the pond, the IRA has been sharply criticised by UK and European politicians and policy wonks due to strict “made in USA” rules that would disqualify European based companies from generous tax breaks and lucrative investment opportunities. UK Trade Secretary, Kemi Badenoch described the legislation as protectionist, stating “it is onshoring in a way that could actually create problems with the supply chains for everybody else.” It risks incentivising companies to re-locate to North America and diverting investment away from the UK and Europe.

Or to quote the Chair of the UK’s Energy Digitalisation Taskforce, Laura Sandys CBE, “the IRA is a game changer… big investors are saying ‘US first, Europe second, Asia third and if you’ve got any spare peanuts at the end of it maybe you can look at the UK.’”

As the US Treasury and Department of Energy are expected to publish IRA guidance in March, UK and EU energy ministers are haggling with their American counterparts to secure concessions and minimise the risks to their respective energy markets and economies. For UK investors, it also prompts questions about the state of play closer to home, with the Conservative Government’s approach putting the UK at risk of falling behind in the global race to maximise the growth potential arising from net zero.

Green leadership in the UK

To rephrase an idiom, the Government’s approach could be described as ‘all wind but no power’. Whilst the UK’s net zero ambitions are well rehearsed by politicians and have been written into law, the policies and funding fail to match the rhetoric. This has created a vacuum which the Labour Party is filling with its Green Prosperity Plan and the promise of £28 billion annually for capital spending on projects designed to tackle climate change.

The Government will need to move quickly for two reasons. Firstly, the High Court ruled in July 2022 that ministers need to explain and substantiate how they plan to deliver on the Government’s Net Zero target by April 2023 following a successful judicial review by climate change campaign groups.

The Court-ordered report is likely to be wrapped up with Government’s response to the independent review of net zero, published in January 2023 and chaired by former energy minister, Chris Skidmore OBE. Skidmore’s 340-page review contains 129 policy recommendations that present the economic case for net zero as “the growth opportunity of the 21^st century”.

Secondly, as highlighted by Skidmore’s review, many of the UK’s competitor economies have already made bold and ambitious interventions. Both the USA’s IRA and the EU’s €250 billion Green Deal Industrial Plan provide significant funding and the long-term policy certainty that is mission critical to securing private sector investment in their respective economies. If UK investors are left out in the cold, the UK risks not only losing out on new opportunities, but also current economic activity moving away.

What next for investors?

UK investors can expect the Government to act imminently. Ministers are acutely aware of the competition concerns arising from the USA’s IRA and will want to exploit the UK’s pre-existing market strengths. While the UK cannot compete with the sheer industrial capacity of North America, it is likely ministers will seek to capitalise on the UK’s strong science base and highly specialised expertise in both clean technologies and green finance.

Share this content:

The Great Unretirement

In January, the Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, called on retirees to return to the workforce after a House of Lords committee report showed that early retirement is the biggest driver of labour shortages in the UK.

The Lords Economic Affairs Committee’s Where have all the workers gone? report, published following an inquiry into the UK’s labour supply, concluded that there are four main drivers of shortages in the labour market: increased sickness; early retirement, changes in migration trends; and an ageing UK population.

Hunt has urged older people to return to the workforce, and is reportedly working on a “back-to-work Budget” in response to concerns about the large number of people aged 50-64 who have left the workforce.

It is widely accepted by both politicians and economists that rising economic inactivity amongst the over 50s presents serious challenges to the UK economy, as labour shortages exacerbate inflation and threaten economic growth.

For months there has been speculation about a ‘Great Unretirement’ and it would be understandable if investors and businesses were sceptical about the Government’s ability to deliver on this agenda. Back in October 2021, for example, Sunak announced a £500m drive to get older Britons back into work and plug the gap in the labour market. This had little impact, with the rate of over 50s leaving the workforce steadily increasing the first quarter of 2022.

The UK has been an aberration in terms of unretirement. The Learning and Work Institute has undertaken a study which shows that the UK has seen a slower post-Covid return to economic activity among people aged 55-64 than other countries including Germany, the US, Japan and Australia.

But that could be about to change as cost-of-living pressures start to bite . While Government initiatives may have failed to arrest rising economic inactivity in older people, cost of living pressures do appear to be having an impact. According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), 48,000 people moved out of economic inactivity and into employment between the three months to September and the three months to December 2022. Economic activity among the over-50s is now at its highest level since the pandemic began.

Recognising the desire of many older people to return to work and the important economic contribution they stand to make, the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, Jonathan Ashworth, announced that in government Labour would extend free retraining to the over-50s.

Whichever party is in power after 2024, investors should anticipate that getting retirees into employment will be seen as crucial to driving economic growth.

Mel Stride, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, has been tasked by the Prime Minister to carry out a review to understand how to attract the economically inactive back into work.

Stride is likely to come under pressure to propose changes to the pension system that would encourage workers to stay in their jobs longer, such as an increase in the tax-free lifetime allowance, which currently stands at £1,073,100.

A current scheme of “Midlife MOTs” – where middle-aged workers take stock of their career with trained advisers – is also set to be expanded. The individual reviews assess finances and opportunities for various types of work retirees could take up.

Regardless of the formal policy response, getting retirees back into work is likely to remain a key government objective even if the number of economically inactive continues to fall in the short-term. The UK has an ageing population and annual welfare costs are expected to increase by £8.2 billion in the next five years. This creates a structural problem as these costs are paid for by the working population via tax.

Investors should anticipate that businesses that have a positive track record of retaining and attracting older workers are likely to benefit, particularly as other employers struggle to compete for talent in a tight labour market.

According to an ONS survey of older people who had left work during the pandemic and not returned, 58% said they would consider returning to work, but many of them wanted more flexible hours, higher pay or the ability to work from home.

Businesses that can give older workers an attractive route back to work will be better insulated from demographic trends.

It is already widely acknowledged that investing in an ageing workforce has substantial value. The airline easyJet has launched a recruitment drive urging people over the age of 45 to join its cabin crews.

This comes after Fuller’s pubs launched its first recruitment campaign specifically targeting older workers. The pub and hotel group has teamed up with Rest Less, a digital community for individuals aged over 50, to try and attract more people back into the workforce.

Within the civil service there have been drives to attract older workers, with the Department for Work and Pensions announcing last week it would pursue “age positive” recruitment policies by signing up to a national initiative intended to foster age inclusive working practices.

The UK has an ageing population, which will need extra money to be spent on health and welfare but which is less likely to be working and contributing to the economy. The fundamental demographic realities cannot be avoided, but what politicians will want to do is make sure that labour market trends do not exacerbate structural demographic challenges. In 2023 and beyond, investors can expect a clear message from government that the over 50s are as crucial to our economic recovery as younger workers.

Share this content:

In conversation with Chris Hope

On Tuesday 28 February, WA Communications hosted Chris Hope, Associate Political Editor at the Daily Telegraph, and presenter of ‘Chopper’s Political Podcast’, to discuss the inside track on the politics, personalities and policy discussions shaping SW1 – drawing on Chris’s 20 years’ experience covering Westminster and Whitehall and exploring the relationship between politicians and the press.

Chaired by WA’s Head of Public Affairs Marc Woolfson, Chris discussed this week’s new deal on Northern Ireland with the EU, May’s Local Elections, and assessed the state of the UK’s major political parties as they begin the run-in to the next General Election.

Chris outlined five key takeaways during the session:

Rishi Sunak’s new deal with the EU – which grants the UK veto-powers over EU laws that affect Northern Ireland – has instilled confidence in his ability as Prime Minister. Sunak has shown he can deliver and is moving the Party away from the chaos, characteristic of his predecessors’ premierships. How Sunak leverages this opportunity and delivers on other politically salient priorities, like stopping small boats crossing the channel, will be key to clawing back against Labour’s lead in the polls.

The General Election is Labour’s to lose, with Keir Starmer and his team positioning their Party as ‘ready to govern’ and courting business to prove economic credibility. Where Starmer lacks Blair’s charisma, he makes up for it in competence, professionalism, and a resolute commitment to show Labour has changed under his leadership and moved to the centre-left.

If the new EU deal pushes Brexit to the side-lines and Starmer remains a ‘safe pair of hands’, the Liberal Democrats may struggle to make headway at the next General Election. Similarly, the SNP could lose steam following Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation.

The housing crisis is the ‘gordian knot’ neither major Party want to tackle head on. Unlocking home ownership would be an attractive offer from the Conservative Party to draw in younger voters, while Labour is not prioritising housing as a core mission nor priming it as a battle ground to fight the next election.

Populist politics is off the menu, for now. Following a decade of political somersaults, shocks, and surprises, a growing synergy between Sunak and Starmer – both thought as professional, serious, and competent (albeit a tad uninspiring) – hints at a “management consultant” style of leadership, here to get the job done.

Last week, Chris announced he would be leaving the Daily Telegraph to join GB News as their new Political Editor in the summer. When asked how he felt about the move, Chris said he was excited for a “new challenge, audience and mode of communicating” and the opportunity to speak to people across the UK, confessing that growing up in Liverpool, he sometimes felt like an ‘outsider’ in the Westminster bubble.

To be the first to hear about our upcoming events, follow us on LinkedIn or email events.rsvp@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

Starmer speech – On a mission for a decade of renewal

Yesterday Keir Starmer set out the five ‘missions’ which will form the “backbone of the manifesto and the pillars of the next Labour government”, in the first of many pre-general election speeches to come over the course of the next year.

With Labour maintaining a commanding lead in the polls, and the Conservative government in constant crisis mode, the Labour leadership’s main concern is not to do anything to upset that trajectory.

However, it’s not the first time Starmer has tried to “reset” Labour’s vision and there is still work to be done by him and his top team to fully rehabilitate the Party’s image before voters go to the polls. Starmer needs to prove that he – and his Party – can take up the mantel of Government and deliver significant reform in a short time frame.

Importantly though, for the first time in a long time for a Labour leader, the national media treated the speech as a significant political event, giving it the live broadcast, rolling news coverage and instant analysis that is usually reserved for a Prime Minister’s speech.

Bearing all this in mind, this was, understandably, a carefully crafted (and clearly heavily focus grouped) speech, designed to reassure the public that Labour has the ideas and clarity of purpose to address the challenges facing Britain and the long-term vision that has been found lacking from the Conservative benches.

Drawing heavily from management theories used commonly in the business community, Starmer was setting out his goals – painting a picture of what success would look like by the end of his government’s first term in office:

To have the highest sustained growth in the G7
To fix the NHS
To make the streets safe
To raise educational standards
To make Britain a clean energy superpower, decarbonising the energy system by 2030

For businesses and investors there was the strongest possible message that a Starmer led government’s approach to the economy would be neither “state control” nor “pure free markets” with Starmer stating that “I’m not concerned about whether investment or expertise comes from the public or private sector – I just want to get the job done.”

With the foundations set, the window for influence is open. Work is clearly well underway to put more meat on the bones of these missions, with measurement criteria and granular detail to follow as we get closer to a likely Autumn 2024 general election, with Starmer due to speak on Monday to set out his thinking on the economic mission.

For businesses looking to future proof and inform policy in the long term, these missions provide a framework for engagement at a critical time for the Labour Party.

Share this content:

Dairy farming: private equity’s next cash cow?

You only need start an episode of Clarkson’s Farm and you’ll soon pick up some of the immense challenges facing farmers across rural Britain today – longstanding issues with supply, distribution and pricing have been propelled by the pandemic, complicated by Brexit, accelerated by the war in Ukraine, and intensified by the cost-of-living crisis. Nevertheless, there are significant and exciting opportunities for growth which make UK agriculture an attractive prospect for investors.

According to the 2022 Agrifoodtech Investor Report, $57.1 billion was invested in agrifoodtech companies in 2021, an increase of 85% on the previous year. 2021 also saw the UK’s highest ever deal flow with UK-based deals reaching £1.3 billion in value, the highest since data has been collected and up from £1.1 billion of investment in 2020. The UK sits 5th in the global ranking of deals by country, just behind Germany, India, China and the USA, though the UK government’s ambition is to be a world leader in this space. While investment in upstream technologies like on-farm tech, tools and services remains high at around $20m, there is a shift beginning to take place with interest now moving towards farm management software, indoor farming, ag-biotech (such as gene editing), and e-grocery. Going forward, agri-tech innovations will be crucial in helping the sector manage labour shortages, energy prices and food security. Private equity investment will be crucial in helping the sector get there.

Those close to the industry, both on the farms and holding the purse strings, are particularly excited about the dairy industry. While this farming discipline is not without challenges of its own (fluctuating prices, rising costs, environmental footprint and bovine TB to name but a few), the opportunities for growth are vast. Advances in genomics and precision livestock farming have underpinned recent productivity and efficiency gains across the dairy sector, supporting the transition towards net zero. For example, the application of precision livestock farming using animal behaviour monitoring via diagnostics and sensors have helped provide valuable data insights into the economic and welfare challenges affecting dairy farmers such as lameness, mastitis, fertility and wellbeing. Precision livestock farming systems are being trialed across farms in the UK, US and China and access to rapidly expanding markets in Asia is being supported by the UK government.

The demand for British dairy products remains high, and not just in the UK. The UK exports almost £2 billion of dairy products to more than 135 countries across Europe, North America, Asia and the Middle East. As a result, the UK dairy sector is well placed to capitalise on the government’s ‘Made in the UK, Sold to the World’ campaign as UK farmers are some of the most environmentally progressive and efficient in the world. One study assessed the dairy consumption of 90 dairy-importing countries with a population of nearly 5 billion. It found that between 2011 and 2019, dairy consumption in those countries increased from 258 billion kg to 304 billion kg – an increase broadly equivalent to two years’ worth of the total milk production volume of New Zealand. Countries such as these are expected to see an increase in demand over the next decade, currently projected at 5.6% per year from 2019 to 2025. It is unlikely that they will be able to meet these demands locally.

Alongside this, recent reports also suggest that the EU dairy industry is in decline. Production is expected to fall by as much as 6.3% in Europe over the next 6 years largely because of the implementation of the EU’s Green Deal and resulting updates to the Common Agricultural Policy. This represents a significant opportunity for UK dairy farmers, with dairy export markets typically more profitable than domestic ones. As a result, many dairy processors are undertaking investment to allow them to access growth markets overseas.

In 2022 the National Farmers’ Union expended considerable effort pushing forward a dairy export strategy with the ambition of doubling UK dairy exports in the next 10 years. Working closely with the Department for Business and Trade, the NFU continues to see this as a priority for 2023. Over the coming year we can expect the sector to push for trade and regulatory policy that supports the industry to compete at a global level. It will also court investors to inject vital funds into dairy businesses to maximise the industry’s innovation and resilience; the investors who do, look set for a good yield.

Share this content:

The Rise of ChatGPT: Unleashing the Potential of AI and Big Data in Industry 4.0

Since its launch by Open.AI in November 2022, the chatbot software ChatGPT has come to represent a first look at what a world underpinned by artificial intelligence could mean for the everyday person. ChatGPT not only went viral on social media but also became a hot topic of conversation in both the workplace and around the family dinner table. While employees pondered the future of their jobs, students conspired to avoid their homework or university essays. Many speculate that either ChatGPT or another chatbot software will soon replace the traditional search engine and is the first real-life version of Iron Man’s artificial personal assistant, J.A.R.V.I.S. (Just A Rather Very Intelligent System).

If true, it could spell disaster for the Google search engine which commands a 92% share of the global search engine market and which is expected to launch its own chatbot software ‘imminently’.

Why? Because artificial intelligence promises to fundamentally rewire (and speed up) the way humans interact with information and data. Its promises are as grand as the first, second and third industrial revolutions of recent human history. The Chairman of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, argues that artificial intelligence and big data equates to a fourth industrial revolution that will “raise global income levels and improve the quality of life for populations around the world.”

Popular intrigue in ChatGPT has followed investor interest in artificial intelligence with global private investment doubling from 2020 to 2021, totalling $93.5 billion, and marks the greatest year-on-year increase since 2014.

What does artificial intelligence mean for policymaking and public services?

Artificial intelligence is set to transform public services in the future. For instance, at the end of 2022 there were 1.5 million patients waiting for a diagnostic test, representing a sizeable chunk of total NHS waiting lists. With a workforce shortage in the diagnostics sector, artificial intelligence has demonstrated a remarkable ability to carry out image-recognition tasks and through ‘deep learning’ algorithms can handle complex variations and detect characteristics well beyond the capacity of humans. Embedding its use is a long way off but nonetheless promising.

So much so that during the covid pandemic, NHS AI Lab built a 40,000 strong database of chest scans to enable researchers, analysts and developers to develop AI technologies with the potential to support quicker diagnosis and better targeted treatment. Not only does this programme provide the NHS with an invaluable blueprint for testing and adopting AI models in the health sector, but also attests to the importance of public and private sector collaboration to advance the application of artificial intelligence. Whilst it will never entirely replace the need for humans, it is easy to imagine a healthcare system radically transformed by artificial intelligence, saving the NHS both time and money.

Artificial intelligence will also transform policymaking. Deloitte recently argued that over time “AI will spawn massive changes in the public sector, transforming how government employees get work done.” Certain jobs that are administrative or operational are likely to become redundant, Government functions will be entirely redesigned, and a new army of programmers and coders will rise through the ranks of public sector organisations. Deloitte’s research suggests that automation and artificial intelligence could replace up to 861,000 public sector jobs by 2030, saving the UK Government £17 billion annually in wages compared to 2015.

Unresolved ethical and regulatory questions

As with any advances in technology, questions of ethics and best practice are never far away. Just as electricity enabled the automation of manufacturing and mass production, it also led to the invention of the electric chair, and artificial intelligence blurs the boundaries between what is physical and what is cyber. Decisions made by artificial intelligence are not always intelligible to humans. These decisions are not always neutral but are susceptible to bias and inaccuracies and can entail surveillance practices that invade rights to privacy.

The Government’s Office for Artificial Intelligence has partnered with the Alan Turing Institute to address some of these concerns. Thus far only guidance has been published. Whilst the Government announced a Data Protection and Digital Information Bill to better regulate the use of artificial intelligence in July 2022, it is not a top priority of Sunak’s Government, preoccupied with fighting fires and re-establishing economic credibility in the lead up to a general election. Given the tight parliamentary timetable, regulatory uncertainty is likely to persist in the short- to medium-term.

Despite this uncertainty, the UK artificial intelligence landscape is still an attractive opportunity for investors with the Government recently expanding R&D tax reliefs to include all mathematics supporting artificial intelligence, quantum computing and robotics. But with the introduction of artificial intelligence regulation expected in 2023 in both the US and the EU, the UK risks being late to ride the wave of the fourth industrial revolution.

Ps. ChatGPT authored the title of this blog.

Share this content:

Scotland needs Labour and Labour needs Scotland

I attended the Scottish Labour Party conference in Edinburgh at the weekend. It took place two days after the shock news of Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation. As a consequence, the mood amongst delegates was jubilant. The overwhelming feeling was that change is coming and a belief that the SNP’s grip on Scotland is finally loosening. A YouGov study in the days before the First Minister’s resignation showed 29% support for the SNP, 27% for Labour and only 12% for the Conservatives. Labour now strongly believes that with the hugely popular Sturgeon gone they will receive a further electoral boost.

However, despite the buoyant atmosphere, key figures were keen to urge caution. Pat McFadden, Shadow Chief Secretary, speaking at a Labour Friends of Scotland fringe meeting, stressed that the enormity of the task ahead in delivering a Labour victory could not be underestimated. And both leaders, Anas Sarwar and Sir Keir Starmer, warned against complacency in their keynote speeches. The focus was very much on the need for economic growth and the failure of both governments, SNP in Holyrood and Tories in Westminster, to deliver what the electorate needs and deserves.

Meanwhile, the infighting amongst the SNP leadership challengers spilled over into the Scottish media. Nicola’s announcement clearly took them all by surprise. Her deputy, John Swinney, ruled himself out almost immediately. Humza Yousaf, the Health Secretary, and Ash Regan, a former minister, threw their respective hats in the ring. Angus Robertson, rumoured to be Sturgeon’s preference, has said he will not run and Cabinet Secretary, Kate Forbes, the current favourite according to polls, announced her intention to stand earlier today.

Back in the conference venue, the First Minster’s “legacy” was much-derided. Scotland’s denuded public services, the parlous state of the economy, unprecedented levels of poverty and the worst drugs record in Europe were all laid squarely at her door. She, and by extension her Government, had failed the people of Scotland and it is down to Labour to provide solutions. And for once, it did not feel as if this was Labour Party delusion. New candidates for the next election, including former International Trade Secretary, Douglas Alexander, were credible and inspiring. The optimism and need for change amongst the delegates was palpable.

Scotland was Labour’s original Red Wall, losing 40 out of its 41 seats in 2015. Based on recent Scottish polls, and bolstered by UK Labour’s poll lead, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the party could win 25 seats next year. The outcome of the next election now lies as much in Midlothian as it does in the Midlands. Anas Sarwar deserves enormous credit for this spectacular turnaround and I predict a host of senior Labour figures visiting the length and breadth of Scotland in the next 18 months now that this realisation has dawned.

Share this content:

Private Equity in South Korea – Ready for fame?

South Korea is famous for many things – Samsung, K-Pop, Ban Ki-Moon – but not, perhaps, for private equity.

It should be.

Because in the last twenty years, private equity in the peninsula has undergone a radical and lucrative transformation. At the turn of the century when most of the world was focused on the Millennium Bug, the Bush-Gore Presidential race and The Matrix, South Korea was recovering from a severe economic slump. The Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 had affected South Korea badly. GDP growth fell from 7.9% in 1996 to -5.1% in 1998. Interest rates rose from 6.7% to 10.3% over the same period and the South Korean government was forced to go to the IMF for help.

At this sorry point in South Korea’s economic history, overseas investors saw opportunities. Between 1998 and 2003, a succession of Korean financial institutions – Good Morning Securities, Korea First Bank, KorAm and Korea Exchange Bank – were snapped up by foreign investors seeking to benefit from the economic downturn. Foreign private equity firms are estimated to have invested over $6.6 billion in South Korea during this time and investors reaped the rewards with profits worth billions.

But not all Koreans took kindly to foreign buyouts of household Korean companies. Large-scale protests accompanied the takeover of Korea Exchange Bank and key figures associated with the deal were later imprisoned.

Today, private equity investment in South Korea tells a very different story. The country has embraced private equity on its own terms. Lessons from the Millennium takeovers and the Asian Financial Crisis convinced Korean lawmakers that changes to domestic financial regulations could counter foreign takeovers and support domestic economic recovery. Fundamental changes through the Capital Markets Law of 2005 enabled Korean investment funds to raise capital for investment other than for specific projects – a restriction which had previously curtailed private equity activity.

The benefits for private equity of regulatory change were swift. The number of Korean private equity funds increased from 15 in 2005 to 189 in 2011, with 70 out of the 85 investments in the Korean takeover market in 2011 led by domestic funds. Total private equity investment in South Korea also increased, starting at $3 billion in 2005 before rising to $17.6 billion in 2015 and almost $30 billion in 2021. Analysis by McKinsey in 2018 showed that annualised private equity returns stood at around 20% with an average holding period of just over 3 years. Not bad for an industry that didn’t exist twenty years ago.

But for UK investors there are further reasons to take note. The UK Government has set out its intentions to seek an enhanced trade deal with South Korea. This would build on the existing UK-South Korea Trade Agreement, which largely rolls-over the EU-South Korea Trade Agreement, and introduce new chapters on digital and investment. Outward stock of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) from the UK in South Korea was £4.6 billion in 2020, comprising 0.3% of total UK outward FDI. The value of outward UK FDI to South Korea has remained steady over the last decade standing at £4.2 billion in 2011 before peaking at £6.9 billion in 2017 but there is clearly room to grow further. On average in 2020, over 95% of Korean restrictions on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) were equity restrictions – limiting foreign ownership and foreign investment activity in the peninsula. Although this is not surprising given the reaction to foreign buyouts in South Korea twenty years ago, increasing market access for overseas investors is likely to be an important element of a new investment chapter for UK negotiators in an enhanced UK-South Korea FTA. FDI stock from South Korea in the UK by contrast has grown markedly in recent years from £900 million in 2011 to £3 billion in 2020 – around 0.2% of global inward UK FDI.

The prospects for the South Korean economy to the end of the decade look promising too. IMF predictions show steady growth in GDP of between 2% and 2.7% over the next five years to 2027, with inflation falling to 2% in 2025 – down from 5% in December – and remaining at that level until 2027. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade, Kemi Badenoch, has said that a trade deal with South Korea would allow the UK to “expand our key exports in digital, business and financial services”. If the government in Seoul can be persuaded to open itself further to foreign investors, UK private equity firms will benefit from new and innovative partnerships, providing steady returns for investors.

And the strength of South Korea’s relations with UK investors will be one more thing the peninsula is famous for.

Share this content:

What does a government restructure mean for the energy sector?

You’d be forgiven for having a sense of déjà vu with the announcement of a new separate Energy department, with a return to the structure of the Brown and Coalition governments. With Rishi Sunak committing to this change in his summer leadership campaigns, and recent reports from Chris Skidmore and Andrea Leadsom both recommending this, it felt inevitable. It is however unusual to make such a radical change so close to the next election.

So what does this mean for the energy industry, currently seeking to deliver a transformational shift to a low carbon economy?

A risk of short-term disruption as the department ‘beds in’

Major machinery of government changes take time, effort and focus, particularly from senior officials. Establishing a new department creates short-term uncertainty amongst officials and risks urgent policy priorities being deprioritised.

The retention of the current political team – Shapps, Stuart and their advisers – maintains policy leadership and largely ensures a continuation in approach.

A more focused department doesn’t necessarily mean better outcomes

One school of thought is that a singular focus from the new department on energy will deliver better results, without the distraction of other business issues and with the whole department aiming in the same direction.

This may well be true, but a new department – even with a competent and respected Secretary of State – is on its own not going to move the dial on key sector agendas, such as planning reform and changes to the grid to speed up offshore wind deployment or establishing a hydrogen market in the UK. Achieving these requires a more radical and ambitious approach to policy delivery, which ultimately needs the support of the political centre, namely No10 and the Treasury.

As the next General Election gets closer, there’s a clear risk for the sector that the singular narrative focus from government on the Prime Minister’s ‘five key priorities’ pushes aside the detailed policy action required for the UK to stand any chance of achieving its 2035 power decarbonisation target. The industry’s priority has to be to frame its case in terms of helping achieve these goals, specifically on driving economic growth and halving inflation.

Framing arguments through an energy security lens

Government messaging on energy has been shifting to focus on energy security for the last year, with an even greater focus post the Johnson government. The unveiling of the new department does highlight this shift in government focus very starkly: energy security is specifically mentioned in the name, and prioritised over Net Zero; and the absence of any reference to low carbon power or green growth in the government’s overview of the department, focusing purely on security and affordability.

The industry has made a strong case that low carbon power and energy independence are two sides of the same coin, and there needs to be no choice between them. However, there will be a need to double down on this case, and to shift messaging to emphasise the benefits to security of supply when seeking government support.

The industry will have to work harder to make the link to economic growth

Climate advocates within the Conservative Party have long sought to frame the case for action on Net Zero through the lens of green growth and jobs. The location of major projects, be that the renewables sector, hydrogen projects or new nuclear sites are in traditionally economically left behind areas of the country. The Net Zero transition is one of the clearest routes to delivering levelling up.

The combination of energy and business policy within one department made it easier to make this case, and for the government to recognise it. That now may become harder. Tying energy to jobs, skills and growth (particularly in the right, electorally important areas) is still the clearest route to securing government backing, particularly from the Treasury. It will be incumbent on industry to make this compelling argument even more effectively, bringing data and human stories to the fore to show why government needs to quickly push the right policy levers that support industry.

Share this content:

How should the Government best plug the skills gap?

At the start of National Apprenticeship Week, WA Associate Director Lorna Jane Russell explores whether degree apprenticeships are the solution to tackling the skills gap

One of the most significant challenges facing the country today is the need to build our future economy and ensure that our workers have the right skills required to support the jobs of the future.

However, at present the outlook looks uncertain; the UK has a serious skills gap. Put simply, this means there is a mismatch between the skills needed to do a particular job and the skills that are available in the workforce.

A skills revolution is required to address this.

In recent years there has been a heightened awareness of the need for graduates to have a diverse range of skills – something that is recognised by policymakers and employers alike.

Indeed, investment in skills and apprenticeships has become a clear Government priority. Skills Minister Robert Halfon has long championed apprenticeships and believes that investment in skills is the best route for the Government to take to create economic growth and productivity, while Education Secretary Gillian Keegan is a former apprentice herself and is committed to boosting the lifelong learning agenda.

As the Government looks to rebalance the funding and focus of post-18 education, publishing the long-awaited Higher Education Bill and taking forward the recommendations from the Augar Review, we expect it to prioritise and expand funding and support for apprenticeships.

Within this context, we hope to see a significant boost for degree apprenticeships as we believe that these could make a real difference to plugging the skills gap and meeting the future needs of both learners and employers.

Significantly:

Learners earn a salary, gain professional work experience, and finish their course with a degree qualification – all without paying tuition fees.
Employers develop the courses alongside universities and professional bodies, ensuring that learners have the right skills in place to contribute effectively to the workplace and the economy at large.

Since they were launched in 2015-16, degree apprenticeships have risen in considerable popularity, while traditional university student numbers are starting to fall. Yet, despite growing interest in these types of degrees, there is clear potential to expand them further across the UK.

This National Apprenticeship Week, and ahead of the introduction of the Higher Education Bill, we hope to see the Government set out a roadmap for the expansion of degree apprenticeships – both by investing more resources in them and by working more closely with employers and post-18 education and skills providers to provide more placements and courses.

At WA, we’ll be watching for announcements closely, making sure we are one step ahead of the next developments on the horizon and supporting universities, skills providers, and large employers alike to make the most of the opportunity to expand their own offerings.

Watch this space as we launch our own research next month to take a much deeper dive to explore the potential of these qualifications to transform the country’s skills base. If this sounds of interest, we’d love to chat.

Share this content:

Consumer Duty regime – what is it and why should you care?

The Consumer Duty regime seems to be the hot topic on the financial services industry’s lips. A quick Google search delivers 51,400 news results and nearly every conference, webinar or forum has a session on readiness for this new regulation. However, what is it, really? And why should you care?

First things first, the Consumer Duty regime is a significant piece of regulation, coming into effect on 31st July this year. It sets high expectations and clear standards of consumer protection across financial services and means that consumers should receive communications they can understand; products and services that meet their needs and offer fair value; and that they get the customer support they need, when they need it.

Surely, I hear you cry, putting the customer first, ensuring they are being sold appropriate products and have access to full support is already at the heart of the industry? Well, in theory, yes of course. In fact some of you will recall the FCA’s “Principles” – notably Principle 6 (a firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly) and 7 (a firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading). The Consumer Duty imposes higher standards for both these principles and underlines the fact that firms should focus on the impact of their actions on consumers, and not simply on processes.

So far so good, but what does this mean in practice? And how is the industry responding to the ever-closer Summer deadline?

Firstly, firms need to know exactly who their end customer is. It’s no good to know that a firm has products aimed at “the retail investor” – businesses must consider the appropriateness of their products vis a vis this “investor” so more detail on their financial understanding and wider situation is critical.

Secondly, businesses need to clarify responsibilities both internally and across the wider distribution chain. We all know there can be several intermediaries between, for example, an asset manager and the man on the street – those intermediaries need to know what their role is, what details they need to have and how they can feed their intel across the rest of the distribution channel.

Thirdly, policies and customer communications will have to be reconsidered and likely amended to ensure they fit in with the new requirements and are easily understood.

And finally, firms will need to implement a framework to ensure they know what “good” looks like, can monitor outcomes and identify any risk areas in line with their longer term objectives.

It is a very tall order and, from conversations we’ve been having across the industry, no-one seems to be quite there, yet. Some argue that this regime calls for a much needed shake up of the wider industry and a huge shift in mindset, engagement and protocols; others claim that the combination of Consumer Duty regulation and the additional burden of the SDR is simply too much for any player in the market; yet more, worryingly, are aware of the challenge yet still unsure how they’re going to meet it without considerable external support (and expense). Whatever your stance, what is clear is that the regulator isn’t going to rest on its laurels – it wants to see better consumer outcomes and a fairer financial services industry – and those who fail to comply will be held to account.

With that said, it’s essential to bear in mind what the goal is of this new regulation – an industry which works for the customer, not the other way around. Amongst all the discussion of the difficulties, risks and extra admin, we need to remember that if implemented correctly, this regime will ultimately deliver better results for the consumer and, we hope, build back trust in the financial services industry. Those who successfully demonstrate they are fully embracing this Consumer Duty (or in fact going further) will be in a tremendously strong position to showcase their efforts and set the bar for what “good” looks like.

I don’t deny that this new regulation will be a challenge, but the benefits of doing it properly and using this as an opportunity to really examine functions, communications and end outcomes – for a common goal – surely mean it’s a challenge worth taking on.

At WA we’re here to help firms use this new regulation as an opportunity to raise their profile and offering in the market; to share their experiences of making sure they comply (the good, the bad and the ugly); and to leverage the new rules to show that yes, the end customer really is at the heart of their operations. Drop us a line if you want to find out more.

Share this content:

Major ambitions in a new Major Conditions Strategy

A new health strategy is coming – finally! And it threatens to be a whopper.

A Major Conditions Strategy will be consulted on – and potentially published – in 2023. After months of firefighting on day-to-day NHS operational performance the Government is looking to get back on the front foot and show the world it still has ambitions to improve the long term health of this nation.

2022’s political turbulence put the 10-year cancer, dementia and mental health plans on ice, saw off the health disparities white paper, delayed the workforce plan, stalled the implementation of the Life Sciences Vision, and neutered the joint DHSC and NHS England Long-Term Plan refresh. Pressure on NHS services across the country and at every point in the system made long term strategising – however urgently needed – impossible.

Steve Barclay’s ministerial statement today is an attempt to correct this perception, while streamlining the numerous strategies his predecessors committed the Department to.

In short, the Government and NHS England will be developing a new strategy for ‘major conditions’ including cancers, cardiovascular disease – including stroke and diabetes, dementia, mental ill health and musculoskeletal disorders.

The ambition is to develop a ‘strong and coherent policy agenda’ building on the progress of the NHS Long Term Plan to deliver the Government’s manifesto commitment of gaining five extra years of Healthy Life Expectancy by 2035.

The statement makes for dizzying reading as it sweeps across healthcare hot topics:

Alleviating pressure on the health system
Reducing labour market inactivity due to ill-health
Harnessing the potential of whole person care and breaking down system silos
Creating a workforce with greater emphasis on generalist medical skill
Early detection
Harnessing innovation and technology
Reducing unwarranted variation
Supporting ICSs to maximise opportunities to tackle disadvantage

Given the breadth of the scope, it will likely generate cynicism as well as hope. There is no doubt that there are many big challenges that need addressing – conditions like diabetes and dementia have a huge impact on society and individual lives, and have consistently not received the attention they need to drive meaningful improvements in care.

However, there is also a very real risk that this new attempt at a sweeping strategy is seen primarily as a move to kick action into the long grass, while giving ministers an answer to the persistent questions about progress on long awaited strategies in cancer, dementia and mental health. As healthcare has become increasingly political, today’s announcement is primarily about providing a degree of political cover.

The consultation will need to address how any new strategy aligns with the wider approach to delivery. A major national review across multiple disease areas doesn’t naturally lend itself to the agenda of greater delegation of powers to ICSs through Hewitt Review or the removal of centrally imposed targets. It is also unlikely that significant funding will accompany reforms when all signals point to the expectation of efficiency and restraint.

The health community will inevitably, and rightly, want to engage again: sharing evidence, policies, and best practice examples to try and shape this latest attempt at a vision for the future of care.

But how many times can stakeholders and patients be walked up the hill without seeing any tangible change?

Share this content:

The key trends shaping 2023 across Financial Services

We may only be 13 days into 2023, but it’s already on track to be a very busy one in the financial services industry. Whether you’re an adviser, asset manager, bank, fintech, pensions provider or in fact provide any financial services proposition, you’re in for a challenging, but exciting year.

Looking ahead, here are the key themes we see shaping 2023 – will they be obstacles or opportunities?

Sustainability and stewardship

The conversation around sustainability is only gaining more ground – with Scope 3 emissions disclosure on the horizon, SDR finally being implemented and Net Zero targets tightening. In particular, we expect stewardship to come to the fore, with wealth and asset managers being held to account regarding their previous commitments and asset owners seeking clarity around the concrete outcomes of stewardship activities. With better stewardship leading to improved investment outcomes and real-world sustainability achievements, this is a movement which can’t come quickly enough.

Rise of the consumer

Consumers across nearly every sector are becoming increasingly demanding and discerning. The old adages “the customer is always right” and “fortune favours the bold” are holding fast with new innovations tailored to meet consumer expectations gaining traction and market share. Our recent consumer research showed that over half of 18-34 year olds are often on the lookout for the newest and most advanced financial technology apps and if those apps don’t work for them, they’ll vote with their feet. It’s a jungle out there but firms who can successfully innovate and communicate their new offerings, will reap the rewards.

The regulator grows teeth

Of course, the financial services industry has always been a highly regulated sector, even more so with the additional duties and responsibilities heaped on the FCA through the Financial Services and Markets Bill. However, recently the regulator has grown teeth and firms who aren’t complying won’t just face a slap on the wrist but instead steep fines and penalties.

The Consumer Duty is a case in point. Consumer protection has consistently been at the heart of regulation, but the requirements of the new Consumer Duty demonstrate that ticking a box is no longer enough. All firms which distribute or manufacture products or services to retail customers now need to demonstrate good value, consistent and clear communications and appropriate support to their customers – essentially Treating Customers Fairly, on steroids.

Data, data, data

With the Government heralding Open Banking as a success earlier this week and businesses and industry groups piling in to make recommendations on what comes next, all eyes are on the EU review of PSD2 regulations and what this could mean for data and tech enabled products in the UK. Will HM Treasury and the FCA follow suit with the reforms being proposed in Brussels? Or will the temptation to ease regulatory burdens win over additional data protections?

In either scenario, more work is needed to iron out the remaining kinks in Open Banking – from tougher compliance rules to an improved consumer UX – before the blue sky thinking of Open Finance can begin.

Ongoing volatility

2022 was the sixth-most volatile year since the Great Depression and most economists are forecasting markets to “get worse before they get better”. That said, the continued desynchronisation between the US, Euro area and China presents a range of investment opportunities for those who are shrewd enough to find them. It will be a bumpy ride, but long-term investors are likely to be rewarded if they can sit tight and we know both the media and consumers will be hungry for a good news story for those who can successfully weather the storm.

At WA, we’ll be watching these areas closely, making sure we are one step ahead of the next developments on the horizon and supporting firms who want to leverage these trends for their own market position. If that sounds of interest, we’d love to chat.

Share this content:

A trillion dollar lift off in the commercial race for space

As recession looms over the UK economy, investors will be asking: what sectors will be resilient against the headwinds of economic downturn? Conventional wisdom points to those companies, industries, products, or services that we cannot live without, such as healthcare, consumer staples and utilities. But perhaps surprisingly, the space industry is also tipped to be largely recession proof.

Whilst the media grabbing headlines of space tourism or a failed rocket launch often portray an industry characterised by mystique and adventure, the less glamorous technologies that make modern space exploration and exploitation possible will prove fundamental to modern living, and indeed statecraft. From providing location data to mapping weather patterns, natural disaster prevention to protecting national security, everyday life and traditional industries are likely to be the primary beneficiaries of space enabled transformational change.

State-driven endeavours into outer space were a key battle ground of the Cold War. The commercial battle, dubbed ‘New Space’, has become a new field of competition for nations and private companies alike, with the battle for supremacy having rumbled along for well over a decade. Governments around the world are racing to secure their foothold in this evolving domain, recognising the sector’s economic and strategic potential. Or to quote from Policy Exchange’s Space Unit, the first of its kind at any UK think tank, “UK commercial space is not just another commercial market that should be left to the vagaries of a global market, but is a strategic sector of national security interest and importance that provides critically needed technologies and services”.

Slice of the economic pie

At present, the UK space industry generates £16.5 billion annually, more than a trebling since 2000, and space technologies now underpin £360 billion per year of UK economic activity. Globally, the space market is expected to increase from $339billion (2016) to $2.7 trillion by 2045, a figure comparable to the economic might of the oil industry today, which represents nearly 4% of the global economy. The UK economy is well placed to benefit from this future trillion-dollar industry with a 5.1% foothold already established in the global market. However, if the UK wants a large slice of this lucrative pie, it will need to take a leading role in shaping the development of the global space industry, continue to expand and build new spaceports, as well as attract companies to locate in the UK.

Opportunities for investors

Investors have witnessed an inflection point within the space market. Venture capital continues to back start-ups at record levels year on year, creating a generation of companies with proven space technologies. Now is the time for more traditional investors to identify clear revenue raising growth opportunities and scalable space technologies. The investment risk is less about the viability of new space technologies and more about the execution of scaling up and expanding. For institutional investors, it is now a question of capital allocation and portfolio exposure, or rather how big their appetite is to back the space industry when up against other sectors of the UK economy. Reflecting this inflection point, the private equity fund, NewSpace Capital, the first of its kind focusing on the growth stage of space enterprise, recently closed a funding round raising €100m.

Unresolved political risks

The UK has played a formative role in continental Europe’s space architecture as a founding member of the European Space Agency, the principal intergovernmental organisation that cultivates policies, develops programmes and administers funding for the space industry. Crucially, whilst independent from the European Union, it is inextricably linked in administrating the EU’s space and funding programmes. Despite the Brexit withdrawal agreement reached in January 2020, the EU continues to leverage UK participation and access to Horizon Europe, the €95.5 billion funding programme for research and innovation for 2021-2027, and Copernicus, the EU’s Earth Observation Programme, against the outstanding political issue of the Northern Ireland Protocol.

As stated by EU Commissioner Mariya Gabriel in October 2022, UK participation and access is ‘linked’ to (potentially conditional on) resolving the issue of the Northern Ireland Protocol. This political obstacle may be resolved by Rishi Sunak in 2023 as he adopts a more conciliatory approach when compared to his predecessors. For however long the uncertainty remains over the UK’s participation in Horizon Europe and Copernicus, it is damaging for both the UK and EU. Just as waiting in limbo risks the UK falling behind, there also exists a gaping hole in the EU’s planned investments without the UK’s contribution. This is particularly true given the US and China sizeably outspend the UK and EU as a percent of GDP. In the short-term, there are three possible outcomes:

Resolving the Northern Ireland Protocol and the UK enjoys full participation and access in multi-national European space programmes.
Prolonged uncertainty to the detriment of the UK space sector.
Or ‘Plan B’ – a flagship national space programme and alternative cooperation with the UK’s Indo-Pacific partners and/or the Five Eyes countries.

Space falls within the remit of George Freeman, Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, and a former biomedical venture capitalist. In response to industry concerns about waiting in limbo, Freeman recently made available £200 million of the UK’s original £750 million commitment to Copernicus, demonstrating the Government’s willingness to be proactive in remedying some of the immediate bottleneck issues. In total, the Government committed £615 million to the European Space Agency, £217 million to global exploration programmes, £206 million to telecommunication, £111 million to space safety and security, and finally, £71 million to new technologies in November 2023. In addition, funding settlement increased in length from one to three years, a strategic decision for an industry that typically works toward longer timescales.

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has a less optimistic take on the UK’s position and approach to space. A recent inquiry found the Government wanting on several fronts and was critical of the Government’s sizeable stake in rescuing the once bankrupt company OneWeb, as well as its decision against developing a new sovereign sat-nav constellation. The Committee called for additional funding – perhaps to compete with that of China and the US – as well as for the Government to publish what a ‘Plan B’ might look like in the event that the UK is no longer granted participation and access to the EU’s space programmes.

Whilst the Government’s November funding announcement brings added certainty for the space industry, further increases in funding is highly unlikely given the cost-of-living crisis and pressure on the public finances. The mood music, however, is changing around the Northern Ireland Protocol with hopes of an imminent resolution, thereby enabling the combined heft of the UK and EU to collaborate on space. Nonetheless, the appetite for space technology will likely weather the UK’s economic recession and with a maturing space market, private investment will be mission critical to ensuring an economic lift off for the next trillion dollar industry.

Share this content:

Social media: the dos, don’ts and the ‘depends on the circumstances’

Earlier this week Business Secretary Grant Shapps was called out by Twitter users after posting an image that appeared to edit out former Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

While the post was swiftly deleted and sources close to Shapps deny he knew the post had been edited, the incident serves as an important reminder on the integrity, accuracy, and reliability of social media content.

It also raises interesting questions about how brands and individuals should react when they make mistakes. Is it best to bury your head in the sand and hope no one notices? Or should you not only lean in, but throw yourself into the mistake, raising its profile but at least owning the narrative?

Here are our three top tips on how to make social media work for you – and what to do when things go wrong.

1. Check before your post

The most important tip also happens to be the simplest. Remember to double check – and then triple check – all content before you post it.

After all, who can forget former shadow chancellor Ed Balls inadvertently posting his own name on Twitter, giving rise to a day dedicated to his honour each year? Or the thousands of British shoppers and Christmas advert devotees who tag the US-based man John Lewis each year instead of the retailer’s handle.

And as Grant Shapps’ slip-up shows, it’s not just what you post, but how you post it. Remember to check all imagery (crediting copyright owners where appropriate) and ensure links send your followers to the right place.

2. Own your mistakes

Despite the highly-anticipated ‘edit’ function on Twitter being trialed by verified users in select countries, editing your way out of a mistake currently isn’t an option.

This leaves red-faced users with two options: delete the post in question or issue a clarification.

As a rule of thumb, if a social media post contains minor errors but has already been shared widely it’s probably not worth deleting as it is unlikely a repost would gain the same traction. In this case, commenting on a post or setting up a Twitter thread clarifying the original tweet is the best course of action.

On the other hand, anything offensive or widely inaccurate should be deleted immediately. Keep in mind this doesn’t necessarily remove it from the public domain, given the speed and interactivity of social media platforms, the ability to screenshot content using smartphones, and Twitter accounts such as @deletedbyMPs.

3. React quickly

Whichever approach you decide to take, do it quickly and be prepared for questions from your followers, stakeholders or even the media.

If you think a social media mistake could generate significant critical attention, make sure you consider potential scenarios and agree a handling plan in advance.

As well as taking obvious steps such as pausing scheduled tweets, you should consider your wider company profile, which includes advising senior spokesperson they could face online scrutiny and thinking carefully about planned marketing activity that could come under fire.

At the end of the day, as long as you own up and take appropriate action most social media mistakes are quickly forgiven and forgotten – and it’s very unlikely you’ll make the same mistake again.

Share this content:

A guide to the challenges of 2023: A tell-all year

As the second week of 2023 draws to a close, it’s clear the year ahead will be rife with economic and political challenges.

WA Partner Rhoda McDonald was joined by WA Senior Adviser, broadcaster and journalist Steve Richards to discuss the issues that will dominate 2023.

Here are our key takeaways from the event:

Labour finding it’s feet

The Labour party enters 2023 with renewed enthusiasm. Starmer is keen to whip the Party in to shape and prove they are a Government in waiting. As he prepares for an offensive, there will be high expectations for his cabinet to perform, and with reshuffle rumours circling, there will be no room for idlers.

His team has largely been moulded by a new New Labour era, with some Blair flair, and it is clear that top of his agenda is modernising central government, stimulating economic growth, and reforming the British energy sector.

One of the key policy differences between the Conservative Party and Labour is around industrial policy – Rishi Sunak shows no great interest in an overarching Industrial Strategy, whereas Labour’s looks potentially very substantial, extending to light manufacturing, transport, and even retail, to underpin their ambitions for higher productivity and growth.

A Tory Party divided

Meanwhile the Prime Minister is tending to a wounded Tory party and attempting to rebuild political and economic stability. With wavering Tory voters, and the threat of a new Reform Party poaching his MPs, Sunak needs to be constantly appealing to the public and his backbenchers if he is to retain control.

Although Sunak appears to be relishing the challenge and leaning in to his role as the peace maker of the party, it is unlikely to be smooth sailing as the year kicks off with headlines dominated by strikes and pay disputes.

It’s all about the economy

The country’s economy is top of the inbox for the current Government and the Opposition alike. As Sunak’s forte, he is busy emphasising his brand as the fiscally minded Prime Minister who can stabilise the markets and bring public spending under control.

For Sunak the pivotal moment will come in the March Budget. The Prime Minister had prepared a draft budget during the leadership campaign, which was very business focused – looking at tax rates, business needs, and how to get people back into the workforce. As Corporation Tax rises take effect this year, against a background of a dire economic environment, the message of ‘growth, growth, growth’, and delivering the incentives needed to shape company and labour market decisions, are likely to be at the forefront when the Chancellor stands up at the Dispatch Box on 15^th March.

On the other side, Labour are in the midst of deciding whether they follow a New Labour approach and stick to Tory spending plans, or to reinvent the fiscal wheel and risk further unease. Either way, the position they take will be determined by Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves.

Fixing the NHS

With the NHS hitting the headlines every week, healthcare reform will be a prominent issue throughout the year. The Government cannot shy away from the mounting pressure to act.

Having already passed the 2022 Health and Social Care Act, the Conservatives are unlikely to introduce new reforms this side of the election. However, talk of how to use the private sector and discussions of outsourcing are starting to snowball, with Labour saying they would consider this approach to relieve demand on the NHS.

Energy crisis

While the energy crisis continues and with geopolitical factors such as the war in Ukraine determining future supply issues, the Government is facing further spending pressures. The clock on household support is running down, and businesses are already feeling the pinch.

The risk for Sunak is inaction should the energy crisis become more acute. Although he has been avoiding Government intervention, he will be forced to change tact and avoid taking heavy fire from Labour as they seek to differentiate themselves.

The Deregulation agenda

With growth set to be the buzz word of the year, the regulatory landscape remains a battle ground yet to be won. As the realities of an EU regulatory bonfire threaten chaos, the Government is looking at lighter regulatory initiatives.

With businesses calling for clarity over the regulatory landscape, there are opportunities for both the Conservatives to make their mark and for Labour to carve out fresh ground for putting the UK on the front foot.

All eyes on GE2024

2023 is set to be the tell all year. Sunak and Starmer are facing the toughest set of challenges any leader, especially a newly incoming Prime Minister, have faced for decades. How they respond to and address the economic turbulence and address the nation’s discontent will ultimately determine their fate at the ballot box.

While Labour may be 20 points ahead in the polls, Sunak’s momentum over the summer appears to have closed a once-gaping gap. However, unless either party makes marked progress on the issues of the year, the prospect of a hung parliament with a minority government will become a looming possibility.

Share this content:

UK and Japan – The Quiet Relationship

An island nation, obsessed by tea, known for the politeness of its people and with a hereditary sovereign as head of state. Add the sight of cars driving on the left, school children in uniforms and pubs in every town and there is only country in the world that you could possibly be thinking of.

You would think.

In fact, there are two countries you could be thinking of. The UK or Japan. The island monarchies share similar drinking habits and traffic quirks as well as a long history and a significant economic relationship.

Not that you would know it from reading the news. Missives from political correspondents in Washington D.C. and spats between the UK and France provide much more saleable copy. But that is no reason to ignore the fruitful relationship between East and West. Ever since Margaret Thatcher’s visit to Japan in 1982, the UK and Japan have enjoyed a quiet, steady-as-she-goes relationship that is both strong and stable (to coin a phrase).

If the relationship lacks the drama of the UK’s bonds with its European or North American friends, it shouldn’t be overlooked as a place for low-risk growth opportunities and expansion.

Let’s look at the numbers.

The total value of trade between the UK and Japan to the end of June 2022 stood at £24.6 billion, an increase of nearly 22% since 2012. Total trade before the Covid-19 pandemic was admittedly higher than it is today, reaching £28.8 billion in 2019, but this is par for the course. Total trade grew by 0.6% between 2021 and 2022. The green shoots of recovery are there.

Foreign Direct Investment tells an even better story. Between the vote to leave the EU in 2016 and the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, investment into the UK from Japan more than doubled from £45.5 billion to £102.3 billion. Over the decade since 2011, inward investment to the UK from Japan has grown nearly fourfold. The decrease in the value of sterling against the yen has, of course, been a major contributory factor. The fall in the pound from just over ¥195 in August 2015 to a low of ¥125 in March 2020 has made investment in the UK significantly more attractive.

But there are other reasons to be optimistic about the opportunities the relationship creates. The UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, signed in October 2020, was the first trade agreement the UK signed outside of the EU with any country. It provided an important political signal of intent between London and Tokyo: that practical economic considerations would win out over any political posturing following the UK’s exit from the EU.

Japan’s enthusiasm for the UK’s application to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is a further sign of the value that Tokyo places on London’s contribution to international trade and politics in the East. Japan’s Economy Minister, Yasutoshi Nishimura, said that “the importance of Britain as a strategic partner and the expansion of the high-level rules beyond the Asia-Pacific are extremely important.”

Since 2018, British troops have also participated in training exercises in Japan with the Japanese Ground Self-Defence Forces through the VIGILANT ISLES series. In May 2022, then Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Prime Minister Fumio Kishida agreed a Reciprocal Access Agreement to facilitate UK and Japanese Armed Forces on training, joint exercises and disaster relief activities – the first such agreement for a European country with Japan. Johnson also announced the appointment of a new trade envoy to Japan, former Business Secretary, Greg Clark MP, to drive investment between the two countries.

Emperor Naruhito and Empress Masako’s attendance at The Queen’s funeral in September was the couple’s first overseas trip since the emperor’s accession in 2019. A further diplomatic coup and a show of the enduring relationship between the royal families.

Relations between the two countries are arguably stronger now on the economic, military and diplomatic front than at any time since the Meiji restoration in 1868. The ever-closer relationship between London and Tokyo puts the stability of Japanese investment in the UK in good stead over the medium to long term. For investors, the opportunities that stem from this relationship should not be ignored – even if they don’t make the headlines.

Share this content:

A tale of two speeches

Just three working days into the new year we have been treated to set piece speeches from Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Leader of the Opposition Keir Starmer on consecutive days. Both had similar objectives: seize control of the news agenda; establish their domestic policy priorities; and persuade the electorate they are the right choice to tackle the very significant challenges the UK now faces.

However, they were coming from two very different starting points. Sunak is rushing to catch up with events, having rapidly and unexpectedly secured the Premiership in the midst of a political and economic crisis which has quickly been succeeded by an NHS crisis. Starmer has been building towards this moment for the last three years and has a significant lead in the polls he is looking to protect.

So how did they do and what are the implications for businesses planning their political engagement in 2023?

Structure and delivery

Sunak

The unorthodox nature of Rishi Sunak’s rise to power left him with the tricky task of trying to set out the defining principles that will guide his premiership while simultaneously acknowledging the short term priorities required to address the crisis in the NHS. He also tacked on a series of specific promises that he is aiming to deliver around the economy, the NHS and the small boats issue. This resulted in a speech that jumped across a number of different topics but lacked a core theme and clear narrative. His delivery of the speech itself was a little wooden but he performed relatively well in the extensive Q&A that followed.

Starmer

Starmer’s core message was simple: Labour is a credible Government in waiting that will devolve power, working in partnership with local government and business to tackle the UK’s long term challenges. It was a relatively well crafted and delivered speech that served as an effective critique of ‘sticking plaster politics’ from the current government. Unlike Sunak, Starmer has had the benefit of three years to prepare for this moment and he was able to draw on a lot of principles and ideas that have already been previously set out.

Policy content

Sunak

The Prime Minister set out five ‘promises’ that will frame the Government’s immediate priorities in the coming months: halving inflation this year; grow the economy; falling national debt; falling NHS waiting lists; new laws to stop small boats carrying migrants across the channel. While some have noted that these are largely in line with what independent forecasters are already predicting, the promises on inflation and growth in particular risk being significant hostages to fortune given how little control Government has on external, often global, events that drive economic trends.

Beyond this, the headline pledge was for all students to study maths in some form until the age of 18, with the implementation details yet to follow. Other significant sections of the speech on innovation, law and order, education and the NHS all lacked any new policy announcements, though referenced measures detailed in last year’s Autumn Statement.

Starmer

Starmer’s speech had a major focus on how Labour would take a different approach to running the country based on devolution of power and partnership working with local government and business. However, there was only one significant new policy announcement: a ‘Take Back Control’ Bill that would form the centerpiece of his administration’s first King’s Speech. The Bill will devolve powers over employment support, transport, energy, climate change, housing, culture, childcare provision and council finances with a further ‘right to request’ power for local communities also built in.

In addition, he nodded towards a series of ‘national missions’ to be published in the coming weeks that will frame Labour’s policy platform in more detail. Also of note, there was a very clear message that Labour won’t fall back on a ‘big Government cheque book’ approach in an effort to assert fiscal credibility.

Impact and implications for engagement

Sunak

There was some criticism that Sunak did not focus more on the immediate challenges facing the NHS and the industrial relations issues that are crippling the UK’s rail system. However, the five promises he set out do provide a litmus test against which he can ask voters to judge him. If he can demonstrate progress in these areas in twelve months from now, then he can start to build narrative of delivery that serves as platform for an election campaign.

Ultimately, this speech underlined just how much the next election is starting to dictate the Government’s approach. Sunak set up a small number of simple, measurable goals and it is clear that anything that can’t be shown to contribute to meeting them between now and the election will be far less likely to receive time and attention from Government. There was also a reminder of his personal focus on innovation as a key to driving productivity and growth – companies that can demonstrate a positive story on innovation are more likely to have success attracting the attention of No 10.

Starmer

The short term headlines that Starmer’s team would have hoped for have largely been torpedoed by the leaks from Prince Harry’s book. However, expect the ‘Take Back Control’ slogan to feature heavily as a core theme in Labour’s narrative this year as they seek to demonstrate to the electorate that they have taken the lessons of Brexit on board. While this was a speech that demonstrates progress in his mission to become a credible Prime Minister in waiting, there is plenty of work still to do. Labour’s current comfortable poll lead comes on the back of a terrible few months for the Conservative Party and with the electorate facing extremely challenging economic circumstances. If the economy improves and Sunak is able to claim some credit, then Labour will need to show much more of a positive alternative agenda in order to maintain such a strong lead.

That places a lot of emphasis on the forthcoming ‘national missions’ to add further definition to Labour’s offer. Business should be prioritising its Opposition engagement on influencing how these missions are framed and the detailed policy ideas that will be needed to support them. Starmer boldly stated that he wanted to change the ‘old game of passionately identifying a problem’ without providing solutions. His biggest risk is falling into exactly this trap himself and his team will need the help and expertise from business to avoid it if he wants to build a truly robust alternative programme for Government.

Share this content:

UK and China – Happily Never After?

The UK and China were once good friends. Or so we were led to believe. Speaking at the Shanghai Stock Exchange in September 2015, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, spoke about creating a ‘golden age’ in Sino-British relations.

A month later, President Ji Xinping paid a state visit to Britain which included a ride down The Mall with The Queen and a lavish banquet in his honour at Buckingham Palace. Ensconced between The Queen and the Duchess of Cambridge at the banquet, President Xi could justifiably feel that his country had found its bestie in the West.

In 2018, the Chinese Ambassador to London talked about turbocharging relations even further. He wanted to put the golden age into “higher gear”, he claimed, and build “an even brighter future for the people of our two countries”.

It all seemed so rosy and the future for investors looked so promising.

But fast forward to 2022 and the geo-political landscape is unrecognisable. The Golden Age has turned into an Ice Age – a period of recriminations, grievances and conversations labelled ‘frank’ in diplomatic circles. Investors would be right to be wary.

Demonstrations in Hong Kong, concerns over Huawei’s proposed investment in strategic infrastructure, human rights abuses in Xinjiang, the Covid-19 pandemic, and scenes of the Chinese police beating a BBC journalist are hardly propitious foundations for friendship. President Xi, who has secured an unprecedented third term as leader, has also doubled down on an assertive foreign policy. He rails against so-called Western ‘bullying’ and is pushing a repressive domestic agenda intent on eradicating Covid-19. The two governments now view each other with grave mistrust, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak stating that the “golden era is over, along with the naïve idea that trade would automatically lead to social and political reform.”

The politics, in short, bode badly for the future. The economics, however, tell a different tale.

Trade volumes between the UK and China have increased by 27% over the last four years. Total trade in 2018 stood at £73.2 billion, rising to £86.8 billion in 2019 before falling during the pandemic and rising again to £93.1 billion in 2021.

Maybe that’s because the UK and China can’t afford to let political fights upset their economic relationship. The downturn in the UK economy is well documented. GDP growth fell 0.3% between July and August and the UK economy is smaller now than at the start of the year. Former Prime Minister Liz Truss’ efforts to turn the tide were met with widespread disruption in the financial markets, with the Bank of England stepping in to support the bond markets, and mortgage interest rates rising to their highest level in 14 years. It’s also a difficult time for private markets: the UK economy is officially in recession.

If things are bad in the UK, prospects in China are not much better.

The Chinese economy used to be the thing of myth, with growth that made Western leaders salivate at the prospect of getting a slice of the pie. Annual growth in the Middle Kingdom saw a clear upward trajectory in the late 1990s and early 2000s, reaching a peak of 14.2% in 2007. But ever since, the Chinese economy has been distinctly less appealing. China has recorded a steady decline in annual GDP growth since 2007, falling to 6% in 2019 and temporarily plunging to 2.2% in 2020 – the pandemic year. While growth of 6% in 2019 (and over 8% in 2021) may still sound tempting to some Western leaders, there is more trouble looming.

This year, the yuan fell to its lowest rate since 2008 and the national youth jobless rate hit almost 20% in July. Even official statistics shows that China’s manufacturing PMI has only been above 50% for four months of 2022 – any figure below 50% shows a reduction in activity – with manufacturing PMI in October standing at 49.2%. JP Morgan also forecasts year-on-year GDP growth in the final quarter of the year to stand at 2.7%, down from a previous forecast of 3.4%.

The property market in China is in turmoil too. Year-on-year, property sales fell by over 23% in October and property investment has declined by 16%. In August, house prices fell by 1.3% – their fastest decline in seven years. Chinese policymakers have attempted to sweeten the market by cutting the five-year loan prime rate that underpins mortgage lending to 4.3% and relaxing the floor on mortgage rates for some first-time buyers. But the bitter taste of an undercooked pie still lingers. The property crisis took a trillion dollars off the value of the sector last year.

But investors should steady their nerve. As their economies stutter at home, the UK and China need to keep in with their economic partners overseas. The Prime Minister may continue to view China as a “systemic challenge to our values and interests” but he also claims that we “cannot simply ignore China’s significance in world affairs”. Significant material restrictions in trade have yet to materialise, despite tensions between London and Beijing. Economic reality, it seems, trumps political posturing. UK firms exposed to Chinese investment will be able to rely on firm support from their Asian trading partner for the foreseeable future and trade between the UK and China will continue to boom. Even if President Xi won’t be enjoying another carriage ride down The Mall anytime soon.

Share this content:

What will WA be reading this Christmas? It’s (probably) not what you think.

As we near the home straight before the Christmas holidays, we asked a few of the WA Communications team for details on which books they were looking forward to curling up with over the break. Expectations were high – perhaps a weighty biography of a political giant, some niche political philosophy or even some hard-hitting political fiction.

The subsequent list, however, is not quite what we expected. Rather than Hobbes, Locke or Marx, colleagues at WA will be delving into an eclectic (some might even say eccentric) but diverse mix of material.

Perhaps understandably so – 2022 has been quite the political year of scandal and crisis, ending with the unexpected appearance of Matt Hancock on ITV’s I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here! Politics in 2022 has certainly proved that truth is stranger than fiction.

As the WA team looks forward to the Christmas holidays, it’ll be all about escapism. In the words of one colleague, “I have definitely had enough political drama for one year!”

Empire of Pain: The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty by Patrick Radden Keefe – Max Taylor-McEwan, Senior Research Consultant

Empire of Pain is about the history of the Sackler family, the opioid epidemic in the US and the role of advertisement in the medical profession. Along the way it focuses on greed, corruption and some of the hefty donations aimed at white-washing reputations. The book was recommended by a friend’s stepdad who ran around the house looking for it and is evidently too good not to share. I can’t wait to get stuck into Empire of Pain to understand the backstory to a crisis that has knocked months off the life expectancy of the average American.

Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind by Tom Holland – Lee Findell, Partner & Head of Corporate Communications

I’ve had this book on my bedside table since last Christmas when I first started reading it, but I am now determined to read Dominion in full this time round. It is a tour-de-force on the history of Christianity and its impact on the world. Tom Holland is a superb author of popular history books and a co-host of my favourite podcast, The Rest is History.

Shades of Grey by Jasper Fforde – Ellie Naismith, Senior Account Director

Shades of Grey is set in a post-apocalyptic world where social standing is determined by your perception of colour and there is a huge black market in illegal spoon trading. The book is a comedy, a romance, a fantasy and a parable on the risks of seeing the world in black and white when the world is really all shades of grey. Fforde has a cracking and surreal sense of humour and is one of my favourite authors. I will be re-reading Shades of Grey ahead of the long-awaited sequel, Red Side Story, due to be published in the new year.

Freezing Order by Bill Browder – James Allan, Research Executive

Browder’s first book, Red Notice, was an easy read but a gripping page turner. Published earlier this year, Freezing Order continues his first-hand account of running a hedge fund and becoming Russia’s largest foreign investor during the early 2000s. Dubbed ‘Putin’s no.1 enemy’ after taking on corrupt officials and the Russian oligarchy, Browder was the driving force behind the Magnitsky Act in the US. Named after his lawyer who was beaten to death in a Moscow jail, the Magnitsky Act became law in many other countries, including the UK, legislating for a sanctions regime against individuals who commit the worst human rights abuses.

The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov – Jovana Vuletic, Research Executive

The Master and Margarita is unmatched in its weirdness and breath-taking originality of thought, whilst masterfully mixing elements of political satire, dark comedy and magical realism. It symbolises dissidence and was written during Stalin’s reign of the Soviet Union but published 30 years after. It also unpacks the idea that the good and evil of this world are symbiotic, and aren’t necessarily on opposite sides of the spectrum. A really useful and interesting lens through which to view present-day politics.

The Highway Code by HM Government – Lizzie Wills, Partner & Head of Investor Services

I have decided that 2023 is the year I finally learn to drive, so I will be curling up in front of the fire with a copy of The Highway Code. I’m not sure if it is going to be as full of intrigue as some of the political biographies that I could pick, but I have definitely had enough drama for one year!

The Whale Who Wanted More by Rachel Bright – Thea Southwell Reeves, Account Director

Like many parents of young children, I religiously bring my day to a close surrounded by a mountain of children’s books and snuggled up with a bleary-eyed toddler pleading for ‘one more story, mummy’. This Christmas, as my almost-2-year-old starts to understand the festivities and gets overwhelmingly excited about presents, I will be reading him Bright’s stunning undersea tale of friendship and contentment. Humphrey the whale is on a quest: to find the one perfect object that will make him feel complete. He roams far and wide, gathering endless treasure as he goes. Yet, no matter how much he accumulates, Humphrey still isn’t happy. It reminds us that friendship, family and community, not our possessions, is what makes our heart sing. Bright perfectly captures a wonderful message to pass on our little ones at this time of year.

The Devil You Know by Eileen Horne, Gwen Adshead – Alice Humphreys, Senior Account Manager

Authored by a psychotherapist, The Devil You Know follows Horne’s work at Broadmoor prison and compiles a series of conversations with people labelled ‘monsters’ by society – whatever their crime, she listens to their stories and helps them to better understand their terrible acts of violence. Supposedly, the book will challenge ‘everything I thought I knew about human nature!’

My Fourth Time, We Drowned By Sally Hayden – Bella Wallersteiner, Account Director

With unprecedented access to people currently inside Libyan detention centres, Hayden’s book is based on interviews with hundreds of refugees who attempted to travel to Europe but found themselves trapped in Libya once the EU began funding interceptions in 2017. This book shines a light on the resilience of humans and in times like these, the power of testimony cannot be overstated.

The Blue Lotus by Hergé – Thomas Sharpe, Account Director

Getting in touch with my inner Frenchman (or is that inner Belgian?), I am going to get stuck into Hergé’s The Blue Lotus from the Adventures of Tintin. Tales of courage, daring-do and chasing villains in comic book form are a perfect accompaniment to the Christmas period. Set in Shanghai nearly a hundred years ago, the comic is beautifully illustrated and full of detail – every Chinese character Hergé included has meaning. There’s philosophy too, with mediations on life and friendship. Definitely worth a read!

The Five Giants: a biography of the welfare state by Nicholas Timmins – Jess Prestidge, Director

Timmins charts the emergence of the modern welfare state, organising his analysis around the ‘five giants’ that William Beveridge identified as the necessary targets of post-war welfare policy: want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. With the welfare safety net increasingly strained, I’m hoping that an understanding of its origin story and fitful evolution will shed new light on the choices and trade-offs politicians and electorates face today. At over 700 pages it’s a bit of a tome but given the ground covered I think that it is forgivable!

Box 88 by Charles Cumming – Amy Fisher, Director

Box 88 is a spy thriller novel. Given that I have read every Ian Flemming, Len Deighton, Ian Rankin and Mick Herron I have ever laid my hands on, it is an absolute godsend to find someone in the thriller genre who is also so page-turningly brilliant.

Harry Potter by JK Rowling – Natasha Egan-Sjodin, Associate Director

Call me a creature of habit, but I will be re-reading the Harry Potter series – ALL OF THEM! – in order.

It’s an annual Christmas tradition which started in my first year of university. I start on 1st December and make my way through until the end of the year, and I almost always end up reading the Half Blood Prince after Christmas dinner.

I’d like to opt for a more cultured and sophisticated read next year, so perhaps I’ll take some tips from this blog!

The Founding, A Gaunt’s Ghosts Omnibus by Dan Abnett – Peter Jones, Director

The Founding is a futuristic sci-fi novel set in the Warhammer 40,000 universe and is sort of a rip-off of the Sharp novels. Warhammer is a quite geeky hobby of mine which I picked up over lockdown. It involved building, painting and playing tabletop wargames with (mainly) plastic miniature soldiers. Games Workshop, the company that makes Warhammer, also publish books that go alongside the miniatures to build on the lore of the universe in which the tabletop game is set. It is pure escapism.

The Great Dune Trilogy by Frank Herbert – Marc Woolfson, Partner and Head of Public Affairs

I am reading the second Dune Trilogy (books 4-6). It is about an immortal pharaonic-style god-emperor who is half man half giant sandworm, with the power to see into the future. He has been in power for about 5,000 years and is convinced that benign dictatorship is the most effective form of government. But he is also a bit bored and so encourages rebellion in order to occasionally crush them. The Dune Trilogy is a bit of light relief after the year we’ve had.

The Silk Roads by Peter Frankopan – Gary Neale, Partner & Head of Creative

I recently read a great book called The History of the World in 100 Objects and many of the topics that came up related to the importance of the silk road. When The Silk Roads came out I made sure it was locked in for Christmas as my children don’t always know what to buy me these days. The Silk Roads is chronologically ordered and provides insights into our history and the effects of trade. From the early Mesopotamians and Chinese to the two World Wars and the discovery of oil. It features lots of different countries and time periods. By doing so, it really shows the big picture and how historical events in different countries affect each other. If you like history but find reading about it too inaccessible, this could be the book for you, even for the beautiful illustrations which really help to bring history to life. The book poses a few questions: Which Pope was ignored when he told people to stop selling Christians? Which country thought their economy and military would collapse without oil in the early 20th century? You will find the answers to these questions and more in this lovely book.

Share this content:

WA supports Agathos on the successful acquisition of Targeted Provision

WA Investor Services is delighted to have advised Agathos on its successful acquisition of Targeted Provision, the market leader for provision of bespoke SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) tuition, mentoring and educational support packages for children and young people with SEND.

Agathos’ investment will help support Targeted Provision expand the business’s customer base, build its pool of exceptional tutors and continue to provide high quality support to an underserved part of the SEND market.

WA Investor Services provided political and regulatory due diligence in support of the investment, drawing on our extensive network of policymakers to provide a detailed assessment of the likely effects of the Government’s SEND reform agenda on private SEND tutoring providers. WA’s insights gave significant reassurance to Agathos and were integral to the deal process.

Tom Street, Agathos said:

“WA’s insights into the relevant political drivers have been highly valuable in supporting our investment in Targeted Provision. WA’s deep sector expertise and expert judgements helped us comprehend what is a complex policy, funding and regulatory landscape. They were able to provide analysis, information and intelligence that supported our understanding of Targeted Provision’s ability to deliver a compelling and impactful solution in what is an underserved and well-regulated part of the market. We always highly value WA’s input and look forward to future opportunities to work with them again.”

Commenting on the deal, WA Partner and Head of Investor Services Lizzie Wills said:

“We are extremely pleased to have worked with Agathos on this transaction. With our unrivalled access to key officials directly involved in SEND regulatory reform, WA’s Investor Services practice were really well placed to support the Agathos team in understanding the outlook for Targeted Provision from a regulatory and funding perspective. Demand for SEND provision continues to rise in the UK, and Agathos’ investment will undoubtedly represent an exciting new chapter for the business as it seeks to expand to meet the needs of children with additional needs. We look forward to seeing the business continue to build on an incredibly strong foundation in the coming years.”

Share this content:

The UK and France – A Family Affair

The UK and France are like siblings. They may love each other deep down but most of the time they seem to be fighting it out. Always trying to outdo the other.

So it has been since 2016 – the year of Brexit – when the UK and France seem to have been at constant loggerheads. Then President François Hollande famously declared after the Brexit vote that “there must be a threat, there must be a risk, there must be a price” to the UK leaving the EU. President Emmanuel Macron continued that hardline stance, constantly criticising the arguments of the Leave campaign, opposing extensions to the UK’s timetable for leaving the EU and holding multiple ‘Choose France’ business summits to secure investment from overseas.

Events reached a nadir when, in this summer’s Conservative Party leadership campaign, Liz Truss was asked whether she considered Macron a friend or foe. Truss hesitated, smiled and looked out to the audience. ‘The jury’s out,’ she declared to cheers from the room.

Macron was asked about Truss’ remarks that same day. He paused, let out a long sigh and stifled a smile. “I don’t question it for a second: the UK is a friend of France,” he said. His face afterwards erupted into a broad grin – recognition that this was but the latest development in a very long-running family saga.

With Prime Minister Rishi Sunak at the helm, the relationship has taken a turn. At their first bilateral meeting at the COP27 summit in Egypt, Sunak and Macron were the vision of brothers reunited. All smiles, handshakes and ritual back slapping. After the event, Sunak tweeted that the UK and France were “friends, partners and allies” – a pointed rejoinder to Truss’ characterisation of the relationship.

So what do the ups and downs of British and French relations mean for business? Should investors take note?

The evidence of the last few years points to a mixed and often counterintuitive picture. The political drama of the Brexit years, for instance, had little effect on trade volumes. In 2015, total trade between the UK and France stood at £65.1 billion. It rose after the Brexit vote to £78 billion in 2017, £82.9 billion in 2018 and £84.4 billion in 2019 but fell again to £67.1 billion in 2020 – the pandemic year.

The same variation exists for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). UK outward FDI stood at £60.5 billion in 2015, rising consistently every year to reach £85.5 billion in 2020. UK inward FDI stock stood at £69.6 billion in 2015, before rising and falling in successive years to end at £69.1 billion in 2020. The French stock market, however, has overtaken the UK’s as Europe’s most valuable. The CAC-40 has grown by 47% since 2020 while the FTSE 100 has only grown by 16%.

Steady trade volumes between 2016 and 2020 suggest that trade opportunities created by the relative weakness of the pound outweighed any loss of confidence that resulted from political hostility between the UK and France. The rally of exchanges between British and French politicians during the Brexit years were simply par for the course for business – a continuation of the long and complex rivalry between two countries stretching back a thousand years.

The variation in inward FDI since Brexit may be more nuanced, linked to broader investor uncertainty about the UK’s future outside of the EU. The disparity in the value of the French and UK stock market is more structural, linked to the nature of the businesses listed on the CAC-40 and the FTSE100 as well as recent political upheavals in the UK.

The immediate economic future for both countries is difficult but in different ways. Inflation in the UK hit 11.1% in October while inflation in France reached 6.2%. Unemployment in the UK stands at 3.6%, rising to 9.8% among those aged 16 to 24, while unemployment in France stands at 7.3% rising to 18.3% among those aged 15 to 24. Political difficulties are also plaguing the French President, with his party working with a minority government in L’Assemblée Nationale and the IMF stating that the French government should stop its “whatever it takes” attitude to support households and businesses through the energy crisis.

For investors, the key to understanding the effect of British-French political developments on investments means assessing the likelihood that the intense rivalry between the two countries and the relationship between its political leaders translates into policy changes that affect the ease of doing business in either jurisdiction.

In the meantime, the UK and France may soon be fighting it out again, with a quarter-final match between England and France in the football World Cup not beyond the realms of possibility. They could yet have another opportunity to showcase their rivalry to the world.

If you would like to discuss the UK-France relationship in more detail please contact our policy specialist Thomas Sharpe on thomassharpe@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

Critical investment for critical minerals

The proverb goes ‘when everyone is digging for gold, it’s good to be in the pick and shovel business.’ If the energy transition of the 21^st Century bears any semblance to the 19^th Century gold rush that spurred the Industrial Revolution, what then are today’s picks and shovels that investors can capitalise on? The answer… critical minerals, such as lithium used in batteries or graphite used in aerospace applications and nuclear power plants.

Why? Because reaching the goals of the Paris Agreement will require a fourfold increase of current minerals inputs for clean technologies by 2040 and hitting the global Net Zero target by 2050 will require a sixfold increase of mineral inputs by 2040. Or rather, an increase from 7 million tonnes to 27.3 million tonnes for the Paris Agreement and 42.9 million tonnes for Net Zero targets. Perhaps more alarmingly, stated policy measures drastically fall short of future demand and a lack of critical minerals risks the great energy transition that will define this century all together.

The current UK state of play is intensely risky due to global trade concentration and near exclusive reliance on imports. Of the 26 critical minerals measured against global supply risk and UK economic vulnerability, only titanium scores a ‘low criticality’, 6 score ‘elevated criticality’, and the remaining 19 critical minerals score ‘high criticality’. As key ingredients in a clean and green future, the UK is heavily exposed to a market where the top three producer countries (China, South Africa and Brazil) control between 73% and 98% of total global production of at least 18 of these critical minerals – perhaps more exposed compared to the supply chains disrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Government thinking about critical minerals began in 2010 when a trade dispute between China and Japan led to raw earth mineral prices quadrupling. Although China was able to demonstrate its market dominance, it wasn’t until 2021 when UK policymakers turned their thinking into concrete policy ambitions; somewhat late to the game compared to the US which began providing direct investment in production facilities in 2018.

The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy (currently being revised after failing to anticipate Russia’s invasion of Ukraine) was published in 2021 and quickly followed by the Critical Minerals Strategy in 2022. A Critical Minerals Expert Committee and Intelligence Centre were created in 2022 for advisory and knowledge sharing purposes, as well as a set piece funding announcement for the world’s first refinery hub, a midstream process for refining raw earth materials, powered entirely by offshore wind.

This step change by government in setting out its high-level intentions and policy ambitions is welcomed by investors. One investor told WA that “the government strategy is required because all the capacity is currently in China who are well established… and for the UK and Europe to suddenly compete you have pile in a lot of investment.” Or in the words of another industry expert, the challenge now is “…figuring out if this signpost will actually lead to pots of gold.”

A repeated concern of the Critical Minerals Strategy is an absence of deliverables and detail. It only goes part way in providing the necessary ‘enabling environment’ to attract greater private sector investment. The government already offers a range of funding pots from which the critical mineral sector can draw, such as the Automotive Transformation Fund (up to £850m) or the UK Infrastructure Bank (up to £22bn). However, if the government is truly serious about the UK’s vulnerability in the critical minerals game it will need to significantly step-up funding, its mechanism of distribution, and reform some of structural market barriers, such as the permitting and planning process for domestic extraction. Doing so will unlock private sector activity, capital and finance across the sector from exploration, extraction to refinery both at home and from abroad. It will also crucially, de-risk investment as government policy and funding aligns ever closer with new investment opportunities.

Resolving the critical minerals conundrum will require the same approach adopted for the British success story of ‘going for wind’ in the energy market. Government support since the early 2000s in cultivating, developing, and expanding wind turbines installed offshore has established the UK as the global leader in offshore energy. Central to the government’s approach was a clear partnership with private sector finance, working together in transforming a now maturing market where electricity generated from wind power increased by 715% from 2009 to 2020, generating almost £6bn in turnover in 2019. Government support matched its rhetoric, in turn boosting investor confidence and investment opportunities in offshore wind. As for critical minerals, the sector is, comparatively speaking, at the cultivation stage and whilst government rhetoric provides much needed clarity, funding will need to speak louder than words.

We can expect to hear more from both main parties ahead of the next general election. Investors should ready themselves for a government delivery plan in the coming months which will provide further detail and timeframes, as well as a national-scale assessment of critical minerals collating geoscientific data by March 2023 – crucial for spotting domestic investment opportunities. Beyond the next general election, critical minerals will be a priority for government whichever political party wins. Just as supply chain resilience is a particular concern for the current Conservative government, critical minerals will also be an indispensable ingredient of Labour’s flagship ‘Green New Deal’.

Share this content:

Return of the Online Safety Bill

The first month of Rishi Sunak’s premiership has been full of speculation about which of Boris Johnson’s 2019 manifesto pledges he will keep and which he will scrap.

One of the most contentious pieces of legislation coming down the track is the Online Safety Bill. It has been confirmed that the Culture Secretary, Michelle Donelan, is ready to present an amended version of the Bill to MPs after progress on it stalled due to recent political turmoil.

The Bill is intended to regulate social media platforms with the threat of criminal sanctions, including jail terms and fines, if firms do not regulate content. The Bill would assign Ofcom as the enforcement agency for a new “duty of care” that would be placed on platforms included in the scope of the legislation.

With the UK cementing a reputation as the capital of tech investment in Europe, implementing a regulatory framework that is fit for purpose is crucial. Regulatory stability is a core risk assessment tool that can determine the appetite for tech investment.

Coming out of Covid, countries around the world have faced economic downturns, and the tech sector has not been immune. Many firms have cut their online advertising budgets and now some of the largest tech businesses, including Amazon and Meta, are laying off staff.

Investors have also piled on the pressure to cut costs, accusing tech firms of being too slow to react to warnings of an economic slowdown. Now that tech companies are not growing at astronomical rates, investor scrutiny has swung to profitability.

Many investors, faced with inflation, and rising interest rates, are gravitating towards more traditional sectors like energy and consumer staples that deliver tangible goods, make a profit and reward shareholders. Staple stocks are often viewed positively by investors during times of economic uncertainty.

There are obvious headwinds in 2023 for tech companies, and with this backdrop of instability, it is even more important that the sector keeps up with regulatory changes.

Tech businesses have been calling for legal clarity during the period of extensive parliamentary scrutiny of the Online Safety Bill so that they can prepare for the new regulations. New laws contained in the Bill will be applied to companies that host user-generated content, such as images, videos, comments and messaging. The Government estimates around 25,000 search and user-to-user platforms will fall under the scope of the legislation.

With two-thirds of adults concerned about harmful content online, the Online Safety Bill presents an opportunity for investors looking to generate healthy returns in the UK tech space. Tighter regulation will drive out bad actors and grow market share for well-regulated platforms, and there will be a cooling-off period before enforcement activity is initiated, minimising the risk of hefty fines. An online safety regime that is workable and adopts the Government’s aims of addressing illegal content online would make the UK a safer environment for users, where tech companies will have clear responsibilities and greater accountability.

The proposed framework includes giving the regulator powers to compel tech companies to publish annual transparency reports on the content on their platforms. This will incentivise online-service providers to become best in class and allow investors to make informed choices.

Better intelligence sharing on evolving online harms will enable tech businesses to develop products that are safe and less exposed to risk. The Bill proposes a “Safety by Design” framework that’s intended to help companies include online safety features in new apps and platforms from the start of production.

Tech regulation is often presented as a problem child, but it could tackle many of the challenges the digital economy faces. Regulation brings certainty and is critical to value creation. Failing to keep on top of evolving technological trends and threats could have major implications for UK based tech businesses, particularly when other countries are bringing in their own regulations.

There is a fear that the Online Safety Bill could hurt small businesses by hitting them with additional costs, but any teething issues are expected to be temporary and in the long-term, it is anticipated the Bill will boost the competitiveness of smaller tech firms as it disproportionally impacts Big Tech. Curbing the influence of Big Tech will present new opportunities for private equity as it will spur smaller competitors and innovation in the digital market. If investors aspire to identify the future winners in the tech space, their first concern should be understanding the rules which will govern it.

Share this content:

Autumn Statement 2022: A double-edged sword for a nation in recession

Today’s Autumn Statement paints a mixed picture for the UK, with growth, investment and long-term ambition perching on a knife-edge as Hunt announced a swathe of real terms cuts to public services and immediate tax changes for millions.

The core measures – NHS funding, short-term windfall taxes, and efficiency reviews – all point to the tough decisions a Government facing down a recession has had to take and will undoubtedly reassure the markets. However, it will almost certainly come at a further cost to the Conservative Party’s poll ratings amid fresh criticism of their understanding of the real-world impact of their policies and the OBR forecasting the largest fall in real household disposable income on record.

For Labour, today’s statement presents an immediate opportunity to go toe-to-toe with the Conservatives on the long-term vision for the country, with many of the measures announced today not due to kick in until after the next general election.

It’s all about tax

As ever, tax – freezing it, cutting it and introducing it – is the dividing line between the Conservative and Labour parties, with Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves MP immediately jumping on Hunt’s plan to freeze the basic rate tax threshold until 2027-28.

Coupled with the decision to reduce the threshold for higher rate taxpayers by £25,000 a year, today’s tax announcements will prove to be an unpopular move for a Conservative Party which was re-elected in 2019, committed to a low tax economy. The Government urgently needs to repair its reputation with voters ahead of the next general election, but it is unlikely these measures will do so, as it provides an immediate opportunity for Labour to cement its poll lead by going on the offensive over rising taxes and falling living standards.

Cuts, cuts, cuts

For departments now facing reduced real term budgets and efficiency pressures, the door will be open to businesses, industry voices and campaign groups offering solutions which improve the outlook for key industries and make sound economic sense.

Whilst protecting existing budgets until the end of the spending review period in 2025 is a sign of the Government’s commitment to minimising the immediate impact of the economic downturn on public services, ultimately double-digit inflation putting immediate pressure on pay deals coupled with a 2.7% reduction in funding increases going forward, points to a difficult period for a public sector that is already under considerable strain. There are also clear plans for widespread public service reform in the not-too-distant future.

However, with many of these real term cuts backloaded to after the next general election, public spending will now be a difficult territory for both parties – and particularly the Conservatives – as they tussle over long term spending commitments with voters.

Schools, the NHS and social care are cushioned

Additional funding and a public display of gratitude for schools has taken many by surprise, following speculation that the education budget would be amongst those facing a squeeze. The £4.6 billion additional funding announced today will go some way in plugging the funding gap the sector has long highlighted.

Pots of funding were also made available to the NHS and social care sector, totaling £8 billion next year. However, this was followed by an immediate double-edged sword of efficiency measures and improved productivity requirements, with a politically astute decision to announce a review by former Labour Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt to commence next year.

Having put the NHS and schools top of the priority list at the start of his speech, this double-edged sword of increased funding and pressure for future reform of the system is a microcosm for the Tory agenda.

The green agenda

Despite economic pressures, Hunt again reiterated the Government’s commitment to the 2026 COP agreement to reduce emissions, positioning the Sunak administration as more pro-environment than the Truss administration. But the energy and investment measures today suggest there is little meat on the bones for the green agenda.

A short-term windfall tax on energy companies and a new 45% levy on electricity generators might go some way in plugging the energy cost bill and reducing pressure on households, but coupled with a new tax for EV drivers, industry is likely to argue that this Conservative Government just made investment more difficult.

Difficult decisions ahead for everyone?

Taking today’s mixed bag of good news and downbeat outlooks as a litmus test for the debate ahead, there are difficult decisions ahead for senior members of both the Conservative and Labour parties as they consider their future economic policies in the run up to the general election.

The tax and spending picture outlined in this Statement will form the backdrop to an election campaign in which household budgets, long term growth and access to services are a central feature.

There are likely u-turns ahead from the Conservative Party and strongly worded criticism from the Labour Party, but ultimately with the economic realities difficult to ignore. Both parties will be in listening mode and looking for input on reform in regulated industries, the public sector and skills and innovation in order to build a blueprint for prosperity.

Share this content:

Financing the future of Net Zero

Earlier this week I was delighted to attend UKSIF’s Autumn Conference, where speakers from across the financial services sector discussed key topics such as the impact of the political environment on the green agenda (spoiler – it’s big); recent changes in the regulatory landscape; and the critical role of biodiversity. Green Party MP for Brighton, Pavilion, Caroline Lucas also took centre stage to provide a no-holds barred view on the “fundamental mismanagement” of the economy and what we need to turn this ship around and hit our Net Zero ambitions.

The discussions were wide-ranging and incredibly thought-provoking, but my top take-aways around how we are going to reach Net Zero were:

1. The UK needs a robust regulatory framework

Regulation, clearly designed for Net Zero and nature, which provides the right signals to finance to invest, will unleash capital where it’s needed most. If people can trust that Government regulations are here to stay, it will incentivise huge investment in sustainability – enabling the UK to re-position itself as a global climate leader and simultaneously help to solve the climate crisis. Essentially, Government support and signalling is our Golden Ticket to a sustainable future (Rishi, please take note).

2. Biodiversity isn’t just a “nice to have”

As Caroline Lucas so aptly put it, “nature fundamentally underpins human wellbeing.” If we continue to eradicate biodiversity, all other climate goals will be missed. While the UK has signed up to the 10 Point Plan to bridge the global nature finance gap, we still have some way to go to successfully funnel finance into this crucial area. The good news here is that the data around biodiversity is becoming increasingly accessible and with COP15 (the biodiversity COP) kicking off in less than a month – action is going in the right direction.

3. Consumer education is critical

Industry conversations around taxonomies (of which there are 30, globally), ESG transaction flow and ensuring a Just Transition are, of course, essential. However, what we need to remember is how to communicate this to the end investor – the general public. So much of what needs to be done comes down to behaviour change – with investors voting with their feet, asking probing questions of their fund managers and making sustainability part of the growth agenda. Consumer understanding and awareness around what Net Zero really means is low and, as WA’s recent research highlighted, confusion reigns when consumers are asked what they are actually investing in.

While it’s brilliant to hear the financial industry unite in its desire to hit Net Zero and show that solutions really are at hand, let’s not forget that we need to bring the main audience – the end consumer – along with us. Clear communication and time spent educating the public on what the industry is doing, and why, has a crucial role to play in achieving our sustainability goals and delivering a future to be proud of.

Share this content:

The UK and India Trade Agreement: Bottom’s up!

Having conceded that a trade deal with the US is unlikely to materialise while Biden remains in the White House, the government has shifted its focus to striking deals with other big economies at speed before the next election. As Trade Minister in the Truss government, Kemi Badenoch, had reportedly been told that her priority was to secure a free trade agreement with India in time for Diwali (24 October), the deadline set by India’s Modi and Truss’ predecessor, Boris Johnson. The deadline has passed without any deal being finalised.

Investors are, however, particularly optimistic about what a trade deal with India could mean for the Scotch whisky industry, which has dominated the negotiations so far. No other nation drinks as much whisky as India but thanks to tariffs of 150% on imported liquor, Scotch whisky currently accounts for just 2% of the market. The impending deal ought to be music to the ears of Scotland’s world-famous industry and is looking especially rosy for beverage company Diageo plc, which owns over 200 drinks brands with sales in over 180 countries, including the world’s bestselling Scotch whisky brand Johnnie Walker. If the rumours are true that the UK is on the cusp of securing a cut to India’s steep tariff on imports, Citigroup has predicted that Scotch sales could rise by as much as US$ 2.9 billion.

But there’s a catch.

India may well be prepared to slash the federal whisky tariff, but Delhi’s negotiators are using it as leverage to get what they want out of the deal. In the latest plot twist, India threatened to apply $247 million of retaliatory tariffs on Scotch and other industries if Britain refuses to abandon controversial safeguards, it put in place to protect its domestic steel industry. This approach is not dissimilar to the one India took with the US – also over steel.

Publicly, the UK’s trade department says it will “only sign when we have a deal that meets the UK’s interests.” Though, privately, insiders are reportedly acknowledging India’s “dirty tactics” to push the UK into a deal that is expected to focus on eliminating goods tariffs.

Meanwhile, the UK’s services sector is having doubts that the trade deal will benefit British firms at all. In August, several business associations, including representatives from the financial services, pharmaceutical, tech and chemical industries, voiced their concerns about the speed of the talks and what could meaningfully be agreed in the time. Though we do make a lot of whisky, the UK remains overwhelmingly a service-based economy and securing strong protections for intellectual property rights and the free flow of data between the two counties were key objectives for the deal set out in the UK’s strategic approach for talks. Yet data looks to be a major roadblock to landing a deal that secures big wins for the UK’s services giants. David Henig, director of UK trade policy at the European Centre for International Political Economy, has concluded that the deal is set to be “predominantly a fairly narrow set of tariff reductions rather than anything significant that will change the cost of doing business in India for UK companies.”

The services sector has made a direct plea to the Indian government via the UK India Business Council to unravel the bureaucratic red tape that is regularly prohibitive for investors looking to set up or expand operations in India. The Council has urged India to take a broader view of priority sector lending norms for foreign banks operating in India and sought equitable tax treatment, while also flagging the increase in counterfeit product sales through e-commerce platforms as a deterrent for intellectual property owners. Even with tariff cuts on Scotch, the whisky industry has warned that a host of bureaucratic barriers will prevent the reduction from being worthwhile. Whether the Indian government takes heed, either as part of or alongside the trade agreement, is currently unclear.

The negotiations are also the source of some tension within the government. The Indian government is pushing for a significant liberalisation of visa routes for workers and students as part of the trade deal. Although some senior cabinet members may be supportive of relaxing immigration rules to help businesses fill vacancies, Badenoch (alongside Home Secretary Suella Braverman) are previously understood to have opposed proposals for a ‘freedom of movement’ agreement. How this plays out over the next few weeks is uncertain but the latest iteration of Conservative government is likely to be tentative about pushing through anything too unpopular with voters.

The Queen’s death has also added an unexpected dimension to the trade negotiations, with the debate about the Koh-i-noor diamond reignited. Shortly after her death was announced, ‘Kohinoor’ started trending on Twitter in India. The diamond, one of 2,800 stones set in the crown made for the Queen Mother which Camilla is set to wear at King Charles’ coronation, is the 105-carat oval-shaped brilliant proverbial jewel in the crown. Believed to be mined in modern-day Andhra Pradesh between the 12th and 14th centuries, the earliest record of its possession puts it in the hands of the Mughals in the 16th century. The East India Company acquired the stone in the late 1840s from 10-year-old Maharajah Dunjeep Singh. The company presented it to Queen Victoria and it was placed in the Queen Mother’s crown in 1937. The Koh-i-noor has been among the British crown jewels ever since, but governments in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India have all laid claim to the diamond.

In 2016, the diamond was at the centre of a court battle after an NGO filed a petition asking the court to direct the Indian government to secure its return to India. At the time the solicitor-general, representing India’s government, said the diamond was a gift to the East India Company and it was “neither stolen nor forcibly taken.” However, the government later U-turned and said it would make all possible efforts to return the diamond to India amicably.

It is not publicly known if, or to what extent, the diamond has formed part of the trade negotiations. The strength of feeling among the people of India about the cultural significance of the diamond, combined with the UK’s weakening position in negotiations, have led many historians and political commentators to postulate that it might be India’s final trump card to play.

If you would like to discuss the India trade deal in more detail, please contact our policy specialist Thea Southwell Reeves on theasouthwellreeves@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

Cabinet reshuffle: who’s who?

Rishi Sunak has reshuffled his Cabinet, looking to restructure government round his key priorities.

With little positive movement in the polls and his government hit by a series of distractions in recent weeks, one hundred days in, this is Rishi Sunak’s attempt to regain momentum and refocus government on his core aims.

The Prime Minister has remodelled government to reflect the areas he wants to make progress on in the next 18 months. Taking over as Prime Minister at a time of economic crisis, making radical machinery of government changes before steadying the ship would have been difficult. He has long articulated his belief that the UK is lagging behind on science, innovation and technology, reflected in what is in effect intended as a new ‘department for growth’. On energy – the policy area that dominated BEIS – it has been clear for some time that the government’s focus is on energy security and resilience.

These reforms – and the ministerial appointments that accompany them – might theoretically be the right thing to do but the big question for the Prime Minister is whether they improve his political standing heading into the crucial election period. Major departmental and personnel changes take time and focus to bed in. They’ll be judged on whether they help meet the ‘five priorities’ the Prime Minister has set out, including driving economic growth.

This reshuffle provides an opportunity for businesses: making their case against these core priorities and helping the government meet their urgent need to show positive news and progress on delivery in these areas. New departments – and the ministers and advisers in them – will look for high impact, well-packaged ideas that align with government (and voter) priorities and create early wins.

To download the new cabinet chart, click here.

Share this content:

Who’s in charge of resetting Government policy?

Share this content:

‘The Grown Ups are back in charge’: Analysis of Post-Truss, and Rishi Sunak’s new Government

Last week it looked like Liz Truss’ legacy might not just be the smouldering remnants of the oldest democratic party in the world, but its possible extinction altogether.

Now, it seems her parting act has been something rather extraordinary – and for once, in a good way; the Conservatives now look, and feel, like they are in a more sane and unified place than for quite some time. No one is pretending the polls predicting almost total wipeout aren’t problematic, but the acute desperation that had set in amongst many Tories during the Truss tenure has dissipated, almost overnight.

Having sailed so close to disaster last weekend and the mad flirtation of a Boris return, it was almost as if by Monday afternoon the Conservatives realized they needed to re-find their collective marbles, sharpish. Their roar of approval as Rishi Sunak got to his feet at PMQs yesterday was in stark contrast to the awful, deathly, sickly silence of Truss’ later appearances.

As a first run-out, PMQs was quite spicy, with Sir Keir Starmer going straight on the attack over non-doms and the reappointment of Suella Braverman as Home Secretary, despite her having resigned over a security issue days earlier (watchers of the Westminster runes are suggesting ‘she will blow herself up sooner rather than later’). An occasional slight twitch of the PM’s right leg might have denoted some nerves, however, there was nothing here to cause him undue bother and the performance had his trademark polish.

So, to yesterday afternoon, back to building his team. Probably the biggest surprise of the Cabinet appointments on Tuesday was Penny Mordaunt remaining in the junior post of Leader of the House; she will have expected more – unless this is just a ‘holding pattern’ in expectation of Ben Wallace’s resignation from the Ministry of Defence if he doesn’t get the Truss-promised three per cent of GDP defence spending (allowing him to resign ‘on principle’, releasing him to go after the head of NATO job, which is what he really wants).

Michael Gove regaining his previous empire puts ‘Levelling Up’ right back up the agenda. We can expect Grant Shapps to bring his usual enthusiasm to BEIS and the role gives him ample opportunity to continue his energetic broadcast appearances. Mark Harper’s return to Government in the DfT is good news; he’s universally known as a safe pair of hands and as being ‘all over the detail’. Steve Barclay’s reappearance at health means he knows what to expect, but that doesn’t make the scale of the challenge ahead any less daunting, compounded (as everywhere) by spiralling inflation.

Across the board, there is a real desire to get back to some kind of ‘business as usual’ after this summer and autumn of psychodrama, and real recognition of the need to deliver on a domestic agenda, if the Conservative Party is to claw itself back out of the electoral oubliette in which it’s managed to land itself.

Sunak’s backroom team is also extremely important – not least if they are to swerve the huge structural weakness in Truss’ team; that she didn’t have anyone who understood economic and fiscal policy. Sunak himself, and Liam Booth-Smith, his Chief of Staff, think in Excel – so that issue is at least overcome. As a clear sign of how differently this incarnation of Government is viewed by the markets, they remained overall stable when it was announced the new Autumn Statement would be delayed by three weeks, taking place in November. Imagine what would have tanked if Truss had tried to pull that one off?

Truss’ own Chief of Staff Mark Fulbrook (of Sunday Times ‘under investigation by the FBI’ headline fame) still seems intent on demonstrating real ill-judgement. His suggestion that Truss should reward her N10 team in a resignation honours list has not gone down well. That’s without going so far as to question whether those short-lived advisers would even really want it. Talking to them in the aftermath, ‘bruised’ is the word that comes up time and again. One noticeably leaner advisor darkly joked his smaller waistline was down to ‘the Liz Truss stress diet’.

There is a largely prevailing sense of being embarrassed by having been involved in any of it, and a desire to quickly leave the whole sorry period behind them.

The Government is crossing its fingers and toes, hoping they can do the same with the last three months in the public’s mind.

Share this content:

WA Communications roundtable with Rob Kettell

On Thursday 6 October, WA Communications convened a roundtable discussion between Rob Kettell, Director of Commercial Medicines Negotiation and Complex Transactions at NHS England, and representatives from leading pharmaceutical companies.

The session explored NHS England’s Commercial Medicines Directorate (CMD) priorities, and how companies can work in partnership with the NHS to ensure timely access to medicines for patients.

The session was timely, given the recent and further pending changes in the leadership team within the CMD, the recent launch of the innovative medicines fund (IMF), and ahead of discussions about a successor to the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access (VPAS) that runs to the end of 2023.

To start, Rob outlined his three priorities:

Access: Continuing to secure rapid patient access to new treatments
Uptake: Ensuring there is consistency in the use of innovative treatments that are provided on the NHS across the country.
Value: Delivering value for taxpayers by striking commercial deals for new medicines that are clinically led and commercially driven, at cost effective prices

A wide-ranging discussion followed. We outline five key takeaways below:

Better, earlier dialogue between the NHS, NICE and companies has helped ensure expanded and accelerated access to innovative treatments, and this can continue to develop in the future

The growth of the commercial medicines team and with it the evolution of the commercial capabilities within NHS England has allowed for earlier and greater engagement with industry. Whereas previously, dialogue between NHS England, NICE and companies could be inconsistent and limited, there are now clear and established routes for early and ongoing communication – including a formal triage function in the CMD. This has benefited both sides, and is an approach that NHS England is keen to continue to develop.

As well as supporting new approaches to individual negotiations, it has also led to more effective horizon scanning which, in turn, has helped the CMD to work with NHS colleagues to better plan for new types of medicines, or medicines in specific disease areas, which may be ready to be appraised at the same time. For example, Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) have been earmarked as a potential priority area for the coming years, building on the NHS’ track record as a leader in Europe for cell and gene therapies

It was acknowledged that this stronger approach to partnership working has been essential in overcoming some of the more difficult recent access challenges. Securing patient access to immuno-oncology treatments and combination therapies are clear examples of cracking ‘unsolvable’ challenges when all parties work together in partnership to ensure rapid access.

NHS England is now keen to work with companies to explore how to signal areas where there is demand for innovation from the system. This can give further clarity to industry on where focus may lie in the future.

A focus on primary care to meet population health needs

Rapid innovation in drug development over the last ten years has led to huge breakthroughs for conditions with high unmet need like cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy. However, the focus on innovations like gene therapies and precision medicines, which are prescribed and administered in hospital settings, has not been matched by the same focus on innovation in the primary care setting, which is needed to achieve the population health ambitions of the NHS Long Term Plan.

There is now a real appetite to explore how innovative treatments that have an impact on a wider, population-based level, in areas like as cardiovascular disease, can be brought into the system.

This may require new approaches to align value and affordability among very large patient populations. There is appetite for further exploration of how industry and NHS England can work together to find access routes for more to patients in primary care – to have the most significant impact.

The CMD is keen to partner with companies to boost uptake, but must be selective

It was acknowledged that progress on boosting the uptake of new medicines has been mixed. There have been some big successes, particularly on treatments that have benefited from funding through the Cancer Drugs Fund, but also areas where potential uptake has not been realised, or has been slower than it could have been.

NHS England – including the CMD – has finite resource, and current fiscal pressures mean there is more focus than ever on achieving value. It must therefore focus this resource towards areas which are likely to have the biggest impact. This will inevitably require a degree of prioritisation on where to focus attention.

As an example, this might include working more closely with companies on targeted uptake strategies whose treatments address longstanding health inequalities, for example, as aligned with the NHS’ health inequalities CORE20PLUS5 strategy.

The CMD is driven by the need to provide value to the taxpayer across all activity

There is recognition that the pricing and revenue environment in the UK is tighter than some other countries. From an NHS perspective, this provides value to the taxpayer and supports the sustainability of the NHS – while companies benefit from the NHS model where access to more than 55 million people can follow a single successful negotiation.

The NHS commercial framework for new medicines points to the complex problems that the CMD is often trying to solve by agreeing ground-breaking and world-first deals, for example the recently announced antimicrobial subscription model.

There is clearly risk involved in facilitating complex deals that go beyond a simple discount to reach a cost effective price with NICE. Therefore, more value needs to be derived from them, ideally creating a ‘win-win’ for companies, the NHS and the taxpayer.

Value is always expected to be at the cornerstone of all decisions made and can often be generated by treatments sitting at, or below, the bottom end of the NICE QALY cost-effective range. This is the value NHS England expects going into a complex negotiation.

Making the UK an attractive place to launch medicines and bring in research and development investment is a continued area of focus

In recent years, the Life Sciences Vision and the UK’s Industrial Strategy have set-out ambitions to make the UK an attractive location for global pharmaceutical companies to invest in.

Maintaining and building on the opportunities of the UK’s strong skills and science base, regulatory regime, single payer system and high levels of clinical trial activity remain key features in the government’s ambitions for global life sciences leadership.

There is clearly appetite on all sides for the pharmaceutical sector to be a key industry to help deliver the government’s economic agenda. However, industry representatives expressed their views that life sciences investment in the UK could be limited due to the rigorous focus on securing value as outlined above.

While recognising the need for value, a more holistic approach to the life sciences operating environment is becoming increasingly important for industry. There are risks to these growth ambitions if industry feels squeezed on all sides. An elevated – more unified recognition of industry’s contribution would enable UK leadership teams to make a stronger case internally for further investment in the future.

In summary:

Utilise NHS England’s CMD triage function and the Office for Market Access to support with early dialogue and horizon scanning
NHS England would welcome ideas and support to more effectively signal demand to the sector in specific disease areas
Ensure resources are used effectively by providing detailed information and positions to NICE at pre-committee stage
The NHS is looking to tackle the population health challenges set out in the NHS Long Term Plan, including by utilising greater innovation in primary care
Medicines that offer holistic benefits, such as addressing longstanding health inequalities, are more likely to be considered for a bespoke NHS arrangement to drive faster and comprehensive uptake

About WA Communications

If you would like to discuss how to best work in partnership with the NHS, contact Lloyd Tingley at lloydtingley@wacomms.co.uk.

Share this content:

Back from the brink? (And a brink it was.)

As Conference got going on Sunday, one MP reflected in expectation of the PM’s speech later in the week that “The best she can do is just drone on for an hour”.

Liz Truss did an awful lot better than that in her speech on Wednesday. After what had been a torrid few days up in Birmingham, it looks like she has possibly just about clawed things back from the brink – though exactly how much breathing space it has really brought her very much remains to be seen. It is unlikely it will have done enough to completely reset where the Conservative Party currently finds itself – which, for the avoidance of all doubt, is certainly not in a happy place – whilst the polls remain so completely dire.

However, the mood in the hall as she delivered her closing note yesterday to CPC22 was positive, buoyant even, and there was plenty of enthusiastic clapping during her speech. She had an incredibly tricky three-fold task to pull off: reuniting warring Tories who are at sixes and sevens over the 45p tax U-turn and benefits uprating; convincing the public the Government is on their side, and steadying the markets.

It’s the economy, stupid

To work backwards through the three – that last one she has seemingly pulled off. The overall economic backdrop remains pretty grim. ONS figures put growth at 0.2% (we are mercifully not in recession – yet), inflation is running at 9.9% and the Bank of England interest rate is 2.25%. But the pound is – at the time of writing – remaining somewhat steady at around $1.13. Those markets received this speech an awful lot better than they did the ‘mini-Budget’ a couple of weeks ago. The clearest possible message was sent to them as the PM unequivocally committed to the Bank of England’s independence in setting interest rates, and that she and the Chancellor would continue to work together ‘in lockstep’.

To some degree it is her own fault that there has been so much speculation over the last few days that Kwarsi Kwarteng would have to ‘fall on his sword’ – she after all had told broadcaster Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday that scrapping the 45p was a ‘decision the Chancellor made’. He is safe for now, but over the last few days has certainly shown little of the ebullience that is his leitmotif, and it will be indicative to see how quickly it returns.

His own keynote speech on Monday was extremely flat and without any announcements. He spoke again, as the PM did in her speech, of the commitment to fiscal responsibility and running a tight ship. But we don’t as yet have any more detail as to how and where more paring in public spending might land. The ‘lean state’ that Truss spoke of yesterday arguably already looks pretty skinny, and former Civil Service colleagues in various departments are extremely nervous about the ‘efficiency savings’ they are expecting to be asked to make.

In terms of total managed expenditure, the three big beasts are the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Health and Social Care and the Department for Education. Looked at in the round, the only real place to go for potential ‘savings’ is DWP (of which more later). Any savings from other departments – a few hundred million here, a few hundred million there – will not be sufficient to cover what the Government’s mini-Budget set out, but will still be painful.

‘We have got your back’

There were some very solidly traditional Conservative messages in the PM’s speech: the Party will always be one of low taxes; when the state plays too big a role, people feel smaller; backing business to the hilt; hard work must be rewarded and our children given a better future; our greatest days lie ahead. It just about avoided slipping into pure sloganism bingo. There was nothing here to scare the horses, and it will have been of reassurance to the Party faithful, and the Government will hope, to the wider public.

Because it’s otherwise been an oddly policy-lite Conference – with the announcements that have been made being of a slightly motley nature, and largely in any case overshadowed by negative headlines about internecine warfare.

There was some ‘red meat’ stuff about expanding tagging for offenders and maintaining protecting single sex spaces in prisons – and the proposed curbs on public sector strikes have gone down well with the faithful and right-of-centre/middle ground media. Expanding the small business threshold from 250 to 500 employees should help cut the costs of regulation for nearly 40,000 businesses – though it is slightly less clear what replacing the existing GDPR regime with a British data protection scheme might yet achieve.

Notable by absence was anything of great note in the energy/environment space. A commitment to delivering a ‘world-leading first fusion energy programme’ by building a prototype fusion power plant by 2040 felt quite small-fry, in the scheme of things. There was also an announcement about increasing the Environment Agency’s maximum fines for water companies that illegally release wastewater and sewage from £250,000 to £250 million – but very little mention of Net Zero.

It should be noted, also, that the Government’s three priorities have changed. They used to be growth, energy bills and the NHS. They are now ‘GROWTH GROWTH GROWTH’ – though the Health Secretary and Deputy PM Thérèse Coffey did come in for a good dollop of praise from the PM, and a reiteration of the commitment to two-week GP waiting times. There has also remained throughout Conference a (verbal at least) commitment to the Levelling-Up agenda.

Keeping the show on the road

Many MPs just didn’t bother to go to Conference, and some of those that did (and are certainly not usually of the rambunctious variety) were a mixture of bitterness, anger and something akin to resignation (“it’s fatal, the damage has been done”).

These are the same folk who will be returning to Parliament on Monday – and will be needed to support the PM’s agenda as it further takes shape. If planning reform – as the PM yesterday intimated – is to be one of the first big ticket items, the whips are going to have their work cut out. On that front, enforcing Party discipline seems rather much focused on the ‘stick’ side of things at present. If a few carrots don’t materialize, things are going to fall apart very quickly.

Even leaving aside the backbenchers (it was only ever a matter of time before big beasts Gove and Shapps went rogue) the fact Cabinet at this point seems to be only somewhat loosely keeping things together is extremely problematic.

Admittedly the PM was the one who drove a coach and horses through the notion of collective responsibility when she let drop that Cabinet hadn’t discussed the 45p rate. But even so, to have a serving Cabinet Minister in the form of Penny Mordaunt apparently pre-rebelling over the benefits reform (and whether uprating is pegged to wages or inflation – the former amounting to a cut in real terms) before any decision has been announced is quite something.

The latest YouGov polling puts Truss at minus 59 approval rating (Boris’ at the end was minus 53). So, the Conservatives have three options. One: leave her there and hope things get ‘better’. Two: somehow engineer a coronation replacement and cross fingers that the country wears its fifth PM in six years. Three: throw it all up in the air, call a General Election, force Labour to take control and deal with the world as it is, with the gamble of it ensuring they only serve one term.

Options two and three do as yet still feel drastic, but the Conservative Party does somewhat, at times, have the propensity to shoot itself in face rather than the foot.

Conference might be over, but the PM’s problems certainly have not gone away.

Share this content:

The Celebrity Touch: What does it mean for Private Equity?

The announcement that Kim Kardashian is setting up a private equity firm has injected some celebrity magic into the normally sedate world of alternative investments. Kardashian, best known for her role in the reality TV show ‘Keeping up with the Kardashians’, is branching out into the investment industry with business partner, Jay Sammons, formerly of The Carlyle Group.

Kardashian’s new company, SKKY, is set to focus on sectors which the TV and social media star knows well: consumer products, consumer media and luxury. Traditionalists who say it will never work should look closer. With a reported net worth of over $1 billion, Kardashian is nothing if not a savvy businesswoman.

Skims, a clothing company which Kardashian founded in 2019, was valued at $3.2 billion in January 2022. Kardashian also sold a 20% stake in her cosmetic brand, KKW, to Coty for $200 million last year. Kardashian, who boasts 319 million followers on Instagram, knows how to leverage her celebrity for financial returns.

The experience of her new business partner, Jay Sammons, will of course help. Sammons was previously Head of Global Consumer, Media and Retail at Carlyle. He was also the driving force behind Carlyle’s investments in Beats Electronics, Vogue International and Ithaca Holdings. Sammons, in other words, has previous. Combined with Kardashian’s global influence, an investment from SKKY could well support portfolio companies’ sales and see stronger market valuations.

But it’s not as if Kardashian is the first celebrity to go down this route. Others have already started down the same road. Recently retired tennis superstar, Serena Williams, entered the alternative investment space in 2014. Her business, Serena Ventures, aims to invest in founders ‘whose perspectives and innovations level the playing field for women and people of colour’. Rapper Jay-Z founded Marcy Venture Partners focusing on ‘consumer and culture with an emphasis on positive impact’. Fellow music artist Snoop Dog has started Casa Verde Capital.

What does this celebrity trend mean for sector? Are there any political risks?

Potentially.

Stateside, President Biden already has private equity in his sights. Concerns about oligopolies and private equity buying swathes of American businesses are causing disquiet among policymakers across the pond. Celebrity involvement in private equity will only draw further attention to a sector that political heavyweights already feel is underregulated.

Whilst private equity involvement in a range of sectors in the UK periodically makes headlines, the government is still in a different regulatory place to policy makers across the Atlantic. Then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Health and Social Care, Lord Kamall, said last year that ‘private equity plays a role in many companies in turning them around and retaining jobs.’ Under the new Truss government, which is expected to be less interventionist from a regulatory perspective than its predecessors, we can expect this trend to continue.

The Government has been clear that there are established processes for considering public interest concerns if necessary under the Enterprise Act 2002 and the National Security and Investment Act 2021. In an economic and energy crisis, there is little appetite in government to focus attention on the private equity sector.

Yet the risk for private equity investors in the UK is perhaps more acute than in the US. Celebrity involvement in UK private equity, should this become more widespread, has the potential to raise the profile of a sector that has largely managed to stay off the government’s radar.

Share this content:

The future of HIV/AIDs in the UK – ending HIV transmission for everyone, everywhere.

Undoubtedly, progress toward ending HIV is a major twentieth-century success story. Within our lifetimes, HIV has gone from a life-ending condition to being completely treatable and non-transmissible. It is a fact that a person living with HIV today who is on effective treatment can’t pass it on.

These significant advances in treatment mean that the vision of ending HIV transmission has become tangible. The UK has an opportunity to be a world leader in this space, and the government is committed to being the first country in the world to achieve zero new HIV infections, AIDS and HIV-related deaths in England by 2030. The current political turmoil and the new cabinet’s lack of appetite for prevention do not seem to have tainted a commitment to the effective implementation of the HIV Action Plan.

So where are we now?

HIV prevention is working. For the second year in a row, England met its 95:95:95 HIV treatment targets. The number of people diagnosed has fallen by 35% from 2014 – 2019, particularly among gay and bisexual men. In 2019 an estimated 94% of people living with HIV had been diagnosed, 98% of those diagnosed were on treatment, and 97% of those on treatment had an undetectable viral load – meaning they cannot pass on the infection.

Few countries can show this level of success but as we approach eliminating HIV transmission, we need to ensure that the most vulnerable do not fall through the gaps.

Last week I attended the 5^th biannual National HIV Prevention conference. It was the first time so many health professionals, community experts, and researchers working in HIV prevention in the UK have met face to face since the pandemic.

There was palpable enthusiasm to maintain momentum and go further, faster and harder than ever before. And rightly so. Lives depend on this work. Professor Kevin Fenton asked attendees to ‘celebrate and recommit’ and stated that progress on the HIV Action Plan has been necessary but insufficient to end HIV transmissions in a UK context.

As the epidemiology of the virus evolves, what is the future of the fight against HIV?

Solely focusing on diagnosis as a measure of progress does not tell the whole story. Retention of people in care is key to managing HIV transmission. UKHSA estimates that between 15,000 and 20,000 people are living with transmissible levels of the virus in England. Delving into this a bit further reveals that only 24% of these people are undiagnosed, and over 7,000 people living with HIV in the UK have not been retained in care (lost to follow-up).

This problem, it seems, is much larger than was previously recognised. Lost to follow-up is now replacing those still undiagnosed in driving HIV morbidity and mortality.

Patients lost to follow-up are critically immunosuppressed, resulting in immense human tragedy. Speakers at the conference shared first-hand accounts of people presenting at Kings College Hospital with advanced AIDS, despite being aware of their status. This issue disproportionately affects women of black ethnicity from areas of social deprivation. As such, it represents a significant health inequality.

But in a country with universal health coverage free at the point of access, the question surely must be – why?

Reasons will differ on a case by case basis but can be broadly broken down into three key areas:

Stigma kills. It prevents people from getting tested and accessing treatment because they are afraid. It interacts with homophobia, racism and transphobia and prevents people from meeting their need to thrive. It means that patients are treated differently by health care providers once their HIV status becomes known. All of these factors prevent access to care.
The current cost of living crisis means that for some, attending appointments is simply unaffordable. Rocketing childcare and transport costs and the rise of zero-hours contracts coinciding with a huge NHS backlog has meant that logistically retention in care is becoming more difficult to manage.
Some patients are more complex than others. People are individuals with chaotic lives and can experience mental health, mobility or drug and alcohol issues further complicating the matter. There is no baseline measure in place for treating complex HIV patients. The care you receive depends on the training of your physician.

So what can be done?

It’s about people and partnerships. Putting patients at the centre and working together to adopt a proactive approach to prevent people from falling out of care. Every part of the system has a responsibility to find solutions that work. Innovations in diagnosis (oral swabs) and treatment (long-acting injectables), or personalized care, such as offering flexible appointments at alternative venues and providing food and travel vouchers all have a role to play. The voluntary sector are well placed to provide comprehensive support in order ot allow clinicians to focus on the clinical aspects of care.

One thing is certain – offering patients a full range of choices is central to success.

Share this content:

Brave new world: Farming solar

Sitting in the audience at a recent agri-tech conference, listening intently to a panel of farmers discussing the future of farming, I was struck by how much of the conversation was centered not on harvest, yields or livestock, but instead on photovoltaic power stations i.e., solar farms.

The Fenland farmers, sitting on acres of expansive flat fields, boasted that photovoltaics left them without hefty energy bills in a cost-of-living crisis. The vertical farmers, growing herbs and salads in soilless conditions inside vast warehouses, insisted that photovoltaics reduce the carbon footprint of their otherwise eye-wateringly energy-intensive manifestation of farming. The eco farmers, down-sizing their productions to reduce the intensity with which they farm their land, claimed that diversifying is more sustainable for them and for the environment. “I truly believe,” one farmer told the conference, “that solar is the future of farming.”

There are clearly some advantages to solar farming agricultural land. It can provide, or contribute to, the farm’s energy usage, which is not to be sniffed at during an energy crisis. Any surplus energy generated can be sold back to the grid, generating crucial revenue for an industry where fewer than half of all farmers make any profit. Solar panels generate consistent yields and can be a more reliable source of income than crops or horticulture, which are increasingly affected by the changing climate and volatile weather conditions. And there is truth to the sustainability argument that reducing intensive cultivation increases future performance.

Farmers argue that they can also generate income by using the land simultaneously, commonly referred to as ‘agrivoltaics’. Sheep can graze underneath solar panels and free-range chickens can roam. Less sun hungry crops can be planted below and among raised photovoltaic panels and some fruit and vegetables can be grown. The lanes in between rows of panels can be used to increase biodiversity by planting pollinator habitat and native vegetation, providing ecosystem services. It sounds idyllic.

I found myself wondering if, given this proclamation for the future, any of them were concerned about the recent appointment of Liz Truss as Prime Minister. The answer was no. But perhaps they should be.

The expansion of solar power emerged as a campaign issue for the final two candidates in the Conservative Party leadership race. Both Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak warned of solar panels filling the UK’s highest quality farmland, joining a chorus of fellow Conservative MPs who have recently described solar projects as perils for rural communities and food supply. Truss told one hustings event “Our fields should be filled [with] our fantastic produce…[they] shouldn’t be full of solar panels, and I will change the rules.”

This idea is not new. For months, backbench Conservative MPs have been speaking out against new ground-mounted solar power projects, often citing local campaigns against projects in their constituencies. Among them is Matt Hancock, a former energy minister, who stood with local campaigners to protest a 2,500-acre solar farm in his constituency.

The government’s energy security strategy, published in April, contained various measures to deal with the UK’s energy crisis and achieve its Net-Zero targets. This included a pledge to increase solar power capacity up to five times by 2035. However, it also included language to appease those sceptical about ground-mounted solar, pledging to “consult on amending planning rules to strengthen policy in favour of development on non-protected land, while ensuring communities continue to have a say and environmental protections remain in place.”

Politics is not the only challenge for farmers to be aware of. Obtaining a sensible cost and timeframe for the connection of a newly constructed solar farm to the National Grid can derail a project. Some estimates place the earliest connection availability for new projects at 2028-2030. Reports of solar farms sitting unused because there isn’t capacity in the grid to transmit the electricity are not uncommon, according to the National Famers’ Union. Where capacity exists, the costs can be prohibitive.

Solar photovoltaics offer a versatile and scalable solution that warrants serious thought as part of the agriculture industry’s ambitions to reach Net Zero. However, solar farms are being refused planning permission in Great Britain at the highest rate in five years and proposals that would have cut £100m off annual electricity bills have been turned down in the past 18 months. Of the 27 proposals declined between 2019 and 2022, 19 are in Conservative constituencies, which are typically in the rural shires of the country. So clearly, the politics matters, and farmers looking to enter the brave new world of solar farming would be wise to pay attention.

Share this content:

‘Where’ve yer bin?’ – how Truss lost the battle for local media

When your first appearance on the media since a major economic intervention causes you to tank in the polls and face mutiny from your own MPs, then it is probably safe to assume it hasn’t gone well.

Despite many Truss detractors claiming that this was a move of arrogance – underestimating the journalistic prowess of local hacks – there was more strategic thinking at play by the Truss camp. The premise made sense when faced with a ‘Westminster Bubble’ rebellion and days before Tory conference – bypass the bubble and get straight to the people that matter – the voters.

However, if ever there was an example of a well thought through comms strategy with poor delivery, this was it. With a little more preparation, maybe some of the disasters could have been averted.

So what went wrong?

Local journalists are connected to the concerns of their local readers or listeners in a way that national journalists never can be. While the national news outlets are the scene setters of the national mood, the regional reporters are the ones with the ability to get under the skin of the real-life impact on voters. Truss simply wasn’t prepared for the local-level questions fired at her by, for example, BBC Radio Lancashire. A by-election due there soon will be dominated by fracking – banned at present but which Truss wants to allow, but only with ‘local consent.’ Presenter Graham Liver leapt on this, asking ‘what does local consent look like?’ before pointing out that the local MP, Mark Menzies was anti-fracking. Similarly, on BBC Leeds she was asked for her thoughts about the Leeds bus services. Being able to answer these kinds of a local-level questions is a must for anyone going up against regional press – Truss simply wasn’t over the detail.

With the Prime Minister only having a few seconds between each interview – and within such a short time-frame – she was on the back foot from the start. Had she appeared on one of the flagship BBC Programs, the scope for longer, more in-depth questioning would have been greater, but the fight would have been fairer. The presenter and their producers would have worked up questions in advance; Truss’ media SpAds would be working from the opposite side, anticipating the obvious questions and nailing down their defensive messages.

The reality of the situation was far from ideal for Truss – whilst she was bounced from one interview to another, the producers at each of the radio stations were able to revise questions in real time, pointing out flaws on answers given only minutes or even seconds before. With her final interview kicking off on BBC Radio Stoke at 8:52am, this gave the Stoke presenters nearly an hour of prep time where Truss wouldn’t have been able to consult her media advisors. Far from getting into any kind of ‘flow,’ the PM was left running around in circles and tying herself in knots.

The format of the regional programs didn’t just give journalists the upper hand on the questioning – it also created the perfect short sound-bites for digitally savvy national media, with the opening ‘where’ve yer bin’ question from BBC Leeds shared embedded into national articles far and wide. In what rapidly became a national media blood bath, even the pro-Truss Telegraph struggled to defend the performance, while the Independent led with a simple ‘Seven best local radio takedowns of Liz Truss as she fails to defend ‘disastrous’ mini-budget.’ In a world of clicks and shares, the articles practically wrote themselves.

While Truss isn’t renowned for having the media flair of Johnson or even Sunak’s smooth delivery, it was something she was widely reported to be working on, with her performance throughout the leadership contest getting markedly better. However, this interview round showed a Prime Minister still clearly uncomfortable in front of a microphone, and lacking Johnson’s flexibility and ability to pivot away from difficult questions.

The result was a stilted performance that, by the fourth round of questioning started to sound more like an actor rehearsing their lines than the bold, trailblazing leader of the Tory revolution that party members voted for.

Share this content:

Is Labour Back?

There is a clear change of mood within the Labour Party. This year’s Conference didn’t feel like a party still riven with the internal battles of recent years. Keir Starmer has complete control of the National Executive Committee and party machine, the ‘grownups’ are running the show and the suited young men and women, and corporate sponsors are back in force.

Importantly, following the Conservatives’ disastrous fiscal event and consequential Sterling crisis at the end of last week, there is also genuine belief seeping back into the assembled activists, councillors, MPs, and shadow ministers, that their years of opposition could be coming to an end.

Some key take-outs included:

It’s still the economy stupid: Rachel Reeves is considered a class act and has carefully manoeuvred the Labour Party to be seen as a safe pair of hands with the economy, spending time wooing business and dramatically improving her media performances. Not quite believing the gift that was handed to her last Friday, she now needs to occupy the ground of economic competence that has been vacated and consolidate Labour’s poll boost.
Some meat on the policy bones: while caution remains the watchword of Labour this week, we have started to see a pattern emerging of what a Labour government could look like with some interesting announcements. A commitment to R&D spending to support innovation at the heart of a new industrial strategy; rail re-nationalisation (the populist nationalisation), helped enormously by the Herculean task it took to get Liverpool on a train; reinstating the top rate of tax; a National Wealth Fund, offering returns for taxpayers while targeting investment towards infrastructure; zero carbon energy by 2030; new powers to local and regional leaders; and a commitment to substantially increase the percentage of social housing as part of the UK’s housing stock. All solidly centre left policies that hark back to the days of Labour governments past.
Handed a poisoned chalice: Yet the legacy they would inherit if elected, will be nothing like the favourable conditions that Labour found in 1997. The room for manoeuvre for an incoming Labour administration is non-existent; for example, the £28 billion a year borrowing identified to tackle climate change no longer exists because of the spiralling cost of UK debt. As one leading light in the party said, “the problem with referring back to the 1972 Barber budget, is that it was a Labour government in 1976 that had to go to the IMF to repair the damage and then pay the price in 1979.”
Country first: Keir Starmer capped off an encouraging week for Labour with easily his best speech as leader. While he will never provide the soaring oratory of Blair or Brown, he has grown into the role, and he gleefully occupied the space that had been gifted him at the centre of British politics with the departure of Johnson and the tilt to the right under Truss. While the rhetoric of ‘country first’ has not been seen since the conference speeches of Tony Blair, he is probably the wrong comparison. Instead, Keir Starmer represents a Labour tradition closer to John Smith, Harold Wilson, and indeed Clement Atlee. The question that will be answered at the next election is, is the country ready once again for a re-pitch of classically social democratic policies packaged up for the challenges of the coming decade.

As things stand, and buoyed by commanding leads in all polls, Labour look set to form the next government. This comes with huge expectations and pressure. They need to be providing their answers to the overwhelming challenge facing the country, which are only set to get worse over the next 12-18 months.

For business, it’s no longer just about just ‘paying attention’ to Labour, it’s engaging with the people, priorities and policies that are looking increasingly likely to be those of the next government.

Share this content:

What the new integrated care model means for specialised services

In July this year, the Government passed the long-awaited Health and Care Act 2022. A major part of the legislation was designed to drive integration of local services with the aim of enabling areas to adopt a preventative approach that focuses on population health.

After many years of movement in this direction, 42 Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) were formalised and tasked with bringing local health services together to provide more joined up care. Unlike unpopular health system reforms of the past, the broad consensus is that this reform is both important and progressive. Indeed, this was a reform that NHS England itself had called for.

However, major changes to specialised commissioning have raised concerns. In particular, patient groups have many questions around the impact these changes may have on the day-to-day care of people living with complex conditions.

Previously, NHS England commissioned many specialised services. As a result of the Act, the majority will now be commissioned locally by Integrated Care Boards (ICBs).

But complex conditions need complex care. The move to local commissioning is risky, mainly because a population management approach is not suitable for rare and complex conditions and commissioner expertise may be lost in the transfer.

Against this backdrop, WA Communications has been working with Muscular Dystrophy UK, the charity for the 110,000 people living with muscle-wasting conditions in the UK to understand the situation better.

Together, we’ve been exploring how ICSs should approach their new commissioning responsibilities to ensure people with muscle-wasting conditions receive best-practice care from 2023.

It’s vital that ICSs get this right, so that patients with muscle-wasting conditions experience at least a maintenance, or at best an improvement, in their care.

Our work culminated in a report, based on insights gained through workshops with clinicians and an APPG on Muscular Dystrophy meeting. The report can be accessed here. We identified three key areas that ICSs need to focus on:

Building understanding: Inevitably, ICS commissioners and community clinicians may be less familiar with muscle-wasting conditions than specialist commissioners. However, it is fundamental to the commissioning and provision of good care that there is appropriate understanding of the condition and the level of care required. Finding ways to rapidly boost knowledge must be a priority.
Holistic approach: There is a real opportunity for ICSs to improve care due to their in-built, joined-up approach. This means moving away from a sole focus on medical care to one that includes social care, education, physical activity, all of which takes place closer to home.
Data: High quality and regularly updated data are vital for oversight of the quality of care, service planning and improvements. NHS England could support effective local commissioning through the creation of a data dashboard across ICS regions. This could outline key datasets for muscle-wasting conditions, such as condition prevalence, time and route to diagnosis, mortality, admissions and treatment.

You can download the full report here:

The new integrated care model and muscle-wasting conditions: How Integrated Care Systems can implement best-practice

Change of this nature is never easy, especially in a period of financial constraint and workforce pressures. However, focusing on the opportunities for better, more joint-up care – ideally backed up by robust data – could deliver important outcomes for people with muscle wasting conditions. Because ensuring the best possible integrated care for patients with all complex conditions can only be achieved through collaboration, communication and consistency.

We have been proud to support Muscular Dystrophy UK in this important pro bono project. You can read the full Muscular Dystrophy UK report on The new integrated care model and muscle-wasting conditions: How Integrated Care Systems can implement best practice here. If you are interested in learning more about how we can help you, please get in touch with carolinegordon@wacomms.co.uk

Share this content:

Like pulling teeth: has the government finally got to grips with dental contract reform?

More than a decade after the coalition government announced its intention to reform the dental contract in England, action may finally be on the horizon. The new Health Secretary Therese Coffey has announced her focus will be on “ABCD: Ambulances, Backlogs of routine treatment, Care, Doctors and Dentistry.” It is no secret that NHS dentistry has been facing a growing crisis, with patients across the country struggling to access treatment due to the number of dentists moving to the private sector. Coffey’s challenge is significant – stabilizing the system and restoring public and professional trust in a system that has seen a number of false starts in the quest for a new dental contract.

The current dental contract has long been criticized by dentists for its sole focus on activity, which reimburses dentists for the volume of activity ‘units’ they complete. Dentists argue that this process is overly simplistic, and prevents them from focusing on preventative treatment, as they are financially incentivized to carry out more invasive work.

To remedy this, in 2015 the coalition government announced the launch of two new prototype contracts, with the aim of reducing dependency on activity as the only means of measuring activity and allocating funding. After the timetable for reform was pushed back repeatedly for a number of years, the government announced it would abandon the protypes in March 2022 and would work to find an alternative means of reform.

Against this backdrop of long term uncertainty, NHS dentistry has struggled to recover from the disruption caused by Covid-19, and is now suffering from an accessibility crisis. Since the pandemic, many practices have been operating at full capacity with patients waiting months for an appointment. At the same time, dentists are leaving the NHS, with over 2,000 ending their NHS contracts in 2021 alone. This leaves those remaining struggling to keep pace with demand. Currently, 90% of dental practices in England are unable to take on new patients, driving patients to the private sector (where they can afford it).

In July 2022 the Johnson government announced some significant revisions to the contract, with the aim of stabilizing NHS dentistry. These changes included establishing a new minimum UDA value, which increases the amount dentists will receive for their work, funding practices to deliver more work where possible and removing some of the barriers preventing dental therapists from carrying out treatment.

The reforms have been largely well received, but some sector leaders have warned that they lack the ambition to truly solve the issues the sector faces. Nigel Edwards, Chief Executive of the Nuffield Trust has argued that ”a lack of investment and misalignment between costs and funding have made it increasingly unattractive to be an NHS dentist. The resulting exodus of dentists has fuelled growing waiting times. While more money to help high-performing dental surgeries see more NHS patients is helpful, it does not address the problem that many areas in England have little or no access to an NHS dentist.” This view is shared by the British Dental Association, which has warned that the changes will not stop the ongoing exodus of staff from NHS dentistry, or solve patient access issues.

We may have already seen some preliminary reform to the dental contract, but Coffey’s very public focus on dentistry as an issue indicates that further reform is on the horizon for the NHS dental sector, an admission of how much change is needed. It also potentially signals that dentistry, long seen as a Cinderella service in comparison to other parts of the health system, may finally be getting the recognition and attention it needs to be able to secure real and lasting change.

In the meantime, however, more dentists are likely to switch their focus to private practice, in turn driving those who can pay for dental treatment to do so. The government is unlikely to seek to alter this dynamic and is likely to instead focus on addressing the lack of NHS dentists taking on new patients to attempt to stem the accessibility crisis.

Solving the issues facing the dental sector is no mean feat, but in putting the issue so high on the political agenda, Therese Coffey has indicated that there is now a feeling of greater urgency in finding a solution to long running issues affecting the sector. Regardless of what this change looks like, demand for affordable, accessible dental care will remain extremely high, particularly for patients who are unwilling and unable to pay high prices for treatment in light of the growing cost of living crisis.

Share this content:

What does the Truss Premiership mean for private equity investment in football?

Truss’ in-tray is bulging as she enters No.10, and although a World Cup win in Qatar would undoubtedly inject a much-needed boost of morale to the long, bleak winter ahead, football is unlikely to be at the top of her to-do list.

But love it or loathe it, no one can deny the Premier League’s role as a significant source of UK soft power and, increasingly, world football’s dominant financial power. The 2022 summer transfer window is a prime example; Premier League clubs spent around £1.9 billion, pulverizing the previous record of £1.4 billion set in 2017. Put another way, England’s top twenty clubs spent more than all clubs in Spain’s LaLiga, Italy’s Serie A and Germany’s Bundesliga combined. The UK government plays a major role in creating a favourable political and regulatory environment for football’s finances to thrive, and under successive Conservative governments, that’s exactly what’s happened. Truss, as former Trade Secretary, will be acutely aware of the league’s status as one of the UK’s most successful exports.

Nevertheless, football has found itself increasingly in the political and public spotlight in recent years, most notably with the unprecedented wave of backlash to the now aborted plans for six Premier League clubs to break away and form a European Super League. Arguably one of the biggest own goals in recent football history, JP Morgan Chase & Co had allegedly intended to back the project. In 2022, the government found itself under mounting pressure to sanction then Chelsea owner, Roman Abramovich, possibly the most well-known Russian oligarch in the UK. Whilst Abramovich was not initially included on the sanctions list in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the sale of the club for over £4 billion to a consortium led by American Todd Boehly and private equity firm Clearlake Capital, was not without controversy.

Politicians have also made notable comments about footballers in the press. In the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, then Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, said “I think the first thing that Premier League footballers can do is make a contribution, take a pay cut, and play their part.” The decision of footballers to take the knee in support of the Black Lives Matter movement and anti-racism in the sport also received mixed political response. Truss herself, then Equalities Minister, criticized the practice, saying it was “not the right thing to do” and a form of “identity politics focused on symbols and gestures.”

This has culminated in a remarkable appetite for change, primarily driven by fans, to address the culture, governance and financial flow in the existing football system. In his overly-enthusiastic opposition to the European Super League (despite hosting the former Executive Vice-Chairman of Manchester United just days earlier and declaring it – according to a government source – “a great idea”), Boris Johnson commissioned Tracey Crouch to chair the Fan-Led Review of Football Governance. The report is not a perfect roadmap (it says very little about women’s football or the sport’s toxic relationship with the gambling industry), but its diagnoses are damning: the underlying disconnect between fans and owners, inadequate regulation, and the cavernous financial inequality between the biggest and smallest clubs. To shake this up, the review proposes the establishment of an independent regulator which would oversee financial regulation in the sport, an increased role for fans in club decision making, and a 10% transfer levy on Premier League clubs to be distributed to the grassroots game.

Although Truss previously indicated that she would back the review’s 47 recommendations, recent rumours suggest that she will now backtrack on this due to waning support amongst influential players in her own team. Johnson recognised the popular appeal of football and was fully prepared to harness it ahead of the next general election. Truss will have bigger challenges and priorities to grapple with and is likely to lack the political appetite to drive forward a complete structural overhaul of the sport.

Football’s growing fanbase

Private equity has gradually been gaining a foothold in the world’s most popular sport and will be a keen spectator to Truss’ next move. Taking a lead from the billionaire soccer fans, Middle East petrodollars, and the spate of Chinese purchases which have dominated football investment over the past two decades, private equity, credit vehicles and hedge funds now represent the latest wave of investors. The industry was once considered too risky due to eye-watering levels of debt, inflated player salaries and the unpredictability of politics and febrile fans. The threat of relegation if teams don’t perform well means that returns are never guaranteed. However, investors are finding creative ways to address this volatility. Some have loaned money to keep Europe’s high-profile clubs afloat. Others have purchased media rights, bought a stable of smaller teams, or snapped up stakes in clubs as assets in peril. In 2019, US private equity firm Silver Lake paid $500 million for a 10% stake in City Football Group, which counts Manchester City, Yokohama F. Marinos in Japan, Girona FC in Spain, and New York City football team in its collection. Some are even pursuing the Holy Grail of investing in an entire league, like UK-based private equity firm CVC Capital Partners’ venture with Spain’s LaLiga.

European football has always been cash hungry, but that has grown more acute since the pandemic kept crowds away from stadiums and left some of the continent’s biggest and most successful clubs with soaring debt. Indeed, it was the catalyst behind the failed breakaway Super League. This had left many Premier League clubs reeling at the suggestions included in the Fan-Led Review, and arguing that proposed changes would reduce the competitiveness of the league and therefore its value to the UK. Private equity investors are concerned that cascading finances down the system will impact their returns. However, in an attempt to address some of the issues highlighted by the review, many clubs are taking remedial action (such as introducing supporter ‘shadow boards’) in an attempt to stave off full frontal regulatory reform. By addressing concerns around governance and financial fluidity downstream in the system, the Premier League could alleviate some of the existing political pressures.

Whether Truss gives the recommendations a red card or not, you can’t help but sense that change is on the horizon for the Premier League. Nevertheless, there will always be a strong demand for English football and fans will continue to buy tickets. These two simple facts mean private equity is unlikely to be relegated from football any time soon.

Share this content:

What are the chances of a breakthrough on the Northern Ireland Protocol?

In the early hours of 8 December 2017, a bleary-eyed Theresa May shook hands with a sleepy Jean-Claude Juncker on an interim Brexit agreement, supposedly resolving the issues around Northern Ireland. That handshake has plagued the UK’s relationship with the EU ever since.

The interim agreement was supposed to allow progress in the exit negotiations to move to other issues such as trade. For a while it seemed to do so, but recriminations soon began. In June 2018, then Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, David Davis, was actively briefing against the so-called Northern Ireland backstop. He resigned the following month. By December 2018, then First Minister of Northern Ireland, Arlene Foster, said removal of the backstop ‘has been our message from the day a backstop was conceived.’

That was then. What about now? Despite agreeing to an amended Protocol and backstop as part of a revised Withdrawal Agreement in December 2019, the British government argues that the Protocol in practice is not working as it should. Rather than maintaining Northern Ireland’s place in the UK and its internal market, the government believes that it is doing the reverse: threatening the province’s economic settlement within the UK.

With images of food shortages in Northern Ireland and complaints of burdensome customs paperwork, the UK government has evidence to back up its assertions. The EU for its part argued that the Protocol is a consequence of Brexit and the only solution to challenges in Northern Ireland.

But the consequences are more than economic. In May, the republican Sinn Fein party became the largest party in Stormont. For the first time since power-sharing in Northern Ireland began in 1998, there would not be a unionist politician as First Minister.

The second largest party in the May elections was the unionist DUP. But its leader, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, stated that his party would refuse to nominate a deputy first minister, unless the Northern Ireland Protocol were replaced. The DUP blames the Protocol for endangering Northern Ireland’s economic and constitutional settlement with the UK and since the Executive requires cross-community consent, there can be no government unless the DUP changes its mind.

The deadline for forming an Executive is not infinite. Unless an Executive can be formed by 28 October, further elections will be held. Political instability in a constitutionally fragile province during a cost of living crisis is not an ideal situation.

But there might be light at the end of the tunnel. Vice-President of the European Commission, Maros Sefcovic, has said in recent days that the pressure of the Protocol and the restrictions placed on trade could be reduced. Checks on only a few lorries a day would be required if the UK were to agree to the EU’s new plan.

It sounds almost too good to true.

The EU’s new plan would require the UK to provide the bloc with real-time data on trade movements. According to Sefcovic, checks would only take place ‘when there is reasonable suspicion of…illegal trade smuggling, illegal drugs or dangerous toys or poisoned food’.

Will the UK agree to it? Not publicly at the moment. As well as unilaterally extending grace periods, initially intended to ease the transition for Northern Ireland and Great Britain into the Protocol arrangements, the Government has a further proposal of its own. The new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, introduced the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill in Parliament in June while she was then Foreign Secretary. This Bill would seek to unilaterally disapply those parts of the Protocol that the government believes are hampering the constitutional and trade relationships between Great Britain and Northern Ireland: customs processes, regulations, tax issues and governance.

Speaking in Parliament in her first Prime Minister’s Questions, Liz Truss re-stated her preference for a negotiated settlement but that this had to ‘to deliver all the things that we set out in the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.’

The EU cannot countenance the UK taking unilateral action to extend grace periods and disapply parts of the Protocol and is taking legal action against the British government. Both the UK and EU have solutions they claim to be practical and logical. But neither, it seems, wants to accept the other’s solution.

Which means that uncertainty – the great enemy of investment – remains a real and present danger in Northern Ireland. The next early morning handshake to try to resolve issues in Northern Ireland is a long way off.

Share this content:

“Après moi, le déluge”

They might be the words of Louis XV, but this week seem to ring metaphorically and meteorologically true as the outgoing would-be ‘World King’ remains on his holidays in Greece while the country back at home, well, seems to be falling to its knees.

Inflation at historic levels, drought, flooding, spiraling mortgage rates, rocketing food prices, the looming spectre of vast energy bills, the country brought to near standstill by the unions, the prospect of the NHS collapsing in on itself…There are extremely legitimate questions about what the Government, or at the least the Party of government is doing about any of it.

Cabinet Minister Kit-safe-pair-of-hands-Malthouse this week declared that the country is on a ‘war footing’ to enable whoever becomes PM to make some ‘quick decisions’ as soon as they come to office. But in the meantime, the Government’s ‘grid’ of announcements seems to be continuing with August ‘business as usual’. The latest offering over the last few days was ‘number plates’ for bicycles – perhaps laudable, but a bit beside the point.

The two-horse leadership race continues for another two and half weeks. One of the lobby hacks pithily texted yesterday: ‘I’m not sure why – is there anyone out there who doesn’t know that Rishi’s mum ran a pharmacy and Liz quite likes Thatcher’. There are some calls for Rishi to do the ‘decent thing’ and concede, de facto installing Liz who should then immediately recall Parliament and introduce her emergency budget (details of which remain yet scant).

More MPs are now backing her (after several defections and recent declarations of support) than Rishi, who had been in the lead amongst Westminster colleagues at the start. His camp is outwardly dismissive of this – saying that the naked self-interest of the defectors is unlikely in any case at this late stage to mean they are rewarded with jobs.

What’s much harder for Rishi’s supporters to be so sanguine about are the polls which have had Liz a long way out front for some time now. The most recent from YouGov puts Sunak on 31% and Truss on 68% amongst those that have already voted. Conservative HQ insiders are skeptical that the lead is as big as this (and say that local associations’ events with Rishi are better attended).

Rishi’s team privately concede that they were ‘slow off the mark’ in the early days of the campaign, and let the ‘air war’ of announcements and media coverage get away from them. But at this stage, with the clear blue water between their entrenched positions on economic and fiscal matters, it seems unlikely that there is much policy-wise that Rishi could now announce that could sway things to put him out in front.

Barring something derailing the Truss juggernaut, Liz will thus be installed in No10 by the beginning of next month.

Either way, as one former minister put it to me this week, ‘I’m not sure I care which one of them wins any more, I just want it to be over’. Undoubtably a sentiment shared by pretty much the rest of the country, who just want to know how they are going to pay their bills come the autumn.

Words by Amy Fisher, Director at WA Communications

Share this content:

Maintaining the Net Zero consensus: will the next Prime Minister bring change or continuity?

The first week of the Conservative Leadership contest has been dominated by policy pledges: significant personal and business tax cuts, immediate measures to address the cost of living, future spending plans and ideas on how to ‘properly’ implement Brexit. The big divergence with the last three years of government has been the major shift in focus away from Net Zero and the environment.

Proponents of the agenda within the Conservative Party have sought to fight a rearguard action over recent days with pressure on all the leading candidates to maintain the commitment. Businesses in particular have been anxious over the uncertainty, with many already heavily invested in the transition to a lower carbon future. So where are we now a week in and what’s the likely direction of travel?

The frontrunners have committed to maintaining the Net Zero by 2050 target.

At a hustings earlier this week Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss and Penny Mordaunt all committed to keeping the 2050 target, providing comfort to those worried about the early rhetoric from the

contest. All three have high profile advocates for climate action on their teams. Candidates are under pressure now to sign up to a series of principles from the Conservative Environment Network on climate action – so far Sunak and Tugendhat have pledged their support.

It’s worth acknowledging though the number of candidates who did raise concerns about the overall direction and pace of change, most notably Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch. This isn’t a surprise – it reflects that there’s an element of the Conservative parliamentary party concerned about the approach, ranging from sceptcisim to outright opposition. It’s a clear and helpful reminder to business though that while there’s largely been a political consensus to date over the appropriateness of pursuing Net Zero, this isn’t absolute and there’s a spectrum of opinion.

High level support doesn’t mean more granular targets won’t shift.

Macro level ambitions are one thing, but for most businesses and consumers it’s the specific policies that underpin them that matter most. The leading contenders have signed up to a high-level ambition, not to maintaining total consistency with Johnson’s plans. Business should recognise that there could be divergence on the detail, scale and timings of elements of the transition moving forwards.

Those sector targets that are already well engrained – such as the ending of the sale of new ICE vehicles by 2030 – are likely to survive. However, there will be a ‘clean slate’ of policy across many areas of government with no certainty that previous decisions will remain. For those businesses who want timeframes to be delayed allowing industry to adapt, costs to fall or new innovation to come forward, new people and a fresh start could deliver an opportunity for review.

Depending on the leader elected, expect that the need to act further on the cost of living could see the next set of ministers arguing that delaying some aspects of Net Zero – for example through a moratorium on environmental levies on bills – is necessary in the short term.

Difficult decisions are likely to be pushed even further into the long grass.

The new PM will have approximately two years ahead of the next election. Their focus will be on developing the narrative and agenda which will allow the Conservative’s to win an historic fifth term in office. ‘Removing the barnacles from the boat’ as Lynton Crosby famously advised David Cameron by avoiding unnecessarily difficult issues and focusing only on those policy issues that appeal to the critical electoral coalition the party is focused on will likely become the big priority.

Under Johnson’s government a plethora of major decisions linked to Net Zero are either in the pipeline or have been deliberately pushed down the track, from the micro to the macro. These include – but are not limited to – how you decarbonise home heating and what incentives or legislative action are required to achieve change; how fuel duty is replaced and the timing for exploring a road pricing model; and the future of local transport, including whether and how car use is disincentivized and the policy and regulatory framework for enabling new innovation, such as e-scooters. These are all issues that are fraught with political risk – the likelihood is that on most of these issues the new leader will seek to avoid the confrontation and electoral pain rather than tackling the tough policy issues.

What does this mean for industry?

Compared to the panic amongst business and proponents for climate action less than a week ago, we now have clarity that the frontrunners are bought into the concept and overall timeframe for achieving Net Zero. Underneath this though there’s significant fluidity, with much less certainty over specific policy proposals.

This will require agility from business to quickly remake their case to government, to be flexible to the new context and the government’s priorities and motivations – potentially adapting their message to be more about energy security, jobs or regional development, and not just about decarbonisation. Net Zero is still on the agenda, but business can’t take for granted that things will continue as planned, the case will need to be remade.

Share this content:

Who will define Conservatism in 2022?

Down to the last two leadership candidates, the country will now see a string of nationwide hustings for Conservative Party members, meaning an intense (and, at times, uncomfortable) summer-long debate. Like it or not, the choice of the 160,000 Tory party members will define what it means to be Conservative in 2022.

As the two candidates, former Chancellor Rishi Sunak and current Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, go head-to-head, their policy announcements to date promise to take the Party in two distinctly different directions. Who wins will determine the road ahead for Conservatism up to the general election and beyond.

Perhaps most fundamentally, the candidates differ on their approach to tax and spend, butting heads on who has the most legitimate claim to Thatcherism 2.0. Both want to create a smaller state with (eventually) lower taxes but differ on when and how to implement these. Sunak advocates fiscal responsibility, vowing to tackle inflation before making any cuts. Truss would cut taxes on day one as Prime Minister, with an Emergency Budget and new spending review paving the way, presumably, for shrinking government departments.

Without a doubt, the cost-of-living crisis will be one of the next Prime Minister’s biggest challenges, and how the candidates tackle it will likely define their premiership. With the exception of Sunak, all of the candidates in the race made commitments to do more to support people. Sunak has remained adamant that the best thing he could do to combat the cost-of-living would be to curb inflation. If he wins, he will come under huge pressure to go further.

On Brexit, neither camp will want to appear to the Party membership to be taking a soft approach towards the EU. Behind the scenes, however, the Northern Ireland Protocol is another area of key difference between the two candidates and will redefine the UK’s relationship with Europe. Sunak, after three years in the Treasury, remains alert as ever to the economic impact of policy decisions, and leans towards compromise. Truss, conversely, wants to cement her position as the hardline Brexiteer despite (or because of) voting remain in 2016.

Ultimately, this is a fight for the right of the Party. Sunak wants to distance himself from Boris Johnson’s high-spend ‘Cakeism’, while Truss seeks to woo the traditional heartland with immediate tax cuts. The challenge for both candidates, upon becoming Prime Minister, will be to unite a party that includes the European Research Group, Red Wall and One Nation Tories, and everyone in-between before the next general election.

Tax and spend

The candidates have already clashed bitterly on tax and borrowing. Sunak has branded Truss’ policy socialist, whilst she has argued that he would push the country into a recession.

Sunak insists he is a low tax Conservative. However, he will not make specific pledges to cut taxes until inflation is brought under control. In truth, he cannot plausibly pledge tax cuts now, having overseen some of the largest tax rises in recent years. He’s standing on a soapbox of fiscal responsibility, advocating low spend with future cuts on the horizon when the time is right.

Truss, on the other hand, would cut taxes on her first day in office. She has so far pledged to reverse Sunak’s increase to corporation tax and National Insurance, costing the Treasury over £30 billion. She would generate fiscal firepower by paying back the £311 billion Covid debts over a longer period – treating them akin to Second World War loans.

It is difficult to see how two political heavyweights with such opposing economic ideology could work together in a cabinet of collective responsibility. It is highly unlikely that either candidate will serve in the other’s government, instead retreating to the back benches or (in Sunak’s case if he does not win) from politics altogether. The bigger concern for the Conservative Party is whether MPs can unite around the winner to support the implementation of their fiscal policy. Whichever path is chosen, the Parliamentary Party must wholeheartedly support it if they are to stand the chance of winning the next election. If voters get any whiff of squabbling under the new leadership, the new Conservatism may end up being defined by its time on the Opposition benches.

Environment

The environment, in particular the 2050 net-zero target, had all the candidates in this race equivocating to a greater or lesser degree. Eventually, all of them pledged to support the 2050 net zero target.

While it is likely that the long-term target will remain untouched, the short-term route towards this goal looks set to be abandoned or revised, in no small part due to the cost-of-living crisis. Sunak has pledged to increase renewable production (offshore rather than onshore) and build more electric car charge points, though he has yet to announce any detailed environmental plans. As Chancellor, he largely avoided talking about net zero and some accused him of blocking green policies that had any associated spending implications.

Truss committed to net-zero reasonably early in the contest, securing the backing of notable green Tories including Vicky Ford and Simon Clarke, both of whom have cited her support of Cop26 as one of their reasons for supporting her. So far though, she has pledged to ‘pause’ green levies on energy bills to save households £153 each to help ease the cost-of-living crisis. She also wants to lift the fracking ban. As Foreign Secretary she rarely bought up environmental issues in speeches or with counterparts, and as Environment Secretary she cut subsidies for solar farms calling them ‘a blight on the landscape’.

The biggest challenge for both the candidates here is that the party membership is at odds with the wider electorate on this issue. A recent poll in The Times puts the environment at the bottom of the top ten concerns of party members, and a YouGov poll found that only 4% of members believe net zero should be a priority. Contrast that with an April poll that put broader public support for net zero at 64%. It’s true that the race for leadership means the candidates have to focus on the first group, but if they want to be serious contenders in the next general election, then what?

Levelling Up

There has been a distinct lack of enthusiasm from any candidates for Johnson’s flagship ‘levelling up’ agenda. This may be a decisive move to distance themselves from his premiership, but they have not indicated what they would do for the Red Wall that won them the last election so decisively. Neither candidate wants to make commitments that would be costly to the public purse, and broadly speaking they both want to focus on reducing spending and shrinking the state.

So far, Sunak has committed to keeping a Cabinet Minister for levelling up and has promised to ensure that every part of England that wants a devolution deal gets one. He has also pledged to devolve powers on business rates to mayors and look at the devolution of post-16 education. He said he will work closely with local leaders on the future of transport investments, including Northern Powerhouse Rail.

Truss has promised to create ‘low tax zones’ across Northern England with low business rates and few planning restrictions, making it easier and quicker for developers to build on brownfield land.

Both candidates have committed to the Northern Research Group pledge card but must try harder than this to incorporate the Red Wall into their new Conservatism if they want to count these votes at the next election.

Brexit

Sunak voted Leave and his voting record has been consistently pro-Brexit. At the Conservative Party Conference last year he said “I believe the agility, flexibility and freedom provided by Brexit would be more valuable in a 21^st century global economic than just proximity to a market.” He has said he will create a Brexit Delivery Department tasked with reviewing all 2,400 laws inherited from the EU. He wants to scrap and replace GDPR, overhaul laws governing the City of London, and speed up clinical trials. It is thought that he might move on the Northern Ireland Protocol and seek compromise with Brussels, though giving any suggestion of doing so at this stage in the leadership contest would be extremely high risk.

Despite voting to remain in the EU in 2016, Truss is seen, counterintuitively, as the hardline Brexiteer. She wants to reform the European Court of Human Rights but is prepared to withdraw from it if necessary. As Foreign Secretary, she introduced a Bill to unilaterally override some post-Brexit trade rules for Northern Ireland. Her supporters claim she plans to drive forward regulatory divergence from the EU, including overhauling business regulation to spur a more dynamic economy.

It’s hard to believe this is still an issue for voters six years on, but perhaps the Conservative Party will never be able to shed its complicated history with Europe. Nevertheless, the candidate that wins the leadership race will be responsible for forging a new relationship with the Continent, and how they do so in the next couple of years is likely to redefine the Party.

The missing piece?

Both candidates were participants in the outgoing incarnation of government. This should, in theory, make it a little awkward to disavow everything it has done. Although, it has seemed to trouble Truss rather less, leaving Sunak sharply and repeatedly reminding her of the notion of ‘collective responsibility’.

The candidates need not deny its achievements. But they do need to acknowledge the elephant in the room: that the leader that won them an 80-seat majority was ousted by Conservative parliamentarians less than three years later for serious and serial questions over the ethics of his Government, and of himself. Conservatives fundamentally believe in upholding the unwritten constitution and its conventions, but events of the Johnsonian era have undermined one of the central assumptions of our country’s democracy: that the Prime Minister acts as the guarantor of ethical government. In order to build a new, resilient Conservativism, they must reassure voters that this will never happen again.

Share this content:

Sunak V Truss – A Defining Contest For The Modern Conservative Party

And then there were two. In the final round of the Conservative leadership contest, Boris Johnson’s longest serving Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, faces the current Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss.

During the early phase of the Conservative leadership contest, there was a lot of talk about the need for a clean break with the past. Indeed, for one day last week at Westminster there was almost an assumption that Penny Mourdant would be the next Prime Minister. That was before her indifferent performances in the TV debates and the onslaughts from other camps, including the stridently pro-Truss Daily Mail. In the end, the MPs chose the two most experienced and best known candidates.

There is though, a significant twist. In this topsy turvy contest, Truss is running as the ‘change’ candidate even though she is the longest-serving minister in the cabinet. During a remarkable interview on the Today programme this morning, she argued that there had been a misplaced economic consensus for twenty years, thereby distancing herself from the policies of the Conservative governments since 2010. Her big pitch is for tax cuts to be implemented from “day one”. Specifically, she would reverse the National Insurance rise and the planned increases in Corporation Tax. Her belief, not widely shared amongst economists, is that such a move would trigger economic growth and avoid a recession. She also claims that the tax cuts would reduce inflation, whereas Sunak has argued repeatedly that the opposite would happen. Inflation would rise.

In fairness to Truss, she is speaking truthfully when she insists that she argued against the NI rises in cabinet last summer. She said then in private what she now declares in public, that the additional spending on the NHS or social care could be paid for by borrowing. I am told that Boris Johnson had also hoped originally to pay for his still vaguely defined social care plan without increasing taxes. In frantic meetings a year ago, Sunak insisted that if Johnson wanted the additional cash it would have to be paid for through a tax rise. Johnson agreed reluctantly. In his final Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday, Johnson could not resist a dig at ‘the Treasury’ when he told MPs that his successor should sometimes challenge that mighty department’s tight spending orthodoxies.

Johnson and his allies are out to stop Sunak. Apparently, there was talk of little else at his farewell party at Chequers on Sunday.

Yet here is another twist. In some quarters Truss is presented as the ‘Thatcherite’ candidate while Sunak is portrayed as the ‘centrist’. But Thatcher never did what Truss is pledging to do. For Thatcher tax cuts had to be paid for. It was not until 1988 that her Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, cut the top rate of income tax. She had been Prime Minister for nearly nine years by then. Truss’s approach is much closer to President Reagan’s in the 1980s. Reagan funded tax cuts from increased borrowing. In a contest largely defined by the 1980s Truss is a ‘Reaganite’.

Sunak is the Thatcherite candidate, even though some of Thatcher’s most ardent admirers in the parliamentary party are backing Truss. Like Truss he wants to implement tax cuts, but only when he has addressed inflationary pressures. This produces another oddity about the contest. Although Sunak resigned from Johnson’s government and spent a lot of his time when he was Chancellor engaged in tense disputes with Number 10, he is the one seen more widely as the ‘continuity’ candidate. This is because inevitably he is not going to disown his economic policies.

Sunak’s pitch is very different to the one that Truss is making. Already he has made clear that only he can win the next election for the Conservatives. His supporters also argue that because Truss plans to make sweeping changes she will be obliged to call an early election to secure a new mandate. Party members dread an early election. In interviews later today and in the coming days Sunak plans to argue that the Conservatives’ reputation for economic competence is the key to their appeal. If they lose that with unfunded tax cuts, they are finished for the time being.

As a result of this fundamental divide on the right of the Conservative party over when to cut taxes, there will be big consequences arising from this contest. If Truss wins, Sunak and his close supporters will struggle to support her new government’s economic plans. How can they vote for policies in the Commons when they have argued they are ‘fairytale’ tax cuts that will fuel inflation? In the longer term, I suspect Sunak would leave British politics at the next election. He would not serve in a Truss cabinet. Conversely, although throughout her career Truss has been a much more flexible politician than Sunak, it will not be easy for her and her closest allies to back Sunak’s economic policies this autumn if he wins. The leadership contest is a symptom of a division over how to achieve economic growth and there will be no resolution when a new Prime Minister is crowned in September.

There is one final twist. Both candidates seek a smaller state in theory. Yet almost certainly whoever wins will begin by spending more. To take a precise example, the hugely influential financial guru, Martin Lewis, is already calling for an emergency package this autumn when the new energy price cap is announced. The night before Sunak unveiled his most recent programme of financial assistance, he phoned Lewis to check that he was doing enough. He wanted Lewis’ backing and feared further opposition. No new Prime Minister will want to have Lewis as an enemy. There will be further help with fuel bills.

More widely the next election will be moving into view. A new Prime Minister will be in no position to cut spending on the NHS in advance, nor resist demands for increases in defence spending. There is also the thorny issue of social care. The additional spending from the NI rise is being spent largely on the NHS. How is the new Prime Minister going to find additional funds for social care or will they dump this commitment? What about ‘levelling up’, a concept that neither Sunak nor Truss is as enthusiastic about as Johnson?

The Conservatives need to retain some of those red wall seats if they are to win next time. To do so the new government will have to spend more money rather than cut departmental budgets. But for now, there is a single target audience, the party membership. Every word uttered in the next few weeks will be aimed at pleasing the members alone. They will elect the next Prime Minister.

Polls suggest Truss is well ahead. Sunak knows he has little time to sway the membership. Most are likely to vote early in the contest. He and his team plan to work around the clock for new week or so as the ballot papers are sent out. Sunak will need to be at his most persuasive. Polls on the ConservativeHome website suggest early tax cuts are the members’ top priority. Truss is pledging to give them what they want as well as delivering better public services.

When Johnson used to pledge tax cuts and higher public spending, he acknowledged he was a ‘cakeist’. He would have his cake and eat it. Such an approach was the main source of tension between Johnson and Sunak. Now Sunak must go public and put his case for what he describes as fiscal conservatism. Polls suggest he is the more popular candidate with the wider electorate. That is rarely a decisive factor in Conservative leadership contests.

Share this content:

Things hot up

Former Government Special Adviser and WA’s new Director Amy Fisher shares her inside track and perspective on the Conservative leadership contest so far, as well as its wider implications for the party going forwards.

Dubbed a ‘wacky races’ line-up of those who’ve put themselves forward for the Conservative leadership, we will at least by the end of the day (with nominations having been made) have an idea of who actually will be in the running – and so who will need to crank up the wooing of fellow MPs over the coming days. Rishi had a good turnout for his drinks last night; one assumes he’s plenty more rose on order. He’s increasingly looking like the Djokovic of this – there may be challengers to the crown, but the favourite no doubt to make it to the last two.

So now the real trouble starts.

Since the starting gun was fired last week with Boris Johnson’s ignominious departure, things have been … brutal. The amount of briefing about, against and amongst the various ‘runners and riders’ has been vicious – and we’ve got a long, hot summer of this to go. Questions have been asked over one (not known for playing ‘nicely’ shall we say) Dom Cummings’ involvements with Rishi’s campaign; it’s somewhat irrelevant as to whether there is any kind of ‘arrangement’. Dom will do what Dom does, which is to blow everything else up so long as he gets what he wants. And a Rishi premiership seems to be it.

I’m worried by what the Party looks like at the end of this, by the time the candidates have finished taking clumps out of each other. This is personal. The last two leaderships (2016 and 2019) weren’t necessarily pretty, as such. But they were about the single issue, really, of Brexit, and to coin a phrase, who was going to get it done. This just isn’t – and with all the smears and allegations of smears already flying around, it’s somewhat ironic that this whole contest was prompted by folk’s collapse of faith in the last chap’s integrity and transparency.

The Party has always had a veering towards being its own worst enemy. I hope this batch of candidates can at least bear in mind that at the end of it all, they will need to form a Cabinet and Government of some kind of unity (not easy if you’ve spent the last eight weeks taking pot shots at each other).

However, new partnerships as the field thins out will be formed. This is where things get interesting- not least in the context of the looming 2024 GE (which CCHQ is very much focused on, and therefore so very much welcomed this leadership contest being sooner, rather than in say 6 months, time). These partnerships are make-or-break, in terms of political success and longevity. Where would Blair have been, were it not for Brown? Same question of DC without George? How each of the candidates shores up their economic offering, possibly with a running mate, will be one to watch – all of these pledges and the ones to come are after all at some point going to need properly costing.

In the last twenty years of my experience, the pendulum has tended to swing from one side to the other in terms of what the Party seems to look for in its leader. Michael Howard, safe pair of hands, DC, ‘star power’, TM back again, then Boris.

Undoubtedly what the Party, and the whole country needs, is some steady-as-she-goes form of Government, which the next few weeks most certainly are not going to be – not least if Boris, as he pledged yesterday to do, really is going to try and deliver all his manifesto commitments before he goes.

Still, by 5pm tonight, we should have a candidates’ slate that’s less like an actual cartoon.

Share this content:

The last days of Boris Johnson and the leadership contest

Normally Tory MPs are entirely relaxed about an outgoing Prime Minister staying on during a leadership contest. Indeed they welcome what is often seen as a smooth transition. Now a lot of them are disturbed that Johnson is still in Number Ten and might be there for a couple of months. The context explains why. Johnson is going because an army of ministers and MPs said that he and his operation could not be trusted. Yet they are allowing a figure they do not trust to remain in office over a period in which quite a lot could happen, from developments in Ukraine to strikes in the UK. They fear what Johnson might do. More fundamentally this is a government in paralysis as the economic crisis deepens. No one knows who will be Prime Minister and Chancellor by the time of the Autumn Budget or what their economic policies will be. The same applies in all other departments. The new Levelling Up Secretary, Greg Clarke, had told his senior officials that he will only be in post for a few weeks.

The key meeting will be on Monday when the newly elected 1922 Committee meets to decide the form and timing of the leadership contest. The chair, Sir Graham Brady, has made clear they have no powers to remove Johnson immediately but they can determine the amount of time he has left as PM by deciding on the timetable for the contest. Those MPs keen to be rid of Johnson and the paralysis as soon as possible are calling for a short contest that is over “within weeks”. Others are less sure pointing out that the election of a new Prime Minister should not be rushed. My sense is that the first round where only MPs have the vote will be concluded speedily, by the start of the summer recess. Probably the final two candidates will be given until early September before the final vote of party members. A new Prime Minister and government would be in place for the return of parliament and the Conservative conference.

Most immediately, expect a large number of MPs to declare that they plan to stand. Already the number of declarations is in double figures. Farcically this is the weekend when MPs can fantasise that it might be them that can seize the crown. Around a third of the former cabinet are contemplating a bid and an array of backbenchers. Conservative leadership contests rarely go to plan, but I can report that quite a few MPs are saying “it’s time for a soldier”, referring to the likes of the Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, or the backbencher, Tom Tugendhat. But there is little point speculating until the field is narrowed a bit after this coming weekend of indiscriminate and delusional displays of personal ambition.

Almost inevitably the pitch of all candidates will be towards a more rigid form of fiscal conservatism compared with Johnson’s ‘cakeism’ support for the hard Brexit and a battle over the Northern Ireland protocol, combined with a new focus on standards in public life. The membership is more or less the same as the one that elected Johnson in 2019. Although if they go for Wallace it would be quite a leap in some respects. Wallace was a remainer and has not become an evangelical convert like Liz Truss.

The challenge for whoever wins is to square the circle. A lot of Tory MPs want tax cuts and higher public spending on defence, levelling up, NHS and social care, and local transport provision. Johnson’s coalition of red wall former Labour voters and traditional Tories in the south was bound by Brexit, his personality and his ‘cakeist’ approach that drove Rishi Sunak to despair. How will Johnson’s successor keep that coalition intact, not least when by-elections suggest that it is already fraying? This political background becomes more complex given the current state of the economy. Treasury officials I speak to fear a recession will be difficult to avoid. Then there is the thorny issue of the fuel price cap rising again in the autumn. A fiscally conservative Chancellor will be reluctant to borrow more, but he or she will probably have to in order to further ameliorate the ‘cost of living crisis’.

There will be a new Prime Minister and government in place by September. Until then there is a vacuum unless the 1922 committee decide to shrink the timescale of the contest to a couple of weeks, not impossible but unlikely. Boris Johnson answering questions at Prime Minister’s Questions in the Commons next Wednesday will be as weird as last week when he spoke as if he had years more in power.

The race to succeed Boris Johnson is wide open, with candidates from across the party jockeying for position. Ahead of the election kicking off next week, WA has mapped out the process that will determine the next Prime Minister, and the key runners and riders looking to lead the next Government.

You can download the full briefing here:

Who replaces Boris Johnson?

Share this content:

Sustainability Disclosure Requirements: Where do we go from here?

Sustainability Disclosure Requirements have long been on the industry’s radar, supported by wider international actions surrounding the need to combat climate change and protect our environment. However, more recently, clarity around what these requirements entail and how we can appropriately implement them has been notable by its absence – leaving many to wonder, what comes next?

The history of SDR

In July 2021, the Chancellor announced the new Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR) at his Mansion House speech. These requirements were to be focused on combining existing requirements with new ones in an effort to create a new sustainable investment labelling regime which would make it easier for consumers to navigate the investment products available to them.

The SDR were then fleshed out three months later in October, when, just before hosting COP26, the Treasury laid out its roadmap to sustainable investing: Greening Finance.
This detailed what the SDR would need to include, and when; how the SDR should report against the (forthcoming) UK Green Taxonomy; considerations to be made in the day-to-day running of business to ensure responsible stewardship; the potential for ESG data and ratings providers to be brought into the scope of the regulator and Government expectations for asset managers, asset owners and service providers as part of the UK’s transition to net-zero.

Details were “subject to further consideration” and in November, the FCA opened a consultation on SDR and investment labelling, inviting views from the industry at large on the pending obligations. Responses came from far and wide in support of the SDR, with suggestions around labelling, how to make the requirements accessible to consumers, and how the SDR could fit in with other standards.

That consultation was closed in January of this year and the next steps for the SDR were lauded to be in the Queen’s Speech in May. However, while the Treasury stated that it “remained committed to implementing sustainability disclosure requirements” and would “proceed with the necessary legislation in due course”, a reluctance to impose any new regulations on businesses at that time meant that the SDR were notable by their absence in the Financial Services Bill.

This decision was met with notable frustration across the financial industry, with some suggesting that the postponement of the SDRs was a missed opportunity for the UK to reaffirm its position as a global environmental leader as well as denying business the much-needed guidance, clarity and confidence in aligning their processes with a 1.5C future.

Now, the FCA has said it will publish a consultation paper on the sustainability disclosure requirements, including sustainable investment labels, in July, but that formal engagement will not be until Q4 this year.

So, with a moving timeline and a distinct lack of clarity around what the SDR is going to look like, where do we go from here?

Join us

On 30th June, WA will be hosting a panel discussion to explore where the industry needs to go next. We’ll explore the Government’s latest developments of the regulation, the main concerns facing the industry and what effective SDR really look like.

Confirmed panellists

Andrew Death, Deputy Director, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

Andrew Death is a Senior Civil Servant in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. He has been a civil servant for 21 years and is currently Deputy Director for audit and corporate reporting. His responsibilities include delivering changes to the corporate reporting framework to implement Government policy of ESG reporting, as well as delivering legislative change to increase competition, choice and resilience in the audit market.

Louisiana Salge, Senior Sustainability Specialist, EQ Investors

Louisiana is responsible for overseeing EQ’s ESG and impact integration strategy across all assets, its stewardship efforts and sustainability data reporting.

Louisiana first joined EQ Investors in 2018 on an internship during her master’s degree programme at Imperial College London, where she conducted research on impact measurement for her thesis. This formed the groundwork for EQ’s award-winning Positive Impact Report, and she joined the firm as a Sustainability Specialist after graduating. Over the last 2 years, Louisiana has developed, and implemented common sustainability standards across all assets managed at EQ. She also leads as a specialist across the three sustainable portfolios managed at EQ: Positive Impact, Future Leaders, Climate Action.

James Alexander, CEO, UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association
James Alexander joined UKSIF as Chief Executive in October 2020, with a strong vision and mandate to further enhance the organisation’s key role in promoting and expanding sustainable investment and finance in the UK.

James has a background in international climate finance and infrastructure finance as well as many years’ experience in leadership roles in membership organisations. Most recently, James supported global megacities to overcome the substantial barriers to financing climate action as Director of the City Finance Programme at the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group and Head of the C40 Cities Finance Facility – a project preparation facility he developed, now supporting cities across the world to structure nearly a billion dollars of sustainable infrastructure transactions. James has worked on international climate finance issues at the UN level and supported cities across the world to invest their pensions and reserves more sustainably.

James is Treasurer of Eurosif, the European Sustainable Investment Forum, a member of the Green Technical Advisory Group (GTAG) providing advice to the UK Government on implementing a UK green taxonomy and a member of the Disclosures and Labels Advisory Group (DLAG) providing advice to the FCA on the UK’s SDR and fund labelling regime.

When:
Thursday 30th June,
08:00 arrival for 08:30 start, close at 10:00

Where:
WA Communications,
6th Floor, Artillery House,
11-19 Artillery Row,
London, SW1P 1RT

RSVP AnaNogalesGarcia@wacomms.co.uk

Share this content:

The By-Elections and Boris Johnson’s Future

By-elections often trigger a minor political explosion but before very long the noise subsides. What happened in the early hours of this morning is different. There were three significant eruptions before most voters had woken up. The noise is about to get louder.

The least seismic development was Labour’s gain in Wakefield. In mid-term, an opposition party would expect to win such a seat. But even this win makes bigger waves than might have been the case in different circumstances. Boris Johnson’s great distinctive pitch as a leader of the Conservative party has been his appeal in the so called Red Wall. Most Tory MPs know he is a chaotic figure and is, in many ways, unsuited for government. However, some still dared to hope that only he could keep together the contradictory coalition of support that won them a near landslide in December 2019. There is vivid evidence that he is becoming an electoral liability even in those seats that turned to him at the general election. Let us not forget the Conservatives gained Hartlepool in a by-election a year ago, largely because of Johnson’s appeal. His fall as an electoral asset has been speedy.

Losing Wakefield is made much worse by the outcome in Tiverton. The swing to the Liberal Democrats shows that the Conservatives could face their ultimate nightmare, losing to Labour in some parts of the country and to Ed Davey’s party elsewhere. This was a seat the Conservatives held even in the 1997 general election, when Tony Blair won a landslide.

The third development is the most significant. The resignation of the Conservative chairman, Oliver Dowden, breaks the spell that Johnson is in full command of his government even if many of his backbenchers had no confidence in him. It was when the cabinet turned against Margaret Thatcher in 1990 that she fell. In his own way, Dowden’s resignation letter was scathing not least given he backed Johnson in the Conservative leadership contest and had been devotedly loyal since.

What happens next? Having spoken to some Conservative MPs this morning, I sense the mood is even more febrile than in the build up to the vote of confidence in Johnson earlier this month. Some are wondering if other cabinet ministers might resign. As I write, there is no indication of that. They had the chance to act when that vote of confidence took place and they opted to stay. Dowden did not consult cabinet colleagues. He acted alone.

For sure Johnson will seek to stay in Number 10. He is not going voluntarily. I am told he has convinced himself that he has a personal mandate from the 2019 election, and nothing can override the voters’ endorsement of him then, at least until he calls the next general election.

In theory there can be no vote of confidence in Johnson for another year, but that rule can be revised. The chairman of the 1922 committee, Sir Graham Brady, though not a great fan of Johnson, is extremely reluctant to bring in rule changes. It will take a new development to bring about another vote of confidence in the coming weeks or months, more cabinet resignations or Tory MPs who voted for Johnson in the vote of confidence now saying publicly he must go. But look out for elections to the 1922 executive to be held before the summer recess. Almost certainly the balance will move towards Johnson’s critics within the parliamentary party.

The by-elections have intensified the storm over Johnson’s leadership when there are many more mountainous challenges to come this summer and autumn, most specifically the cost-of-living crisis and the related industrial action. Crises tend to feed on themselves. Capable of fleeting introspective melancholy, Johnson will wonder whether the strategy of seeking new Brexit style divisions is working. Some in Number 10 had hoped that the strikes, the new Rwanda policy for asylum seekers, and further battles with the EU over Northern Ireland would help them at least win the Tiverton by-election. These policies did not do the trick. Others in Number Ten have had their doubts about this provocative strategy. Their doubts will be reinforced and internal tensions within Johnson’s team are inevitable amid political and economic crises.

I would also follow closely Johnson’s relationship with Rishi Sunak in the build up to the autumn budget. They do not get on. The differences are not just ideological, though Sunak’s “fiscal conservatism” clashes often with Johnson’s big spending instincts. They are also incomparably different personalities. Sunak is diligent and methodical. Johnson is erratic and disorderly. The contrast infuriates Sunak. Relations between Prime Ministers and Chancellors are often tense but can be managed when a leader is strong, which Johnson is not.

But critical Tory MPs I have spoken to are still unsure what to do next. There is no easy route to remove a Prime Minister who is determined to stay. They hope cabinet ministers make a move in the coming weeks or months. Let us see.

By-elections are not a wholly reliable guide as to what might happen at a general election, not least when it is possible that the Conservatives will have a new leader by then. But a hung parliament seems a likely option, in which case a minority Labour government will almost certainly be formed. The other parties, including the SNP, would not keep a Conservative government in power for a fifth term. In the meantime, Keir Starmer expects to get the verdict from Durham police within days. This will be a volatile summer and autumn.

Share this content:

Sustainability Disclosure Requirements – where do we go next? The inside view.

The sustainability disclosure requirements (SDR), announced in July last year as part of the UK’s ambition to improve sustainable investment labeling and prevent greenwashing, were initially met with huge support from the financial industry. At last, a UK comparable to the EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosures Regulation (SFDR), helping us to ensure that funds who claim sustainable credentials, truly have them, and a framework to guide the industry on what sustainability really looks like.

However, in the wake of delays and a lack of clarity around detail, developments around SDR have seemingly ground to a halt, with a raft of questions from the industry around what comes next. To uncover some answers, WA Communications spoke with three exceptional individuals, exploring their experience of the pending regulation and their involvement therein.

At a well-attended roundtable last week, we were joined by Andrew Death, Deputy Director for the Dept for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; Louisiana Salge, Senior Sustainability Specialist at EQ Investors; and James Alexander, CEO of UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association.

The main takeaway, expressed by each of our speakers, was that regulation in this area was essential, but undeniably a challenge – and one for which we’re not quite ready. EQ investors has been focused on investing impactfully and sustainably for nearly 10 years, however, Louisiana Salge highlighted that the vast majority of the asset management sector simply “aren’t there yet”. This sentiment was echoed by James Alexander, suggesting that there is an inherent lack of skills on sustainability and that we need to encourage training in this area.

Similarly, Andrew Death explained that for the SDR to be effective, we need to concentrate on what is actually feasible and deliverable. While this might not be completely perfect at the outset, it will help businesses to transition to a more sustainable framework, rather than risk a lack of engagement and compliance from the very beginning. “We need to get people on board, and then we can up the ambition”, he said, adding that there is a real opportunity for the UK to be a leader in this sector.

Of course, effective labelling to better inform the end investor is at the core of the SDR. Salge, who was part of an industry group providing feedback on this area, recommended better alignment of the labels with other terms already in existence across the financial industry. She also urged the FCA to not simply concentrate on the end output, but to ensure the labels measure the intentionality and processes employed by asset managers when considering their sustainability focus, “this should prevent against a huge amount of greenwashing,” she said.

Another of the key aspects of the SDR is its alignment to the UK ‘s Green Taxonomy. This itself is yet to be finalised, though our speakers were vocal about the importance of getting this right. Indeed, recent suggestions that the taxonomy may include natural gas as “green” have been met with dismay. Alexander, who has already written to the Government to encourage them to remove this, asserted, “for taxonomy to be genuine, it needs to be aligned to the science…natural gas is not green!”. Death, who is working closely on the reporting framework for the Green Taxonomy added that there are certainly lessons to be learnt from the EU’s taxonomy, but simultaneously recognised that the UK’s version must be rolled out quickly to allow for the SDR to be impactful.

While we await the FCA’s draft rules, mooted to be announced this month, it’s clear that there remain a number of gaps and question marks over what the SDR should look like and how it can deliver on its objectives. What’s deeply encouraging is the appetite from the industry at large to do this correctly and to drive development and investment into the right areas. As Salge pointed out, the SDR needs to be a “tool for change” to ultimately help money flow into the right places and transition the whole economy to a more sustainable future.

We do have a way to go, but based on the insight shared and the overwhelming engagement from those in the room, it looks as though the SDR, and the industry’s response to it, might really be successful.

Share this content:

Plotting a roadmap for Primary Care integration: What is changing and what is standing in the way?

Primary care is not currently fit for purpose

Staff capacity and morale are at an all-time low, whilst patient frustrations are at an all-time high. This, coupled with the move toward integrated care systems (ICSs), has created an opportunity to create meaningful change that improves access to services and quality of care for all.

In response, NHS England commissioned a report to assess how newly formed ICSs and primary care could work together to improve patient care. The result was the Fuller Stocktake report, born out of a comprehensive consultation process that unpicked what works well to provide recommendations to accelerate integration in primary care.

But what does this change look like? And what will stand in its way?

What will the change look like?

The Health and Social Care Committee on Workforce has confirmed that the NHS will implement recommendations from the report, including creating Integrated Neighbourhood Care Teams (INCTs).

INCTs aim to do things differently for whole populations. These ‘teams of teams’ are designed to better support people living with long-term conditions by providing a fully integrated response across health, social care, housing, employment, benefits, and voluntary sectors. At the same time, they will be expected to cater for ordinarily healthy people who want faster access to a broader range of professionals.

Partnership lies at the heart of realising this vision, with success dependent on coordinated action. Primary Care Networks are an essential first step, but there are still barriers holding back more ambitious change.

To move forward, systems, services and clinicians need to be realistic about where they are now and tackle challenges head-on.

What is standing in the way?

The devil will be in the detail to make the vision a reality. Practical changes, effective partnerships and patient-centred design are essential steps in the process.

Firstly, practical changes to data infrastructure, estates and workforce must be made at all system levels to deliver the vision.

Although local areas should lead the charge to integrate their teams and systems, they must not be left to do so in a vacuum. Conditions must be created at a national level that enables informed decision-making locally. This means ensuring that local areas have access to the correct data, effective IT systems, and buildings that are fit for purpose. National bodies should ensure that data monitoring aligns with INCTs priorities to enable areas to understand what works and make changes in response to local needs.

At a local level, areas need to ensure that the right people are in place and that their workload is manageable.

The Royal College of General Practitioners’ response to the Fuller report said that:

“Addressing workforce and workload pressures, improving staff morale, and investing in support for change will be particularly key to achieving the report’s aspirations.”

This will be a challenge given that one in seven GP posts are currently vacant, and a third of GPs plan to leave direct patient care within the next five years. The recent Health and Social Care Committee inquiry on the future of General Practice highlighted significant variation between GP practices and the importance of learning from the ‘green shoots’ of integration across the country. Implementing changes equitably will take time and requires full-throated Government support. Innovative ideas to support the frontline in the meantime will be essential to retain momentum and openness to doing things differently.

Secondly, INCT partnerships must determine shared goals from the outset to ensure no one is left behind. Success will depend on ICSs supporting primary care to understand their patients from a population health perspective. Systems will be required to work together to provide a holistic model of care that promotes well–being and prevents ill health. This includes tapping into the knowledge of voluntary and community sectors skilled at working at the interface of clinical and social care and having unique insights into patients’ needs on the ground.

Finally, services must be designed around a positive patient experience to improve quality of care. The report recommends the creation of a care pathway that simultaneously provides personalised care for those with long-term conditions and streamlines access to care for normally healthy people. This is no mean feat. To reduce the risk of this becoming an exercise of moving the deckchairs, patients should be involved in service and pathway re-design, and experts should be enlisted to make this happen. Done well, this represents an opportunity to create more sustainable services grounded in patient satisfaction.

Making the vision a reality

‘But it’s clear, isn’t it, the current model of general practice isn’t working as well as it could. That’s why I commissioned Claire Fuller to do a stocktake,…Claire did a very impressive job, but it’s now our job – mine and yours – to take that forward.’ Amanda Pritchard speech to NHS ConfedExpo 2022 Conference

The Fuller report offers a much–needed and realistic solution as long as we welcome the change. All that remains is creating the right culture and conditions to deliver it. 

Share this content:

What’s happening in health inequalities?

Health inequalities vastly pre-date the pandemic, but evidence demonstrating that a person’s postcode or ethnicity could be a determinant of COVID-19 outcomes has combined with a wider focus on societal inequality – and Levelling Up – to create renewed policy attention.

It is a complex and deep-rooted challenge to reduce health disparities across the country. WA recently produced a The Health Inequalities Policy Map, to explore some of the different policy levers and influencers shaping the landscape: some are explored in more detail here.

NHS reforms can create change – but are not without challenges

The Health and Care Act passed in April, establishing long-awaited NHS system reforms to formalise Integrated Care Systems (ICSs). Included in the legislation was a statutory duty for Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) to reduce health inequalities.

ICSs have responsibility for larger geographical areas than their predecessor CCGs. This means that they may have greater success in taking a population health perspective that can drive improvements to health inequalities, and the introduction of NHS England’s CORE20PLUS5 approach provides a supportive framework for ICSs to refine their thinking.

ICBs bring together health, public health, and other partners to organise provision of care. That should mean that services can be better designed to respond to the needs of the population, creating an ideal environment for supporting communities experiencing health inequalities.

However, there are also likely to be challenges. ICSs are under enormous pressure to address immediate and pressing local challenges, including waiting list backlogs, overstretched emergency care and workforce crunches. Longer-term issues like health inequalities require time, capacity and holistic approaches, and can easily be deprioritised, particularly if there are not incentives in place to drive action.

Technology can only help to reduce disparities if designed carefully

Digital technologies have the potential to reduce burdens on the NHS workforce through automation and artificial intelligence, freeing up staff resources and establishing uniform processes.

But health tech must be designed so that it does not perpetuate existing inequalities. Much has been discussed about lower access or confidence in digital tools for different cohorts, such as older people or those with lower digital literacy. The newly re-integrated digital teams in NHS England will need a clear focus on how tech can enhance outcomes for all communities, not just the lowest hanging fruit.

There are also more complex barriers that need to be addressed, as demonstrated by an example in skin cancer diagnosis.

The creation of an algorithm to diagnose skin cancer was a significant achievement. However, in the paper announcing the algorithm, the examples of images used in the build process did not show diverse ethnicities[i]. This led to concerns that an automated diagnostic tool could actually lead to worse outcomes for different ethnic cohorts.

What is the Government planning to do next?

With a White Paper on Health Disparities due, a Health Secretary committed to tackling “the disease of disparity”, and a new Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, the Government has shown its commitment to resolving health inequalities. They were elected in 2019 on a manifesto which promised to “Level Up” the country.

But when the Levelling Up White Paper was published earlier this year, it was clear that the economic impact of the pandemic has had a significant impact on the Government’s ability to deliver their agenda, and the subsequent budget further underlined the narrow focus on reinvigorating the economy. As the cost-of-living crisis grows, it’s difficult to imagine that the Health Disparities White Paper will be supported by the kind of long-term funding commitment needed from the very top to make a real difference on the ground.

With many avenues and levers for change, there could be huge potential to make a meaningful difference in health inequalities; but without careful planning to overcome challenges, renewed policy attention and NHS reforms could prove a wasted opportunity.

[i] Esteva A, Kuprel B, Novoa RA, Ko J, Swetter SM, Blau HM, Thrun S. Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature. 2017 Feb 2;542(7639):115-118, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28117445/

Share this content:

How businesses can support the people of Ukraine

Like many other businesses, WA is doing what it can to help support the humanitarian efforts in Ukraine. We’ve pulled together some information on what businesses have been doing and some resources to use if you’d like to help on an individual or company wide level.

How businesses can support the people of Ukraine (PDF)

Share this content:

Leadership on a precipice

Boris Johnson stands at the edge of the precipice, his fate in the hands of parliamentary colleagues, many of whom see him as an electoral liability. It is a stark contrast to the aftermath of his 2019 electoral triumph which saw him become the most powerful sitting Prime Minister since Tony Blair. It is now very unlikely he will lead the Party into the next election.

But as Westminster awaits the publication of Sue Gray’s report, exactly how and when might his fate will be sealed remains unclear. So what are the possible scenarios, and what do they mean for organisations seeking to engage with political stakeholders?

Scenario 1: Sue Gray’s report delivers a killer blow

What happens in this scenario?

The contents of Sue Gray’s report are sufficient to trigger the critical threshold of 54 Conservative MPs delivering letters of no confidence to Graham Brady, the 1922 Committee Chair, and the Prime Minister loses the subsequent confidence motion. In this scenario a Conservative leadership election will commence with Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss the clear front-runners.

What does this mean for policy development and political engagement?

All formal Government policy processes will be put on hold pending review by the new Prime Minister and a newly assembled Cabinet. In many areas there will likely be consistency, albeit after a delay of some weeks/months. But there are clearly opportunities for business to seek changes of direction or emphasis in a number of areas under a new administration.

New faces will rise to positions of power and influence within the government. It will be important to quickly engage with new ministers and advisers, and ensure you have a broad base of advocates within the Party. Any policy agendas that were not explicitly backed in the last manifesto will be most subject to change and there will be an opportunity for a new leader to row back on anything controversial, such as the planned National Insurance increase.

However, the core challenges filling the new Prime Minister’s in-tray will remain the same: tackling the cost of living crisis, decarbonisation, post-Covid economic recovery and defending ‘Red Wall’ seats in the Midlands and the North.

Scenario 2: MPs attempt to wield the knife but the Prime Minister clings to power

What happens in this scenario?

As in scenario 1, Sue Gray’s report triggers the necessary 54 no confidence letters but the Prime Minister manages to win the subsequent no confidence vote. Under current Party rules, a formal leadership challenge using this mechanism could not be triggered for another twelve months. The Prime Minister’s authority would still be severely damaged but his administration would limp on.

While his team would attempt to present the leadership issue as having been resolved, Theresa May’s experience showed that the danger would still remain. A poor performance at the local elections in May or inability to pass a significant piece of legislation could still trigger another crisis, albeit with less clarity over the mechanism to remove him.

What does this mean for policy development and political engagement?

In this scenario, policy development and delivery of key Government priorities could be slowed down or changed in any area that is remotely controversial given the Prime Minister’s diminished political capital. The Cabinet would become stronger and backbench Conservative MPs would be emboldened to press their own agendas. Whereas before almost all policy was ultimately dictated by and decided in No 10, there will be much more opportunity to influence policy via a wider set of stakeholders.

Controversial issues such as the National Insurance increase will become much harder to push through and the Government’s overall direction will increasingly be subject to influence from the various factions on the Conservative backbenches. For example, No 10 will be under severe pressure from backbenchers to take a more interventionist approach to tackling the cost of living crisis, with energy bills the next high profile lightning rod. Furthermore, there will be a significant shake-up of personnel in No 10 – officials and advisors – in an attempt to draw a line under recent events and move on.

However, uncertainty will continue to hang over the future of the Prime Minister with potential candidates to replace him continuing to cautiously prepare for the day when the ball might “come loose at the back of the scrum”. This all means it will be important to factor in a broader, more diffuse range of stakeholders who can influence policy when conducting engagement campaigns.

Scenario 3: MPs keep their powder dry a little longer

What happens in this scenario?

The Sue Gray report comes and goes without seeing 54 letters submitted to Graham Brady. The Prime Minister is damaged, embarrassed and forced to refresh the Number 10 team but his Government limps on. This is similar to scenario 2 but his authority is in some ways even more diminished with the threat of a confidence vote constantly hanging over his administration. Every political challenge in the coming months is viewed through the prism of Johnson’s leadership and every mis-step could prove his last. The May elections and any big tests in Parliament will take on added significance.

What does this mean for policy development and political engagement?

This would look and feel very similar to scenario 2 but with a greater sense of the Prime Minister living on borrowed time. Every major political and policy challenge would be viewed through the prism of whether it could trigger 54 letters and the bleed of power from No 10 to Cabinet members and backbenchers would be even more pronounced. All eyes would be on the potential leadership candidates to see how any comment or pronouncement would indicate a shift in policy.

The local elections in May would be framed as a de-facto referendum on the Prime Minister’s leadership and his policy agenda would face challenge at every turn. Broadening out the stakeholders you engage will still be critical as you will need to demonstrate that any change is backed by as many factions and influencers as possible. There will also be more opportunities to slow down or amend any policies that could attract the ire of mutinous Conservative MPs.

In all scenarios, we are about to enter a new, less predictable political phase in Westminster. The landscape of decision makers and influencers looks drastically different to that of twelve months ago and anyone seeking to influence change will need to navigate it with care.

Share this content:

Archive for the ‘Insight’ Category

Top media trends in 2024

Navigating the media landscape in 2025

Labour’s National Payments Vision: what it sets out to achieve

Key regulatory and policy changes being proposed

What comes next?

What does this all mean for the sector?

What are your views on the National Payment Vision and what it means for the next phase of payments in the UK?

Unpacking what GB Energy means for industry and consumers

Unpacking the parties’ identities on TikTok

Learnings for integrated campaigns

The Conservative Party

The Labour Party

The Liberal Democrats

Scotland

First 10 days

First 30 days

First 100 days