Political Services - Vuelio

The impact of regulation on reputation: Why comms teams can’t ignore politics

October 8, 2025/0 Comments/in PR Pulse, PR, Communications, Media Political Services, PR, Political Database, Press and Bloggers, Political Monitoring, Media Database, Media Monitoring Blog Posts /by Phoebe-Jane Boyd

The Online Safety Bill, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, upcoming HFSS legislation changes, and Net Zero targets – did you factor these legislation updates into comms strategies for your business, and clients?

As made clear by the impacts of these regulations on the UK business landscape, staying out of politics is not a viable option for comms teams. Being aware of what’s happening in Westminster isn’t just a bonus skill – it’s a core competency that’s essential for risk management, opportunity spotting, and strategic counsel.

For practical advice for staying ahead in these politically-charged times, check out this round-up of advice from those in the industry successfully weaving political know-how into their brand and client strategies.

How politics permeates PR

Politics influences and intersects with every aspect of our daily lives, and this is no different for organisations.

Kerry Parkin, founder of the Remarkables, believes the issue is two-fold for comms:

‘1) Politics drives the agenda. The geopolitical world is moving faster than ever, often dictating the speed and direction of media and stakeholder conversations. Take tariffs as an example: a major political decision, well signposted in advance, can suddenly make or break something as straightforward as a tequila launch. If your product, business or brand is touched by political or geopolitical events, it must be factored into your mindset, planned for, and executed around, even through, the disruption.

2) Timing is everything. If you are pitching stories on the very day a budget lands, you can kiss goodbye to any meaningful coverage. Without political awareness, teams risk wasting opportunities and undermining credibility by being out of sync with the national conversation.’

In fact, a lack of political know-how can be poison for public relations, as Anton Greindl, director, public affairs, at the Tilton Consultancy explains:

‘Without a working grasp of the political agenda, agencies can drift away from their clients’ real priorities. If you don’t track policy and regulation, you mistime launches, miss stakeholder expectations, and risk using messages that are about to become politically toxic or legally constrained.

‘You also lose earned opportunities, such as select committee calls for evidence, regulator consultations, media windows, because you’re reacting after the fact. Policy literacy is the difference between PR being a noticeboard and PR being a strategic lever for revenue, risk, and reputation.’

Reputation could be the first casualty of a lack of awareness:

‘Without political awareness of the now and what’s upcoming, PR teams risk aligning their clients with narratives that are outdated, or even damaging,’ says Claire Crompton, commercial director at TAL Agency.

‘Politically and socially, society evolves daily – the political sphere is continuously shifting. Managing a brand must be timely in the wider context of society, without anticipating what’s ahead, PR teams are essentially navigating blindfolded.’

The role of political monitoring

While it’s impossible to be present for every PMQs, there are tools to help you keep on top of what’s happening in politics.

Laura Moss, managing partner, Parisi explains what political monitoring can do:

‘A good example of monitoring in practice came when we picked up on emerging Home Office policy proposals to ban critical national infrastructure (CNI) owners and operators from making ransomware payments.

‘We immediately flagged this to a client, the cybersecurity specialist team at a global law firm, and worked with them to provide rapid legal and policy analysis. Within hours, we were able to take their expert commentary to targeted media outlets, ensuring they were among the first voices shaping the debate. This not only positioned the client as a go-to authority on ransomware policy but also strengthened their relationships with journalists covering cyber and national security.’

Monitoring can provide the warning signs for potential crises on the horizon, believes Kerry:

‘It allows PR teams to anticipate rather than react. I saw this first-hand during my time at Costa, when Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall launched his campaign against paper cups. At the time, we treated it as purely a media issue. What we did not realise was that the subject had been raised at Prime Minister’s Questions a month earlier.

‘Political monitoring would have flagged that in advance and given us the chance to prepare the business and the narrative more effectively.’

Another example with huge ramifications for comms and wider industries – the uncertainty around TikTok’s continuing availability in the United States earlier this year:
‘In one fell swoop, this would have disenfranchised millions of young Americans from a channel that they could identify with, and would have cost the platform and its advertising partners, and brands that rely on it, millions in revenue,’ explains Yasper founder Julian Pearce.

‘Businesses from all corners need to be aware of the threats, and the potential fragility of their relationships.’

Political awareness is needed globally, nationally, but also locally, adds Katie Nelson, director and head of construction at Cartwright:

‘Recent months and years demonstrate this perfectly with a power change in Number 10, new housing targets and national infrastructure strategies, and changing cabinets. By being tapped into that political space, we’re able to work with clients on how best to navigate changes from a communications perspective – which as PR pros, we know the role comms has to play.’

Moving from passive observation to proactive strategy

What comms teams do with the information is what makes the difference – reacting to what’s happening in the political sphere, but also taking a proactive stance:

‘On its own, data is useful,’ says Laura. ‘But the real value comes from PR consultants interpreting it and adding their knowledge and insights on the potential business impact, then advising clients on how they may or may not wish to respond. By turning monitoring into actionable insight, PR teams can help clients shape communications strategies and identify opportunities for engagement with policymakers or industry bodies.’

Anton agrees:

‘Too many consultancies follow the same pre-packaged newsletters from a narrow set of public affairs – specific outlets, which limits scope and insight. While these are extremely useful in our day to day, every practitioner should skim the key national and international papers each morning, plus at least one business title, one sector trade and the relevant regulator feeds. Go to the source, such as government portals, consultations, committees and statistical releases, rather than relying solely on pre-focused summaries. And I believe we should close the loop weekly with a short, internal, client-specific briefing that covers what changed, why it matters, and the recommended actions.’

In summary, ignore what’s happening in Parliament at your peril…

Your stakeholders will care, so should you, says Jan Christoph Bohnerth, CEO of Life Size.

‘Communications teams can and should go beyond simply tracking when a new bill or regulation is introduced. It’s now also about anticipating how different stakeholders are likely to move, and communications has an important role to play in influencing and shaping public discourse. Done well, this gives PR teams the intelligence to stay ahead, guide strategy and achieve the best possible outcomes for their clients or organisations.’

‘Those that fall short tend to be the ones cutting back in political and communications engagement,’ warns Kerry.

‘In today’s environment, that is short sighted. Now is the time to be investing in these capabilities, not retreating from them, because the political and media landscape is only becoming more complex and uncertain.’

‘The takeaway for PR is simple,’ adds Anton. ‘When politics moves, lead with substance, consistency and implementation detail.

‘Treat policy milestones like a content calendar, make your spokespeople useful to the debate, and ensure every message is anchored to actions the organisation is taking next.’

Tap into what’s happening in politics with Vuelio Political Monitoring and our Political Database. Want help with stakeholder management? Check out Vuelio Stakeholder Relationship Management.

Liberal Democrat Conference overview: A pushback against the infiltration of ‘Trumpian’ politics

September 29, 2025/0 Comments/in Politics, Public Affairs Political Services, Political Database, Political Monitoring Blog Posts /by Aidan Stansbury

Written by Aidan Stansbury and Billy Barham, Vuelio Political Team.

The Liberal Democrat Conference saw no halt in Sir Ed Davey’s relentless bombardment of the right wing of politics. In fact, it reinvigorated his arguments, as he pushed against what he described as Trumpian-style politics infiltrating, by proxy, across the Atlantic.

In his closing speech, Davey did not hesitate to call out the US president, challenging him on the flight of medical researchers from the US, and his claims regarding autism in children caused by paracetamol. Further, Spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Callum Miller’s speech was dominated with anti-Trump rhetoric, accusing the UK of bending over backwards for the US. Davey also used the conference to further take aim at Elon Musk, lengthening their public dispute from X to the shores of Bournemouth. The party has called for criminal charges against Musk for the language used at the Unite the Kingdom march a few weeks ago. The anti-Trump notion was reiterated by Sir Nick Clegg, who confirmed he would not be returning to politics after leaving Meta as President of Global Affairs earlier this year. In a fringe event on Big Tech, AI and Political Conflict, the former Deputy Prime Minister did not hold back on his criticisms of the ‘special relationship’, branding the UK’s dependence on the US as embarrassing and increasingly ‘cringey’. He warned that the UK would soon have to choose between the US and the EU to protect its values and sovereignty.

It would be hard to argue that Nigel Farage, Reform UK Leader, was not a contending protagonist of the conference, absorbing the closing speech titled ‘Don’t let Trump’s America become Farage’s Britain’. The Liberal Democrats have worked to jointly connect the attitudes of Donald Trump and his ‘number one cheerleader’ Nigel Farage, accusing him of being anti-democratic and anti-patriotic, with little interest in advancing the UK. Given that Reform UK only has five seats in Parliament, it is clear the party is looking to the future, guided by opinion polls, where Reform UK could sweep up country-wide disillusionment with the current establishment. Davey’s ploy here is to challenge the UK’s cosying up to the US administration, both through Labour’s desire ‘to do everything to appease Trump’ and Reform UK’s Trumpian political ambitions. To supplement this argument, Liberal Democrats gave out toy lego characters of Farage named ‘Plastic Patriotic’, complete with a MAGA hat and a boot for the Farage figure to lick. Davey has said the Liberal Democrats have a moral obligation to tackle Reform UK and are unwilling to back down to the bullies on the right, positioning the party as a centrist ‘pro-business’ alternative.

In regard to the incumbent Government, the Liberal Democrats’ rhetoric has become
increasingly critical. Davey, in his closing speech, argued that the Government was testing the patience of voters, lurching from one crisis to another. The Government, he said, was hurting pensioners, carers, and farmers across the UK. He implied that the damage to public trust was irreparable, suggesting that the decisions of voters would now be between the Liberal Democrats or Reform UK. A bold move to completely disassociate the established parties, looking to capitalise on shifting opinion polls and public disillusionment.

The former minister for schools David Laws and the Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Education, Children and Families) Munira Wilson both questioned the Government’s political strategy. They claimed that caution and a lack of strategic vision had meant that the Government’s stuttering start to power was focused on minimal evolution rather than revolution. They believed the public could feel this tension and that it was the party’s duty to present an optimistic vision of the future to challenge the right.

Further, a key theme across the conference was the shared belief in the importance of community and that locally-led solutions were critical to deep rooted political issues and as a vehicle for systemic change. Baroness Pinnock, Liberal Democrat Lords Spokesperson for Housing, Communities and Local Government went further, directing criticism towards the Government’s stance on devolution. She argued that the Government’s interpretation of devolution is fundamentally flawed and lacked key democratic principles, warning against the assumption that devolution will automatically lead to a more prosperous future on a local and national level. Separately, Angus MacDonald criticised the Government direction on energy and the just transition, arguing that it had alienated the rural economy and had been done to the public rather than with them.

Fundamentally, the Liberal Democrat conference showed a key signal that the party is willing to stand up and fight off the right of politics; whether that is tackling the Conservatives in a hope to outmuscle them at the next election, or, more prominently, warn potential voters away from the perceived dangerous Trumpian ambitions of Nigel Farage. In doing so, the Liberal Democrats aim to offer an optimistic future for the UK, one which they believe Labour is unable to provide.

For more on UK politics, sign up to our Point of Order newsletter.

Labour Milestones Review: Home-grown energy and net zero goals

August 29, 2025/0 Comments/in Politics, Public Affairs Political Services, Political Database, Political Monitoring, Public Sector Blog Posts /by Laura Fitzgerald

Labour came to power in July 2024 with a clear ambition: to make Britain a clean energy superpower. It promised that the benefits of this mission would be felt across all parts of the UK, from lower bills and protection from volatile fossil fuel markets, to the creation of jobs and greater investment and growth opportunities in British industries and industrial heartlands. Labour has insisted that its clean energy ambitions are achievable and has undertaken actions to change the face of the UK’s energy landscape already. However, confronted with an increasingly fractured consensus around net zero and an unstable geopolitical backdrop, achieving the clean power mission will be no small feat. So, one year on, how much progress has Labour made since its election?

Labour’s flagship target of clean power by 2030 is arguably one of its most ambitious. With 2030 just five years away, achieving the target will require radical reforms to the UK’s energy system, to be delivered at pace. Labour’s first few months in office saw the party hit the ground running. Within days of coming to power, the Government lifted the de facto ban on onshore wind introduced by the Conservatives in 2016, and announced a new partnership between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy, the Government’s publicly-owned energy company, to support the development of clean energy infrastructure. Last year also saw Labour deliver a record budget allocation for the next Contracts for Difference auction round, and the Government’s clean power delivery unit, Mission Control, published its Clean Power Action Plan, outlining the roadmap to 2030. Other significant milestones during Labour’s tenure have included the closure of the UK’s last coal-fired power station and Scotland’s only oil refinery, as well as the Government’s commitment of over £14bn to build the first nuclear power station in over three decades, Sizewell C.

However, these milestones, while historic, have not come without challenges, and have been beset with criticism from across the spectrum. The last year has seen a shift in the Conservative Party’s stance towards net zero, with its leader Kemi Badenoch now describing the net zero by 2050 target as ‘impossible’, and one that cannot be achieved ‘without a serious drop in [living standards].’ Reform UK has been equally as vocal in its opposition to the Government’s clean energy ambitions, arguing that ‘net stupid zero’ is ‘destroying’ jobs, and leading to higher energy bills and deindustrialisation in the UK.

A report from the Tony Blair Institute in April captured this breakdown in the political consensus around net zero, highlighting the ‘widening credibility gap’ at the heart of climate change policies and that the current climate debate is ‘broken.’ Despite this political noise around net zero, recent polling revealed that the public’s support of climate action is holding strong. However, with Brits currently paying some of the world’s highest electricity prices; an increasing loss of jobs in oil and gas industries; and the NIMBY argument looming large, Labour face a challenge in keeping the public onside as it moves full steam ahead towards net zero. The question remains whether the promise of lower energy bills and benefits for communities hosting clean energy infrastructure will be enough to garner support for the net zero transition, and whether the rise of the Reform party will derail the Government’s plans and steer the public towards a different path.

Looking ahead, Labour has a task on its hands to drive forward the momentum behind its clean energy mission, and ensure that the public, industry and investors are brought along with it. Will the UK become a clean energy superpower, or will Labour’s net zero policies, in the words of Badenoch, ‘bankrupt’ British industries and its people?

For more on how the Labour Government is delivering on its promises, read the Vuelio Political team’s take on housing, children’s wellbeing, the NHS, living standards, and policing.

Labour Milestones Review: Raising living standards

August 28, 2025/0 Comments/in Politics, Public Affairs Political Monitoring, Public Sector, Political Services, Political Database Blog Posts /by Ingrid Marin

As the summer of 2025 draws to a close, the Government’s milestone to ‘raise living standards so working people have more money in their pockets’ sits in a complex economic landscape. Polling patterns suggest that inflation continues to weigh heavily on public perceptions of economic competences and while inflation has eased from the peaks of the cost-of-living crisis it remains at around 3.6%, above the Bank of England’s 2% target. Moreover, for many households, the modest GDP growth of 0.3% in the last quarter offers little tangible relief when combined with rising unemployment, now at its highest level in four years.

Labour’s central interventions have focused on wage policy. In April, the National Living Wage rose by 6.7% to £12.21, with projections to reach at least £12.71 by next spring. Moreover, the Low Pay Commission’s remit has been expanded to consider cost-of-living measures when it makes future recommendations to the Government on the minimum wage.

However, surveys from Lancaster University suggest that almost half of workers have little left after covering essential bills, with low-income households especially doubtful that wages will keep pace with rising costs. Similarly, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation calculates that average disposable incomes remain £400 below pre-pandemic levels, with the poorest fifth of households on course to see a 6% drop by 2030. The Resolution Foundation notes that for higher earners, apparent gains can be offset once the value of public services and tax changes is factored in, making any perception of improvement more reliant on service delivery than on disposable income alone.

A turning point came in the spring when the Government was forced to row back on some of its proposed reforms to disability benefits after a sharp backlash from campaigners, charities, and backbench MPs. Although the U-turn avoided a Labour rebellion, it created a gap in the Government’s fiscal plans; as planned savings from welfare reform were baked into the Budget’s forecasts. This gap will need to be filled, and attention is turning to the possibility of further tax rises in the autumn, a move that could complicate Labour’s narrative of helping working people keep more money in their pockets. According to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, the Chancellor may now need to find more than £40bn of tax rises or spending cuts in the autumn budget to meet her fiscal rules.

Moreover, business groups warn that higher employer costs, from the NLW to National Insurance and the Employment Rights Bill currently going through Parliament, risk dampening investment and hiring. The CBI projects growth of just over one percent this year, enough to avoid recession but not enough to produce the rising tide needed to lift all boats.

The milestone of raising living standards was never going to be achieved within a single year, but by mid 2025 Labour’s progress feels somewhat incomplete. The challenge heading into the autumn spending round is to deepen and accelerate measures that deliver direct, visible benefits.

For more on how the Labour Government is delivering on its promises, read the Vuelio Political team’s take on its housing, policing, healthcare, and education commitments.

Labour Milestones Review: Giving children the best start in life

August 27, 2025/0 Comments/in Politics, Public Affairs Political Services, Political Database, Political Monitoring, Public Sector Blog Posts /by Billy Barham

During the 2024 General Election campaign, the Labour Party raised concerns that too many children arriving at primary school were not ready to learn. Across England, 33% of all children in the 2022/23 academic year were considered not school ready when starting reception. This included a quarter not having basic language skills and 30% being unable to communicate their needs to teachers. While the long-term implications of low school readiness are well researched, stakeholders called for the Government to act quickly to reduce the effects of poor spoken language, literacy and numeracy. They also noted that children from less affluent backgrounds face a high risk of low educational attainment, which could entrench intergenerational disadvantages.

In December 2024, the Government committed to increasing school readiness as part of its six key milestones for this parliament. The term ‘school readiness’ often refers to a child’s preparedness and their ability to succeed in school through cognitive, social, and emotional skills. It most commonly refers to children around the age of five and the start of formal education. A child’s development is considered ‘good’ if they meet the expected requirements across five early learning categories. These include communication, personal, social and emotional development, literacy, mathematics, and physical development. Assessments are made at the end of the Early Years Foundation Stage.

In its pledge, the Government has committed to increasing school readiness to 75% of all five-year-olds by 2028. Progress will be measured against children reaching a ‘good level of development’ across the five areas of learning in the Early Years Foundation Stage, and would mark an increase of 40,000 to 45,000 a year reaching the standard. In November 2024, the Department for Education reported that 67.7% of children in 2023/24 met a good level of development at the start of the academic year.

To meet this milestone, the Government has rolled out multiple initiatives across early years education, targeting improvements in accessibility, quality, family support and local services. The Government’s commitment to early childhood is centred around collaboration and partnership with parents, teachers, and communities. The Government’s strategy has included a £1.5bn commitment to structural reform across family services and early years education, and will work in tandem with broader Government strategies, including the 10-Year Health Plan.

Firstly, the Government has committed to reforming family services, critical to supporting early development. It is launching over 1,000 Best Start Family Hubs across the country by the end of 2028, ensuring that there is a hub situated in every local authority by April 2026. These services will also be integrated by a new national digital service, which will centralise information and guidance from local service providers for families.

The Government has also targeted accessibility and affordability for early education and care. This has included Government funded childcare which is reported to save families an average of £7,500 a year by providing 30 hours of childcare a week. The Government has stated that over 500,000 children are currently benefitting from the initiative. There have also been efforts to expand access to the early years sector, with up to 6,000 new places opening in school-based nurseries. The expansion marks efforts to reduce a regional attainment gap, with the majority of new nurseries opening in phase one in the North and the Midlands.

The strategy has also centred on inclusion and accountability. The Government has raised the Early Years Pupil Premium to its ‘highest level’ to increase support for low-income families, increased accountability through reforms to the frequency of Ofsted inspections and focused training support on evidence-based programs that support those identified with SEND. Broader reforms to the early years system are further being supported by targeted skills development and teacher retention to tackle a broader teaching ‘crisis’.

As the Government enters its second year in power, stakeholders have acknowledged the Government’s strategy as both wide-reaching and ambitious, with many noting the complexity and importance of improving school readiness. However, concerns have been raised about the plausibility of the ‘75%’ goal and the financial stability that is required to ensure a sustained and progressive rise in early years development. A survey by Schools Week indicated that 80% of teachers believe that the Government will miss its target.

The Sutton Trust, similarly to the Institute for Government, emphasised the scale of disparities in school readiness between different demographic groups. They noted that targeted intervention must be focused on the most deprived areas, where 51.5% of children from disadvantaged backgrounds reach school readiness by the age of five. The gap between children who are eligible for free school meals and their peers has widened since 2017 and poses a complicated challenge for the Government to address.

While there remains an acknowledgement of support in the Government’s efforts to reform early years education, how the Government tackles an increasing attainment gap will be crucial in reaching its milestone. The Government’s ability to resolve the issue at speed, whilst ensuring sustained financial support, will be critical to supporting vulnerable children and its overarching ambition of raising school readiness to 75% for all children at the age of five.

For more on how the Labour Government is delivering on its promises, read the Vuelio Political team’s take on its housing and policing commitments.

Labour milestones review hospital waiting lists

Labour Milestones Review: Clearing hospital waiting lists

August 21, 2025/0 Comments/in Politics, Public Affairs Political Services, Political Database, Political Monitoring, Public Sector Blog Posts /by Aidan Stansbury

Labour has placed fixing the ‘broken’ NHS at the core of its pre- and post-election political messaging, connecting this milestone intrinsically in its mandate; failure to improve the state of the NHS and the wider health sector would epitomise its governmental failure.

To prevent this, political messaging has been supplemented by policy. In the Autumn Budget, Spring Statement and Spending Review, the NHS and the Department for Health and Social Care emerged the real ‘winners’ with other departments picking up the scraps of funding left. Equally, in a June and July which saw strategies and sector plans published frequently, the 10 Year Health Plan was a key point of attention, taking large expansive steps hoping to revitalise the NHS through ‘major surgery, not sticking plasters’.

The dire state of the NHS is unequivocally clear, and Lord Darzi’s report, published in September 2024, found waiting lists at an all time high, up 200% since 2010. In 2020, there were 720,000 people waiting over 18 weeks for elective treatment. Following the pandemic spike and a steady increase since, in July 2024, upon Labour’s election, 2.85m people were waiting between 18 and 52 weeks, with a further 290,000 waiting over a year. This amounts to 58% of patients meeting the 18 week target, 34 percentage points shy of the milestone. Therefore, Labour’s challenge was and is still to inversely reflect this backlog, reversing the steady increase and going further to reach the 92% target, last met over ten years ago.

So far, as of May 2025, 60.9% of patients are waiting less than 18 weeks, thus, early signs point to a failure to reach this milestone, where the moderate improvements over the last year would reflect an eventual 75% rate, falling short of the target. Rebuttals to this will cite that the policies have had little time to bed in and are in the process of delivering the changes needed to innovate service, harness doctors’ capabilities, recruit new staff and tear through the backlog.

The 10 Year Health Plan sets out these changes. Firstly, one of the triad of core shifts is moving care from hospital to community. This involves reforming the NHS to the Neighbourhood Health Service, functioning as a one-stop shop for community-based care. This move, backed and called for by the sector, hopes to shift the culture of the operating model by directing the correct need and care into the community, freeing up NHS staff to deal with pertinent issues and tackle the backlog. Despite this, moving health to the community is nothing new, and has circulated health ministers’ discourse since the Blair Government. Thus, this calls into question, as highlighted by the Chief Executive of the Health Foundation Dr Jennifer Dixon DBE, whether ‘lessons have been learned’ from past failures. Further, harnessing technological innovation, another core shift, hopes to relieve the administrative burden placed on staff. Mechanisms such as the Single Patient Record, to store all patient data in one transferable place, should work to relieve staff of administrative duties and allow them to focus on providing care and working through the backlog.

Ultimately, as many large multi-year targets do, any improvements will have to be seen. But, with a clear mandate, health and care at the nucleus of Labour’s mission and clear policy put in motion, convincing excuses will be needed to explain any stalling improvements.

For more on how the Labour Government is delivering on its promises, read the Vuelio Political team’s take on its housing and policing commitments.

Labour Milestones Review: Law and order

August 20, 2025/0 Comments/in Politics, Public Affairs Political Monitoring, Public Sector, Political Services, Political Database Blog Posts /by Alexandra Moran

Back in May last year, Keir Starmer and members of the then Shadow Cabinet launched the Labour Party’s ‘Steps for Change’, outlining actions their government would take towards achieving Starmer’s five missions. One of these steps was to ‘crack down on antisocial behaviour’, by having more police presence on our streets and introducing tougher new penalties for offenders. Then Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, noted that 90% of crime was essentially going unsolved under the Conservatives and pointed out that community confidence in policing was plummeting. In saying this, Cooper framed Labour not only as a party of law and order, but also as one capable of restoring trust. By promising visible action on antisocial behaviour, Labour sought to connect policing policy with broader public concerns about safety and social cohesion.

Less than a month after attaining office, riots broke out across the country following the Southport stabbings. The events served as an early stress test of the Government’s capacity to deliver on its law and order commitments. While the unrest highlighted the case for stronger police powers, it equally demonstrated that enforcement alone cannot address the root causes of disorder without parallel investment in community trust-building.

In October, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper made a statement following the acquittal of Sergeant Martyn Blake in the Chris Kaba case, setting out measures to improve accountability, standards, and public confidence in policing. She stressed the need to respect the jury’s verdict while recognising reduced public trust (particularly among Black communities) and long-standing problems in the police accountability system. These comments signalled an attempt to defuse tensions while maintaining political credibility with both police and minority communities.

Two major reports followed in late 2024 and early 2025 that painted a complex picture of public trust in policing. A YFF survey found that while Black teenagers were the most likely to say their local police do a good job, they and their mixed ethnicity peers were far less likely than White children to believe officers treat everyone fairly or use force only when necessary. In contrast, a Policy Exchange study suggested that ethnic minorities overall reported significantly higher levels of confidence and satisfaction in the police than White respondents. Taken together, these findings suggest that general perceptions of police effectiveness can coexist with deep concerns about fairness, particularly in day-to-day interactions.

In order to present the Labour Government as a guarantor of religious freedom and public order, the Government announced in March that they would be introducing new powers to protect places of worship from disruptive protests, as part of the Crime and Policing Bill. These measures aimed to help police manage protests near synagogues, mosques, churches, and other religious sites by setting clear conditions on protest routes and timings to prevent intimidation. Then in May, the Government also introduced new rules to ensure that police officers found guilty of gross misconduct are automatically dismissed (barring exceptional circumstances).

In terms of funding, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced in last year’s Autumn Budget new measures changing employer national insurance contributions (NICs). In response, the Conservatives accused the Treasury of not conducting an impact assessment or consulting police forces on the changes prior to the announcement. Despite this, the Government announced in August that police officers across England and Wales would receive a 4.2% above-inflation pay rise, covering all ranks up to chief superintendent. It was also confirmed later that month that, for the financial year ending 31 March 2026, funding for policing in England and Wales would be up to £19.9bn.

This all comes as we still await the Government’s White Paper on police reform, which is due to be published at some point this year, focusing on governance, efficiency, and resource allocation. In the autumn, the Public Accounts Committee will also begin its inquiry on police productivity, questioning Home Office officials on financial constraints and how the department ensures police forces will deliver value for money going forward. The timing of the White Paper and the PAC inquiry could prove politically sensitive, as both will likely set the terms for future debates on whether the Government’s early interventions in policing have delivered measurable improvements, or whether its approach remains more rhetorical than results-driven.

For more on how the Labour Government is delivering on its promises, read the Vuelio Political team’s take on housing commitments.

Labour Milestones Review: How is the Government doing on housing?

August 18, 2025/0 Comments/in Politics, Public Affairs Political Services, Political Database, Political Monitoring, Public Sector Blog Posts /by Ellie Farrow

Labour’s return to power in last year’s election (their first win since 2005) came with a strong mandate to deliver meaningful change. Central to Labour’s manifesto was a commitment to build 1.5 million new homes, alongside immediate reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The party also promised a generational investment in social housing and long-overdue reforms to fix the broken leasehold system and the private rented sector. Framing the new approach, Angela Rayner stated that ‘this Labour Government are on the side of the builders, not the blockers’—a clear signal of intent to move beyond the planning inertia and delivery shortfalls seen in recent years.

The Government’s flagship policy on housing was its pledge to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament. While deemed a ‘stretch’ by Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook, shortly after the election, the Government established a New Homes Accelerator to take direct action on individual sites. This was later backed by the creation of a new National Housing Bank. Central to delivery has been reforming the planning system: restoring housing targets via an updated NPPF, reallocating poor-quality ‘grey belt’ land, and requiring councils to maintain a five-year land supply and an up-to-date local plan. Further measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill aim to modernise planning committees, delegate more decisions to officers, and streamline approvals for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). To boost capacity, 300 additional planning officers are also being recruited. In addition to this, more support has been provided for SME builders through establishing a new ‘medium site’ category with reduced planning rules, and establishing a Small Sites Aggregator to unlock small sites which otherwise would not be developed.

However, planning reform alone won’t be enough. Industry leaders have consistently warned that without a significantly larger construction workforce, housing targets will remain out of reach. According to the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB), the sector needs to recruit around 47,860 additional workers each year between 2025 and 2029—amounting to nearly 240,000 new workers over five years. The Home Builders Federation (HBF), alongside major developers like Barratt Redrow, point to skills shortages, an ageing workforce, and the effects of Brexit as key challenges behind the shrinking labour pool.

In response, the Government has acknowledged a ‘dire shortage’ of construction workers and introduced a series of measures to address it. These include the creation of Skills England, a new national body focused on tackling skills gaps; a £600m investment in construction training; and the launch of a Construction Skills Mission Board with an ambition to recruit 100,000 new workers annually. While these initiatives signal a clear intent to turn the tide, many in the industry are waiting to see whether they will translate into meaningful change on the ground.

As mentioned, all of these commitments signal serious intent—but tracking their progress and ensuring their delivery will be key to turning policy into real change. It could also be argued that more needs to be done to make the political case that these changes will genuinely improve voters’ lives. Beyond boosting supply, the Government is also battling with deep-rooted challenges across the housing system. From tackling poor-quality existing stock—particularly in social housing and high-rise blocks—to rolling out the Warm Homes Plan, addressing homelessness, and reforming outdated rental and leasehold laws through the Renters’ Rights Bill, the scale of the task ahead remains vast.

Optimism and opportunity? The Government’s 10 Year Health Plan for England

July 8, 2025/0 Comments/in Politics, Public Affairs Political Services, PR, Political Database, Political Monitoring, Public Sector Blog Posts /by Aidan Stansbury

On Thursday, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Wes Streeting published the Government’s 10 Year Health Plan for England. Predicated by the Lord Darzi report published in September, the Plan sets out to offer both an optimistic vision of the future and opportunity for the NHS on the backdrop of a concrete diagnosis of the current state of play that the NHS must ‘reform or die’. The plan sets out to fix these issues, placing science and technological innovation at the core of its Plan, hoping to propel the NHS from behind the curve to leading from the front.

The Plan is structured on three big shifts. The first, from hospital to community, rewords the NHS to Neighbourhood Health Service, shifting service from hospital to community care. Neighbourhood Health Centres are the beginning of this, functioning as a ‘one-stop shop’ with centralised patient care harnessed by AI and technological advancements. According to the NHS Confederation, support is there for this move, with health leaders committed to a more preventative, community-based NHS. This offers a complete restructure and cultural shift in the operating model, where success could be a ‘real win’ as described by The King’s Fund in reaction to the plan. However, having been long argued for by the sector, the Chief Executive of the Health Foundation Dr Jennifer Dixon DBE says she is unsure whether ‘lessons have been learned’ from past failures. The shift to community care is welcomed by the sector overall, with the British Geriatrics Society highlighting the need for co-produced neighbourhood services that provide good outcomes for older people. Picker welcomes the Plan’s emphasis on placing patients at the centre, through improved feedback routes, ‘Patient Power Payments’, and personalised care plans, and ARCO who says the move will leave patients ‘better off’.

This shift also sets out how dentistry, community pharmacy, and mental health provision will be further localised in community hubs and health centres. In reaction, the British Psychological Society say bringing mental health services to the community will lead to better outcomes, helping people at the earliest access point. Going beyond, Mind has called for more to be done including a further comprehensive plan that places mental health at the centre of the new NHS in order to truly tackle its deterioration in society.

For the second shift, taking the NHS from ‘analogue to digital’ involves the innovation of NHS technology. This includes the introduction of a Single Patient Record to streamline patient health accounts in one place, accessible from all points of provision. The NHS App is set to be revolutionised with a host of ‘My’ tools to help ease booking of appointments, cut down on archaic waste, provide quick advice, and improve the management of patient care. A HealthStore will deliver new innovative apps to further aid the experience and AI will be utilised to ‘liberate’ staff from their bureaucracy. Technological advancements must also go hand-in-hand with productivity improvements and the Plan sets forward how tariffs, new contacts, pay incentives, and financial planning will help boost this metric.

Technological advancements are welcomed by the sector and seen by the Nuffield Trust as a ‘real game changer’. NICE, a key component of new technological changes, say the Plan gives them the power to get medicines to patients faster, distribute health technology and maximise value for money through innovation. However, there is concern, as pointed out by The King’s Fund, technological improvements have often been ‘big on promise but lacking in delivery’. Further, the Chief Executive at Public Digital Chris Fleming has said that technology, especially in the NHS app, will mask the actual failure of services and, as noted by the Royal College of Physicians, can only work if co-designed with patients and staff in mind. Thus, while welcomed for its innovative ambition, more certainty is required to demonstrate its benefits.

The final shift, from sickness to prevention, sets a precedent to stop ill health at source, raise the ‘healthiest generation of children ever’, protect preventable NHS costs, and support economic growth. This includes harnessing AI and genomics to advance predictive analysis and diagnosis. The Tobacco and Vapes Bill, the introduction of healthy food standards, new weight loss drugs, investment in active lifestyles, a point scheme that rewards healthy lifestyles, strict alcohol requirements also will all work to tackle preventable risk factors.

Turning the tide on risk factors is key to saving lives and costs, and is welcomed by many in the sector, including the RCP and Diabetes UK who respectively stress that tackling tobacco and preventing obesity are key to stopping life-altering long-term conditions. On the contrary to this sentiment, the Institute for Alcohol Studies says it’s ‘embarassing’ to launch a prevention plan that ignores the most effective way to reduce alcohol harm in Minimum Unit Pricing. Healthwatch, a member of the 10 Year Health Plan working groups, welcomes some preventive initiatives but highlights the absence of plans for those with disabilities and cost-of-living support which also stand as key risk factors.

More widely, it is easy to read a long-term plan or strategy and be consumed by the breadth of positive measures that, in accordance with their objectives, will deliver beneficial change. The real sticking point involves an assessment of what choices and trade-offs were made. A key point of this is social care, a concern raised by many in the health sector even when the 10 Year Plan was only hypothesised in 2024. The Plan today, set with the backdrop of pending Baroness Casey’s Review, does little to address these concerns. The British Geriatrics Society has said that without a ‘sustainable social care system the 10 Year Health Plan will find it hard to succeed’ and therefore, as described by The King’s Fund, the Plan hinges on ’whether the government is willing to act more urgently – or indeed at all – to implement social care reforms’. Similarly, the Health Foundation says the plan is too focused on just the NHS and not the Government’s ambition to rebuild the nation’s health, reflecting concern of adverse consequences outside the three shifts. Another common theme in reaction is a question of how, which still remains pertinent to many. The Nuffield Trust articulates this well, saying the Plan is trying to ‘heal thyself’ through efficiencies and feedback but does little to address actual needs. This question also holds whether there is the funding capacity, with a lower than historic average spend projected by the Spending Review, combined with the costs of moving care to community and technological innovation.

The public perception of the Plan is that it is ambitious and clear on its foundational pillars for reforming the NHS away from a looming ‘death’. It looks to bring the service to the neighbourhood, harnessing technology to drive efficiency, bolster patent care and clamp down on health risks. However, concerns remain on its feasibility, its affordability and the potential losers, such as social care.

The top political monitoring platforms for PR, political, and public affairs professionals

February 22, 2025/0 Comments/in Politics, Public Affairs Political Monitoring, Political Services, PR, Political Database Blog Posts /by Phoebe-Jane Boyd

Things move fast in politics. If you’re an organisation with political stakeholders, political monitoring you can rely on is a must.

For choosing the right platform for your needs, here are the best political monitoring platforms for those in PR and communications, public affairs, and marketing.

1) Vuelio

Political Monitoring is just one of the solutions the multiplatform Vuelio offers for those working in the PR, comms, marketing, media, political, and public affairs industries. Alongside an international media database, press release distribution, and campaign analysis solutions, and stakeholder management, Vuelio provides political monitoring and a fully integrated political database.

This comprehensive public affairs platform monitors everything happening across the UK’s Parliaments and Government departments, as well as important moves in the wider political ecosystem. Going beyond monitoring, Vuelio opens up the ability to directly engage with key political stakeholders and make meaningful contributions to policy. Find details for parliamentarians, special advisors, council leaders, and council chief executives, and get full visibility of conversations happening via traditional sources – parliament, committees, briefings, press, and blogs – as well as social media platforms.

Political content is analysed by the dedicated in-house team and delivered in a format tailored to you and your team, in Vuelio Political Reports, downloadable seasonal reports, and election specific newsletters.

2) Dods Political Intelligence

Dods aims to inform, educate and advise on parliament and policy, offering coverage on regulatory changes and more. Its political intelligence services include monitoring and research to aid in the reach of communications and campaigns.

Personalised alerts on policy and political issues come from a bank of historical information from a variety of sources across the UK and EU.

Originally founded in 1832, Dods focuses on a human-driven approach in favour of AI-amplified results.

3) DeHavilland

Combining in-house expertise with technology, DeHavilland political monitoring aims to provide users with political data from thousands of sources. Updates are tailored to provide teams with what they need to know and cut out irrelevant noise.

Information is gathered from government, parliament, European parliament, and committees and is shared in a digestible format by team analysts and policy researchers.

Alongside monitoring, the platform offers insight and stakeholder management for public affairs and government relations.

4) PolicyMogul

This platform aims to offer comprehensive and timely monitoring, cutting out government and political developments that may be irrelevant. Offering AI-written summaries designed to contextualise political updates, ‘near real time’ data is available for specific areas of interest.

Alerts – which focus on verified information over potentially overwhelming real time updates – can be shared via email or the platform’s integration with Slack.

PolicyMogul also offers a political stakeholder CRM and embeddables that can be added to websites or blogs.

5) Navigate Politics UK

Offering briefings and client catch-ups, Navigate Politics UK offers ‘human-led’ services to help public affairs leaders stay ahead of political updates.

The automated user interface is designed and delivered by in-house public affairs professionals, sharing updates in daily briefings, alerts, and summaries that are custom-built for public affairs teams. Users can choose from morning briefings, mid-morning round-ups, live coverage, tailored summaries, and weekly grids.

6) PoliMonitor

Used by public affairs and communications professionals from organisations big and small, PoliMonitor helps its users understand and engage with political discussions.

On offer alongside the monitoring is stakeholder mapping, relationship management, transcripts and summaries, client relationship management, research and reports, horizon scanning, and an integrated contact database.

7) Randall’s Monitoring

With over 45 years of experience in monitoring the political sphere, Randall’s offers coverage of Westminster, Whitehall, the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments and the Northern Ireland and Greater London Assemblies. With email and web-based distribution systems, this platform’s parliamentary monitoring has coverage of debates, questions, motions and select committee activities and its general political monitoring covers party political news and policy developments.

Randall’s also provides stakeholder monitoring, and political and parliamentary advice.

Key developments from UK policy and politics in 2024

December 19, 2024/0 Comments/in Politics, Public Affairs Political Monitoring, Political Services, Political Database Blog Posts /by Michael Kane

As we step into Christmas and the New Year, the Vuelio Political Team have been thinking and writing about the key developments that pervaded UK policy and politics in 2024. Here is our overview…

Treating the NHS

Helen Stott, Policy Researcher

Wes Streeting’s first act as Health Secretary was to make a speech declaring the NHS ‘broken’ and to commission Lord Darzi to conduct an investigation into its current state. Darzi’s review was published a few months later and, perhaps unsurprisingly, he laid the blame for the NHS’s decline squarely at the fault of previous Conservative governments. Darzi claims that although the health service is still suffering the effects of COVID-19, it was severely weakened going into the pandemic as a result of years of underfunding. He was also critical of the reforms introduced by former Health Secretary Andrew Lansley in 2012.

Having diagnosed the problem, the Government is now tasked with delivering the treatment. Prior to the election, Labour made it clear that their plans for the health service would rely on three key shifts; firstly a shift away from hospitals and to delivering more care in community settings such as general practice, local pharmacies, and community mental health services. Moving ‘downstream’ is crucial to Labour’s second goal, which is to shift towards a more ‘preventative’ model. The argument is that as the UK faces an aging population with more complex health needs, the only way to stop health costs from spiralling out of control is to get better at early intervention or even preventing ill health from occurring in the first place. This ties in with the Government’s public health ambitions, and their intentions to introduce stricter regulations on junk food. Finally, the first two goals will be underpinned by a shift towards digital, with an ambition to properly digitise the NHS and create electronic patient records, which will allow for proper coordination between different parts of the health and social care system.

The Government is currently in the process of consulting on their 10 Year Health Plan which is due to be published in spring 2025. There are still big questions about how much extra funding the NHS can expect to receive in order to deliver the plan, and about what the Government’s ambition to create a National Care Service will entail.

Planning reform goes top of the priority list

Ellie Farrow, Junior Policy Researcher

Last week, the Government published an 82-page National Planning Policy Framework report outlining its plan to ‘overhaul planning rules’ in order to fix the so-called housing crisis and enable the building of 1.5 million new homes by the end of the next Parliament. The revised framework reintroduces mandatory targets for councils, prioritises brownfield sites, introduces ‘golden rules’ for development on the green belt, and offers additional funding to local authorities’ to aid this transition.

Following this, the ONS released figures showing that the economy had shrunk in October; notably the figures revealed zero growth in the services sector, with manufacturing and construction declining at a pace of 0.6% and 0.4% respectively. This perhaps comes as no surprise to some who have repeatedly expressed concerns for the labour shortages in the sector, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has consistently argued that there is a growing gap between the demand for infrastructure development and the available workforce.

In addition to these concerns, under the new plans, councils in England will no longer have the power to contest developments. Instead, planning is to be centralised – or ‘regionalised’ – leading to a disempowerment of local planning offices and committees. These changes, however, came just days before the Government’s much-anticipated English Devolution White Paper. As of this week, the Government has published their English Devolution White Paper which promises to deliver a ‘permanent shift of power away from Whitehall and into the hands of those who know their communities best’. Whether this tallies with centralising planning laws is yet to be seen.

The devolution ‘revolution’

Jennifer Prescott, Political Services Team Lead

In the first week after Labour’s election victory, Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner met with England’s 12 metro mayors to confirm their longstanding intention to expand devolution, promising to ‘deliver the most ambitious programme of devolution this country has ever seen’. The devolution agenda is the first of Labour’s five missions to kickstart economic growth and has been set out in their English Devolution White Paper, published on 16 December. The paper pledges a ‘devolution by default’ approach and outlines its ambition to establish ‘strategic authorities’ (of 500,000 or more residents) covering the whole of the country, meaning that borough and district councils will be abolished. Chair of the District Councils’ Network Sam Chapman-Allen called the move the ‘opposite of devolution, taking powers away from local communities’. Similarly, one council leader in Sussex – an area that has recently submitted an expression of interest in devolved power – called it a ‘death knell for local democracy’. However, the Government’s intention behind the plan to favour larger, combined authorities is to give cities and regions ‘a bigger voice’.

Mayoral strategic authorities will receive consolidated funding pots for housing and planning, transport, skills, and employment support, with the Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, North East, South Yorkshire, West Midlands, and West Yorkshire combined authorities being the first. While the Local Government Association welcomes the transfer of powers and money to local leaders, it said it ‘cannot distract from the severe funding pressures that are pushing local services to the brink’. Given the proximity, it’s unclear how pivotal yesterday’s Local Government Finance Settlement will be for the viability of local authorities.

The Government will shortly set out its Devolution Priority Programme aiming to deliver inaugural mayoral elections in May 2026. Discussions have been had with places including Cheshire and Warrington, and Norfolk and Suffolk, and places on the Priority Programme will be confirmed in January.

The post-16 education and skills landscape

Michael Kane, Policy Researcher

A 2023 report by the Education Committee demonstrated the complex nature of the post-16 education and skills landscape – significantly, this simply reiterated the same point that had been made before by the Independent Panel on Technical Education in 2016 and the Wolf Review in 2011. 2024 saw the continuation of this complexity. At the start of the year, then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was pursuing his plans for an ‘Advanced British Standard’, a plan to, in essence, combine A Levels and T Levels, see every student study ‘some form of maths and English to age 18’, and defund alternative qualifications such as BTECs.

Labour’s election complicated matters: Sunak’s Advanced British Standard was scrapped and derided as unfunded by the Chancellor, and less than month into Government, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson announced a ‘short review of post-16 qualification reforms at level 3 and below’. The culmination of this review in December saw the Government largely renege on the previous Government’s plans for widespread defunding as they announced that 70% of courses previously earmarked for defunding would stay. Considering the importance of getting post-16 qualifications right for addressing ameliorating skills gaps and productivity levels in the UK economy, the Government may choose to buck the trend of complexity and give the education sector certainty in 2025. With this in mind, the Government’s manifesto promise to publish a long-term strategy for post-16 education is one to look out for.

Clean energy by 2030, not 2035

Laura Fitzgerald, Policy Researcher

Labour’s election brought with it promises of change for the UK’s energy landscape. Both in the lead-up to – and post – election, Labour have been vocal in Labour’s ambitions to make the UK a ‘clean energy superpower’ and target of clean power by 2030. This target, five years earlier than their Conservative predecessors, will be no small feat, but one that the Government insists is achievable. Last week saw Labour publish its Clean Power 2030 Action Plan detailing the steps to build a clean energy system, and one that benefits both the consumer and environment alike. It includes reforms to the grid connection and renewable auction processes, and pledges to ‘unlock billions of investment’ a year.

Energy UK’s CEO Dhara Vyas welcomed the changes to accelerate the planning process and enable the development of critical infrastructure, as did Friends of the Earth who said that the plan will be instrumental in creating green jobs, lowering bills and protecting the planet. The plan is not without its sceptics however. The Shadow Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho, who has largely defended the net-zero scepticism of the previous Government, expressed concerns about whether a clean energy system would lower household energy bills. Speaking in an interview with Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, Nick Robinson also shared some public concern that a clean energy system may lead to blackouts with renewable energy sources often subject to some variability. With 2030 just under four years away, both sides can agree that the scale of the task is significant and will require bold action if the clean energy target is to be met.

2025 and beyond

Given the holistic nature of policy, the key developments that pervaded 2024 will likely feed into 2025. With this in mind, if we are to comprehend the issues that may grasp the machinery of Government in 2025, we have to understand – were they were conclusively grasped before?

For regular updates on what is happening in UK politics and public affairs, sign up to our fortnightly Point of Order newsletter, going out every other Thursday.

Key Takeaways From Rachel Reeves’ Budget: ‘Fixing the Foundations to Deliver Change’

October 31, 2024/0 Comments/in Politics, Public Affairs Political Services, Political Database, Political Monitoring Blog Posts /by Michael Kane

Written by Michael Kane and Laura Fitzgerald.

Nearly four months on from the 2024 General Election and the UK’s first female Chancellor Rachel Reeves finally delivered the Government’s Budget. The hefty 170-page document, and Reeves’ accompanying statement to the Commons, goes some way to provide further clarity on the Government’s priorities. In this sense, it feels like a particularly significant Budget given the accusations that Labour attempted a ‘Ming vase strategy‘ of avoiding difficult decisions in the election, and the relative ambiguity about priorities after their first 100 days.

Whether the Budget provides complete clarity on the above is yet to be seen. Nonetheless, it certainly provides some takeaways to be explored.

The return of tax and spend?

Just as the Budget was enormous in terms of its significance, the announcements on taxation, borrowing, and spending were equally as huge. In contrast with Reeves’ relatively steady approach before the election, with only minor tweaks to taxes and spending mentioned in Labour’s manifesto, yesterday saw the Chancellor in a markedly different light.

From the announcement of record tax rises by £40bn, to one of the largest increases in spending since the 2000 spending review at almost £70bn, the Autumn 2024 Budget was nothing short of historic. The majority of the £40bn worth of tax rises will come from a £25bn increase in employers’ National Insurance contributions – a tax take which reportedly places the UK at almost level with the Netherlands, and seen by some as Labour’s move towards a more ‘European-style economy.’ Increases in borrowing were also announced yesterday, facilitated by Reeves’ choice to change the UK’s fiscal rules which loosened the constraints around borrowing to invest.

These decisions, while drastic, are hoped to precipitate economic growth and prosperity in the long-term – ‘no pain, no gain’. However, the fiscal forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility does seem to augur such an explosion of growth. It finds that, while GDP will increase to 1.1 percent this year and to 2.0 percent next year, the rate will then fall to 1.8 percent in 2026 and to 1.5 percent thereafter. Will Reeves’ gamble pay off? Or will the Budget fall short of the investment needed to truly ‘fix the foundations’?

The Government’s farming predicament

The lead-up to the Budget saw Reeves repeatedly warn of the ‘tough decisions’ that need to be made to fill the blackhole in public finances, and this was certainly true for the UK’s farming community. Farmers were among those dealt the most devastating blow yesterday, leaving many to fear for their livelihoods and legacy of their life’s work alike.

The reform in question includes a limit on inheritance tax relief for farms to £1m, a move which farmers claim will make inheriting family farms unviable, and a policy which the National Farmers’ Union has called ‘disastrous‘. Concerns have also been raised regarding the impact of the tax relief cap on food security and the ability of future generations to grow British produce. This would have implications for both businesses and consumers, making the UK more heavily reliant on imports, affecting sustainable food production and undermining commitments to protect the environment.

Broadcasters Jeremy Clarkson and Rachel Johnson are among the critics of the reform, taking to X to express their anger towards the announcement. Clarkson, presenter of the programme ‘Clarkson’s Farm’, urged farmers not to despair and to ‘look after [themselves] for five short years’ by which time ‘this shower will be gone’, while Johnson blasted the Government’s decision in order to raise ‘a measly £500m’.

With details on the Government’s new deal for farmers yet to be published, the Government’s promises to enhance rural economic growth and food security could seem something of a distant reality. The Government did allocate £500mn in Project Gigabit and the Shared Rural Network to enhance broadband provision in underserved rural areas, but whether rural communities feel sufficiently supported is another matter.

Local Government finance

Coming into the Budget, the challenges facing Local Government were stark: among the council Chief Executives who responded to a pre-budget survey from the Local Government Association, over half said they were likely to declare financial bankruptcy in the next five years. Therefore, addressing the challenges facing Local Government is vital on a practical level, given the role Local Government plays as first point of contact for many citizens in the delivery of vital services such as social care, SEND provision, and housing. Additionally, the sentiment in Labour’s pre-election manifesto illustrates the Government’s intention to further devolution across England – self-evidently, this is only feasible with sustainable funding.

The Budget attempted to grapple with the significance of the situation by promising an additional £1.3bn of new grant funding for local authority services. Most notably, this included £600m for social care and an additional £233m spending in 2025-26 on homelessness prevention. This may go some distance to provide an immediate sticking plaster over funding gaps, however questions remain about the long-term sustainability of this approach. Firstly, this is not enough to address the £2.3bn funding shortfall, as noted by the think tank Reform. Secondly, a more fundamental rethink about the funding and organisation of Local Government may prove to be a more successful strategy – perhaps revaluing council tax could be a starting point. However, the Budget revealed that the proposed devolution legislation will involve ‘working with councils to move to simpler structures that make sense for their local areas’ – this is something to keep an eye on given the demand to reorganise local government in England.

Looking beyond the headlines

There were aspects of the Budget that did not grasp the prevailing headlines and soundbites that the Government briefed – this includes proposals that were hidden and the shortcomings of some of the announcements. First, the Government revealed that they will consult next year on proposals to bring remote gambling (gambling offered over the internet, telephone, TV and radio) into a single tax. Preceding this, the Social Market Foundation and the Institute for Public Policy Research had both suggested increasing tax on remote gambling. Curiously, the Government’s announcement did not make it into Reeves’ speech or the main text in the document – instead it was to be found in the policy announcements section towards the end of the document. Significantly, this speaks to Labour’s prior ambiguity on gambling regulation with their manifesto simply suggesting that they would ‘reform gambling protections’ and that they are ‘committed to reducing gambling-related harm’. Given the centrality of prevention to the Government’s agenda for health policy, this is something to keep an eye on, even if the Government does not shout about it.

Moreover, when interrogating the details of the Budget, we can see some apparent shortcomings. For example, the Government committed to continuing the freeze on fuel duty in a bid to appease concerns from drivers. However, the visuals of freezing fuel duty while increasing the cap on bus fares, and the news that rail fares will increase by 4.6% next year may seem counter-intuitive – especially considering the impending net-zero transition.

Interestingly, the New Economics Foundation also detailed that updating the fuel duty could fund the £2 bus fare cap ten times over. Finally, when doing the media rounds this morning, Reeves noted that increasing taxes on businesses may have detrimental effects on pay increases for workers. Meanwhile, the Institute for Fiscal Studies explained that this Budget will only increase real household disposable income by 0.4%, if projected to the whole parliament. This feeds into arguments that a windfall tax on banks or a wealth tax may prove a better means to redistribute wealth.

Looking forward

Reeves’ Budget has proved relatively decisive on some of the key questions facing the Government. To some degree, this was inevitable with the UK economy facing a practical reckoning given the myriad of crosscutting challenges. Whether this be the highest tax burden since the Second World War, the highest level of national debt since the 1960s, the annual GDP growth slowing to 1.5% since the 2008 financial crash, or the decline in living standards over the last Parliament.

Knowing all this, Labour have still made the promise to make the UK the fastest growing economy in the G7. Therefore, something had to give to level with this promise and the UK’s wider economic predicament. Specifically, Reeves chose to focus on taxing business and tweaking the fiscal rules to allow for greater borrowing in an attempt to drive growth. With Reeves set to appear in front of the Treasury Select Committee next week, that session will provide a further read into how the Government grapples with the economic predicament.

For regular updates on what is happening in UK politics and public affairs, sign up to our fortnightly Point of Order newsletter, going out every other Thursday.

The scandals of the General Election 2024

Rundown of the Conservative leadership candidates

October 8, 2024/0 Comments/in Politics, Public Affairs Political Services, Political Database, Political Monitoring Blog Posts /by Laura Fitzgerald

The Conservative leadership candidates have all given their pitch to the party hoping to succeed Rishi Sunak. The last time Conservative members chose their leader, they went for Liz Truss. This time the choice will not be as consequential for the country, as they will be taking the position of Leader of the Opposition, rather than Prime Minister.

While not being as significant to the country, it is of vital importance to the party as they are at somewhat of a crossroads in terms of their long and storied history. They are coming off a historic defeat at the General Election and now have only 121 MPs. Labour is attempting to blame the previous Government for everything they can. The Liberal Democrats and Reform both enjoyed significant electoral success against the party at the election as well. Whoever is chosen has a big task on their hands.

Tugendhat
Emerging from a sea of foam fingers and Tom Tugendtote bags, Shadow Security Minister Tom Tugendhat was the first of the candidates to take to the main hall stage at this year’s Conservative Party Conference and give his leadership pitch. In a nod to his background as a former soldier, Tugendhat’s speech was largely values-driven, emphasising the importance of integrity towards – and service to – both the party and country alike. While his decorated military experience precedes him, Tugendhat certainly has the least government experience of the four leadership hopefuls. With less than two years serving as Security Minister under former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Tugendhat played to his time in the military, saying that this showed him what true leadership is, and he promised to ‘lead with conviction and [to] act decisively’. He also justified his comparatively shorter time in management around the cabinet table claiming that he is ‘not here to manage, but to lead.’

Echoing the sentiment of the conference’s slogan ‘Review and Rebuild’, Tugendhat’s speech stressed the need to rebuild the party and restore the trust of the British people. He also vowed to rebuild CCHQ, and turn the Conservatives back into a ‘campaign-winning machine.’ Global security is a priority for Tugendhat. He values Britain’s position on the global stage and said the Conservatives have long been a party to fight for freedom, ‘united’ against threats the UK has faced. Migration, healthcare, the economy, and energy were also key areas of focus in his speech. He pledged to introduce an effective deterrent for migration, including a legal cap at 100,000, while on health and energy he vowed to strip excessive regulations in the health system and never to allow the UK to be dependent on ‘tyrants’ for energy.

This week also saw the Shadow Security Minister hit out at rival Robert Jenrick who used footage of one of Tugendhat’s former comrades in a campaign video. Jenrick published the video to make the case that the UK needs to withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), claiming it forces the SAS into ‘killing rather than capturing terrorists’. The video contained footage of British soldiers in combat, one of whom Tugendhat knew from his time in Afghanistan, and who has since passed away. Tugendhat took to BBC Newsnight to express his anger at Jenrick’s comments, stating that it shows a ‘fundamental lack of awareness of military operations’ and urging Jenrick to ‘pull [the video] down’. He also said that it was ‘particularly upsetting’ that his friend had been used in vain, unable to have the opportunity to defend himself. Tugendhat’s own stance on ECHR is somewhat reminiscent of David Cameron pre-Brexit referendum in that he suggested ‘[opting] out of the bits you can, reform the bits that aren’t working, and if that doesn’t work, be prepared to leave’.

While Tugendhat is popular among the public, with a recent poll placing him in the lead among The Independent readership, his prospects at Wednesday’s third ballot may not yield such positive results. According to a recent YouGov poll, Tugendhat is trailing behind, with only 16% of Conservative party members believing he is fit for the top job.

Cleverly
James Cleverly is widely viewed as being the candidate who benefitted the most from his speech at conference. He went into the conference as a bit of an outsider without much momentum and his leadership rivals were capturing far more of the media attention. He called on the party to be ‘normal’ and attempted to provide party members with a sense of motivation going forward. He even began his speech asking what the point of the party is and went on to speak on how the party has no right to power. He focused heavily on his upbringing and life, going through his upbringing in Lewisham, his time in the Reserves, his career in business, and his wife’s battle with cancer. Cleverly succeeded where some have criticised Tugendhat, in explaining who he is and what his background is and not taking for granted people know who he is.

The sense of trying to motivate a defeated party can be seen through Cleverly listing the Conservatives’ achievements over the years and squarely saying that if he is leader there will be no deals with Reform.

Another key part of Cleverly’s speech was his experience and what he had done, which was well received. However on 3 October the Foreign Office released a joint statement on the Chagos Archipelago, whereby sovereignty was given to Mauritius over the islands. Cleverly criticised this announcement which could be seen to have been a bit of a misstep as he was the Foreign Secretary when the negotiations began. This was roundly pointed out across social media and has been picked up by his leadership rivals. This has hurt Cleverly’s credibility just as his stock was beginning to rise, as he is seemingly criticising a policy that he initiated.

Jenrick
Bobby J had perhaps the most turbulent week of all the leadership contenders. He came into the conference as the frontrunner but a campaign video on the ECHR has caused him big problems. In a video where Jenrick was making the case for the UK to leave the ECHR, he made the claim that British special forces are killing rather than capturing terrorists due to the convention. When he was challenged on the remarks Jenrick stood by his claim, saying he did not want the convention to get in the way of national security. Jenrick cited an article by former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace in which he wrote “because of international treaties such as the European Convention on Human Rights defence secretaries are being forced to choose between killing individuals, generally by drone, or leaving them to continue plotting”. This led to the first real blue on blue attacks of the leadership campaign, with both James Cleverly and Tom Tugendhat expressing concern with Jenrick’s claim.

Jenrick played to the audience both in terms of location and their politics. He proudly declared his Midlands roots and revealed that one of his daughters’ middle names is Thatcher, as she was born in the year Margaret Thatcher died and he respects ‘strong women’. Jenrick made a slight mistake when he claimed that in 1974 the Conservative Party decided to be led by Margaret Thatcher, as Thatcher actually became leader of the Conservative Party in 1975.

Jenrick has in the last few weeks closed the gap between himself and the members’ favourite Kemi Badenoch. He has the most support among MPs, and if the members move with him, it would be fair to consider him in pole position.

Badenoch
The gifts available at Kemi Badenoch’s party conference tent were slightly different from her opponents. No t-shirts or hats, but Kemi apples, anyone? Perhaps a symbol of a healthy Britain, perhaps a symbol that a fresh start is coming, either way Badenoch has certainly been the apple of the Conservative party members’ eye for most of the leadership contest. A recent YouGov poll has revealed that the Shadow Housing Secretary is the hot favourite among members and this has largely been the case since the race began. That being said, her popularity has waned in recent days following her controversial remarks regarding maternity pay. Speaking with Times Radio, former Business Secretary Badenoch claimed that statutory maternity pay places an ‘excessive’ burden on business and has ‘gone too far.’ The comment has since come under fire, leading Badenoch to later defend herself on X, insisting that ‘of course [she believes] in maternity pay!’. A poll conducted amid the backlash over the remarks found that only 7% of the British public think maternity pay is too much, so it begs the question, is it Badenoch who has gone ‘too far?’ Badenoch has pitched herself as somewhat of a fighter, saying ‘if you swing at me, I will swing back’, something that some members may admire, which others may find concerning. Her dismissal of identity politics will likely have gone down well with members however. When asked about how she would feel to be the first black leader, she responded, ‘I am somebody who wants the colour of skin to be no more significant than the colour of our hair or the colour of our eyes’.

Badenoch’s speech at conference reflected her worldview and outlined her values. She spoke of the importance of trust, freedom of speech, and the bravery to do the right thing. Contrary to Labour’s steadfast drive towards clean energy, Badenoch is herself a net zero sceptic. She said the net zero strategy is damaging to the economy and criticised the commitment towards the transition to net zero. The latter half of her speech focused on the key tenets of her leadership. She pledged to ‘rewrite the rules of game’, developing a comprehensive plan to reform the British state and economy. She said this will include a review of the UK’s international agreements, the Human Rights Act, the Equality Act, judicial review, the Treasury, the Bank of England, the Civil Service and the NHS. She closed her speech with the unveiling of her ‘Renewal 2030’ plan. For Badenoch, 2030, potentially the Conservatives’ first year back in office, would be an opportunity to build growth in the UK, centred around personal responsibility, family, sovereignty and capitalism.

For what could have been a ‘doom and gloom’ party conference following a bruising election defeat, there was certainly an air of optimism among the leadership candidates. The four contenders all believe that they have what it takes to rebuild the country and lead the Conservative party to victory at the next election. What differs however is their approach to doing so. A Badenoch or Jenrick victory may see Labour confronted with challenges on their net zero policy, whilst a Tugendhat or Cleverly victory may see greater emphasis on global security and foreign policy.

With Tugendhat likely to be the next candidate eliminated from the race, it remains to be seen where his share of the votes will go. Will they be distributed to Cleverly, after his impressive performance at conference, and similar left-leaning stance? Or will Badenoch and Jenrick hold strong at the top? It’s up to the members to decide.

For regular updates on what is happening in UK politics and public affairs, sign up to our weekly Point of Order newsletter, going out every Friday morning.

One month on from the 2024 UK General Election

Learnings and observations from Conservative conference fringes: Social housing, opportunity and life sciences

October 3, 2024/0 Comments/in PR Pulse, Politics, Public Affairs Political Services, Political Database, Political Monitoring Blog Posts /by Michael Kane

Written by Michael Kane and Helen Stott from the Vuelio Political Team.

Our blog last week highlighted that, despite the Labour leadership’s disciplinarian grasp on policy development, the fringes at last week’s Labour conference still proved useful in exemplifying the future challenges to be addressed and their potential solutions.

Contrastingly, the Conservative leadership have not had the same firm grasp on policy development – mainly because the leadership remains a vacuum, with the party currently engrossed in a leadership election. In this sense, the fringes at Conservative Party Conference may instead inform the prospective leadership contenders’ policy platform.

Considering how embryonic some of the policies that underpin the candidates are, and the unclear ideological trajectory of the Conservative party as a whole, the fringes at this year’s Conservative conference proved particularly pertinent.

‘Where next for social housing?’ by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation

The Conservative party has a long history with social housing and housebuilding provision: the party supported Labour’s New Towns programme after the Second World War and even unveiled their own Expanded Towns programme in 1952. An ideological shift in the 1980s saw the party unveil the Right to Buy council houses and the transfer of social housing stock from local authorities to housing associations. From 2010 onwards, the previous Conservative government established numerous house building targets, housing strategies and attempts at planning reform. Nonetheless, the evidence shows plainly that, from 2010 to 2024, owning a home became harder, renting a home became more expensive, homelessness rose, and not enough houses were built.

With the above context in mind, this fringe by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation looked to consider the role of social housing in the Conservative party’s future policy platform. Former Minister of State for Housing and Planning Rachel Maclean observed how the social housing system is broken as she called on the Conservative party to consider its funding and who benefits from the system. Conservative backbencher Bob Blackman struck a similar reforming tone as he agreed with Maclean on the need for a rethink. He specifically argued for incorporating the right to buy as soon as the tenant enters social housing and invest all this money in building social housing to create a virtuous circle. Interestingly, this comes with the Government planning to consult in Autumn on reforms to Right to Buy and having already started to review the increased Right to Buy discounts introduced in 2012. Finally, Conservative councillor and Deputy Leader of the LGA Conservative Group Abi Brown called for Conservatives to be bolder when it comes to making the arguments for house building when local residents may be unsatisfied with the proposals. This follows concerns that former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s Government submitted to localist concerns around mandatory housing targets.

The Labour party has looked to make housebuilding a vital component of their strategy to deliver economic growth – much has been made of their plans to build 1.5m new homes through planning reform, new towns, and ‘the biggest increase to social and affordable housebuilding in a generation’. With Labour having set their stall out so clearly, the Conservatives quickly need to build a coherent narrative on social housing – especially when this could enable them to reconnect with younger voters disgruntled by the poor prospect of home ownership.

‘Opportunity for all’ by NASUWT

If Labour have been clear on their aims for social housing and housebuilding, the same could be said of their plans for education. Speaking to this point, the title of this fringe organised by Teachers Union, NASUWT, even borrows Labour’s ‘opportunity for all’ slogan from their manifesto. This fringe then considered how the Conservatives should respond to Labour’s plans for education as a whole and the challenges the sector faces. Whether this be a school attendance crisis precipitated by COVID-19, the widening attainment gap across income and regional variables in England, a teacher recruitment and retention crisis, a crisis in SEND provision, or the uncertain future that further education faces with concerns around its funding settlement.

Edward Davies, Policy Director at the Centre for Social Justice, focused his remarks on the reasons for underachievement in school. Predictably and rightly, he attributed some of this to the school attendance crisis but he also argued that the rising number of children who do not have two biological parents at home is also a cause for concern. He condemned the fact that this issue does not seem to be part of the policy discussion. Whether a future Conservative leader puts this at the forefront of the education debate remains to be seen, with scars still remaining from former leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith’s focus on single mothers. In a forthright tone, the General Secretary of NASUWT, Dr Patrick Roach, condemned the prior Conservative Government for their poor relationship with education unions as he detailed that a rethink will be required if the Conservatives are to return to Government. Considering the fact that the leadership contenders unanimously condemned Labour’s ‘union paymasters’, this comment may not be taken on board.

Finally, the penal was rounded out by the Shadow Minister for Schools Gagan Mohindra whose comments reflect the conundrum the Conservative party face. His opening remarks featured a perhaps contradictory tone of explicating the challenges the education sector faces while defending the Conservatives record. Interestingly, he directly apologised for the lack of support provided on SEND provision. This encapsulates the reckoning the party faces on education policy between pursuing an apologetic or defensive tone, or even somewhere in between.

‘Boosting UK health and wealth through Life Sciences research’ by UCB

One of Wes Streeting’s first acts as Health Secretary was to declare the NHS ‘broken’ and to set the groundwork for a series of ‘radical’ reforms to the health service. Interestingly, the former Science Minister had some praise for the incoming Labour Government’s strategy. Reflecting on when he first joined Parliament in 2010, Freeman said his initial goal in politics was to tackle the ‘structural deficit’ that the UK has found itself in, with welfare and health spending set to rise year on year. Freeman argued that the life science industry is the only sector which is capable of reversing this trend and truly addressing the structural problems of the UK economy.

Unsurprisingly, Freeman had positive things to say about the Conservatives’ progress on life sciences while in Government, but he said ultimately they were not able to tap into the opportunities presented by the NHS. Politicians from both sides of the House have pointed out that our health service, with its huge resource of patient data, could present excellent opportunities for clinical research, is a huge site of underutilised opportunity. Freeman said that because Labour are the party that created the NHS they are the only ones that would be able to carry out the reform needed, and while the new Government’s long term plan for the health service won’t be published until next year, he said what he had seen so far was promising. This highlighted a possible site of consensus between the Conservatives and the new Labour Government.

What now?

While the leadership contest may have dominated the media headlines and the attention of most attendees of the conference, many of the fringe events in the periphery executive rooms, halls, and corridors of Birmingham’s ICC reflect the pervading challenges of economic and social policy in the UK. Importantly, these questions must be addressed by the future Conservative leader if they are to build a coherent ideological vision and policy platform to overcome their 2024 General Election result.

For regular updates on what is happening in UK politics and public affairs, sign up to our weekly Point of Order newsletter, going out every Friday morning.

Learnings and observations from Labour Conference fringes: The curriculum, preventative health care, and higher education

September 27, 2024/0 Comments/in Politics, Public Affairs Political Services, Political Database, Political Monitoring Blog Posts /by Michael Kane

Written by Michael Kane and Helen Stott on the Vuelio Political Team, reporting from 2024’s UK Party Conferences.

While the attention of the political media may have been on the movements within the main conference hall during the Labour Party Conference – with senior members of the Cabinet and the Prime Minister all giving significant speeches and numerous key motions passing through – the Vuelio Political Team was focused primarily on key fringe events.

While often derided as expensive for the organisers and ineffectual in terms of outcomes, such a narrow view misrepresents their value in the policy development process. After all, now Minister for School Standards, Catherine McKinnell, started the formation of Labour’s policy on Ofsted last year when she condemned their inspection system for being both ‘ineffective’ and ‘dreaded’ in a fringe event last year. This preceded Labour’s proposed ban of single word judgments in their manifesto, and this was confirmed by the Department for Education earlier this month.

With that in mind, what fringe events this year proved particularly intriguing in terms of policy?

‘Speaking up for opportunity’ by the Oracy Commission

Geoff Barton, Chair of the Oracy Commission, noted in his remarks that this Labour conference marks nearly 50 years on from the Bullock Report, which considered the teaching of English in schools. However, its recommendations were largely sidelined as the Thatcher Government chose to focus its curriculum on employability. Preceding this conversation around oracy, we have seen numerous different national curriculums in England with revisions coming in 1989, 1995, 2000, and 2014. This comes at a crossroads for schools following Labour’s announcement of a curriculum review, which recently opened a call to evidence. Debates surrounding the curriculum usually come within the perceived dichotomy between more creative and arts-based subjects against more empirically positivist STEM subjects.

In this fringe, the panellists avoided this binary perspective and instead recognised the role that oracy can play in all aspects of a young person’s education. Oli De Botton of The Careers and Enterprise Trust recognised the importance of oracy skills in helping young people in the transition secondary school, further education, higher education or employment – importantly, it is at these transition points that inequality in the education system may be cemented. Speaking to this point, Dr Nicky Platt, Deputy Director of the Education Development Trust, recognised the role oracy can play in reducing the ‘word gap’. In that sense, oracy can play a vital role in reducing the widening attainment gap across income and regional variables in England – that gap has been exemplified by the National Audit Office’s report in July.

Labour have committed to a ‘rich and broad’ curriculum, as per Education Secretary’s Bridget Phillipson’s speech to the Labour conference – however, the specific role oracy will play is yet to be determined.

‘Prevention-led public services: Can the government make its rhetoric a reality?’ by Institute for Government and The Health Foundation

This was yet another fringe event dedicated to the issue of moving to a preventative healthcare model and shifting resources away from primary and community care. There has been a growing consensus among politicians for almost 30 years that this is the right direction of travel – and yet the vision has failed to materialise. Over the past decade, population health has steadily declined, at the same time that hospitals and the acute sector are swallowing up a growing proportion of the NHS budget – leaving vital parts of the health service, like general practice and community services, woefully under resourced. Labour have made it clear that they will not be willing to let the spending taps flow freely, and that improvements to the health service will have to come from reform. The Department for Health is hoping that shifting resources to early intervention will ease pressure on hospitals in the long run and get the NHS back on its feet without spending significantly more money – but will this gamble pay off?

Dr Jennifer Dixon from the Health Foundation made the case for a rewriting of the rules regarding public spending in order to hardwire the prevention agenda into government. The Treasury can be too reluctant to invest in certain areas unless it can see an immediate return on investment, but preventative measures can often take longer to show their benefits. Similarly, Nick Davies from the Institute for Government argued for a ring fenced prevention budget and a cross-government strategy on prevention. Paul Kissack from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation was perhaps the most interesting contributor; he was somewhat sceptical of the ring fenced prevention budget idea, as he thought any technocratic fiddling would be pointless without wider investment to address the root cause of ill-health – poverty. Davies said uplifting universal credit would be the most effective lever to immediately lift people out of poverty, something JRF have been campaigning on for a few years. While there was enthusiastic agreement among the panellists, including Health Minister Andrew Gwynne, that lifting children out of poverty should be an urgent priority, the elephant in the room – namely, Labour’s refusal to lift the two child benefit cap – was left unaddressed.

‘How can higher education help to break down barriers to opportunity across regions’ by MillionPlus

The role of modern universities in the higher education sector and the economy in general has often been disputed, with the prior Government deriding the increasing number of people going to university and the existence of perceived ‘rip off degrees’. Preceding that, the Blair Government had committed to ensuring that at least 50% of young people attended university. This Labour Government has committed to resetting the relationship with universities and supporting ‘every person who meets the requirements and wants to go to university’ in their manifesto. This rhetorical inconsistency over the last few decades illustrates the challenges that modern universities have faced. With this in mind, this fringe event by MillionPlus looked to position these universities as central to Labour’s commitment to equalising educational opportunity and tackling regional inequalities.

Lord Khan, the Minister for Faith, Communities and Resettlement, who represents the first graduate of a modern university to serve in Government, noted that these universities are vital to addressing regional inequalities through generating regional growth. This point was substantiated by the Chair of MillionPlus, Professor Graham Baldwin, as he detailed that 68% of graduates of these modern universities stay in the local areas. To add to this, Nick Harrison of the Sutton Trust elucidated the positive impact that modern universities have on social mobility in their admissions policies – with three out of the top five of Sutton Trust’s social mobility rankings of universities being modern universities.

The role modern universities play in equalising access to higher education and tackling significant regional inequalities in the UK is clear. This is a vital issue for Labour to tackle given its significance. The ONS’ recent labour market statistics in September 2024 elucidated the regional divergence in England across levels of employment and economic activity and the expanding wealth gap between north-south of England, as shown by the IPPR. However, modern universities’ role in tackling these issues may be constrained given the crisis in higher education funding – an issue Labour has yet to propose a long term solution to.

What now?

Many of the speeches by the key members of the Labour Government at the conference focused on emphasising their central messages in an attempt to not rock the boat. However, these fringes provide a more revealing read into the future challenges the Government faces as they elucidate the myriad of social, economic and political challenges the UK faces. By that notion, they also potentially reveal the next steps the Government may take in substantive policy.

For regular updates on what is happening in UK politics and public affairs, sign up to our weekly Point of Order newsletter, going out every Friday morning.

New Government: What are Labour’s plans for unemployment?

August 20, 2024/0 Comments/in Politics, Public Affairs Political Database, Political Monitoring, Political Services Blog Posts /by Aamirah Abdulhaq

Was getting unemployed people into employment a key priority for the Conservative Government? Attempts included the New Back to Work Plan, former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s promise to tackle what he called ‘sick-note culture’, and choices for the Spring Budget in 2023, with the announcement of a £7 billion Employment package. However, despite policy initiatives, unemployment levels in the UK continue to be high.

Why is the employment ‘epidemic’ a growing problem, despite such initiatives?

According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), 4.4% of people were unemployed between February and April 2024, equivalent to 1.44m people. Issues many unemployed are up against – long-term sickness, mental health problems, and early retirement, or caring responsibilities, inabilitities to find and retain jobs due to labour market demands, or gaps in skills and experiences required.

The problem of unemployment is growing. In most of the public sectors, such as health, social care, education, and the police force, there is a shortage of staff. Meanwhile, the Confederation of British Industry found that 38% of businesses reported that labour shortages were holding back their ability to invest and grow.

A look back at Conservative Government actions on unemployment

The New Back to Work Plan included a promise to implement tougher benefit sanctions for those not actively looking for work, trial possible reforms for the fit note process to make it easier and quicker for people to get specialised work and health support, and the launching of the WorkWell service.

Additionally, in April 2024, former Prime Minister Sunak gave a speech at the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) on eliminating ‘sick note culture’, claiming it as a ‘lifestyle choice’ for those capable of working. Sunak’s intention to strip away the power GPs had to give sick notes sparked outrage within the charity and welfare sector, with the British Psychological Society stating that ‘the Prime Minister is taking the approach of attempting to minimise the mental health challenges […] The government should be prepared to invest the proper funds into mental health services.’

Labour’s plans to tackle the unemployment issue

With a new Labour Government established, with a different vision and different priorities, what is being said in regard to the unemployment epidemic? During the Labour campaigning period, the party promised a major programme of reform to support more people into work and bring the benefits bill down. In their manifesto, Labour has made ambitious promises, including reforming employment support with a system underpinned by rights and responsibilities. Furthermore, they have also stressed the importance of bringing Jobcentre Plus and the National Careers Service together to provide a national jobs and careers service.

In addition, Labour has made promises to help those with illnesses and disability into work, as they are more likely to face discrimination and structural barriers. Labour has promised to devolve funding so local areas can shape a joined-up work, health, and skills offer for local people. Moreover, parallel to the Conservative Government, Labour also proposed a Back to Work Plan within their first week of being in office. They plan to create new national jobs and career services; develop new work, health, and skills plans for the economically inactive, led by Mayors and local areas; and to introduce a Youth Guarantee to create more opportunities for training, apprenticeships, or help to find work for all young people aged 18-21 years old.

This growing epidemic needs to be at the heart of the welfare agenda for the new Government, given the pressures it is putting on public sector workers. Whether the initiatives announced so far can bring down the number of unemployed people, we are yet to discover.

For regular updates on what is happening in UK politics and public affairs, sign up to our weekly Point of Order newsletter, going out every Friday morning.

Employment Rights Bill: What’s next?

August 16, 2024/0 Comments/in Politics, Public Affairs Political Services, Political Database, Political Monitoring Blog Posts /by Ingrid Marin

During the King’s Speech, an Employment Rights Bill was promised by the Labour Government. The Bill aims to deliver on policies set out in the Plan to Make Work Pay. Commitments in the plan include banning exploitative zero-hour contracts; ending fire and rehire; strengthening statutory sick pay; making parental leave, sick pay, and protection from unfair dismissal available from day one for all workers; and making flexible working the default from day one.

The Bill has not been introduced yet, but Labour have promised to introduce it within 100 days of entering Government. Ahead of that, this week, the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds convened a meeting with trade unions and business leaders to discuss the plans.

Looking at the attendance list, it appears that Ministers have tried to balance the competing interests of unions and businesses. Attendees included the Trades Union Congress, Unite, UNISON, Unite, and the GMB, along with business groups such as the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses, and the Institute of Directors.

Trade unions welcomed the proposed changes, viewing them as a chance to improve pay and job security. The TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak welcomed the meeting as ‘an important chance for unions and businesses to discuss the shared gains that the government’s reforms will bring’.

However, business groups were more cautious and asked the Government not to rush without consultation on the specifics of the Bill. FSB’s Tina McKenzie, said she hopes they will ‘soon start a proper, meaningful and constructive engagement process as it moves from campaigning into practical policy making’. She also hopes ‘the Government starts to demonstrate it is prepared to try and reduce harm to employment, small business, and the economy from any and every negative impact of these proposals’. Similarly, CBI’s and IoD’s representatives also said further consultation would be crucial.

Finding a balance between competing interests will be a challenge for Labour to tackle in the next few months. According to a Government press release, ‘trade union and business representatives will be invited to continue engagement on the Plan to Make Work Pay via similar meetings, as well as share vital insights via the upcoming consultations’.

All of the proposals represent a considerable departure from current practices, and officials will have to think carefully about the detail, what exceptions may apply, how the reforms will work in practice, and how they will be implemented.

For regular updates on what is happening in UK politics and public affairs, sign up to our weekly Point of Order newsletter, going out every Friday morning.

New Government: Outlook for equalities

August 12, 2024/0 Comments/in Politics, Public Affairs Political Monitoring, Political Services, Political Database Blog Posts /by Alexandra Moran

In attempts to highlight its importance, Labour dedicated two pages of its manifesto to equalities in a section entitled ‘Respect and opportunity for all’. Here, they promised to ‘ensure [that] no matter whatever your background, you can thrive’. The King’s Speech proceeded to mention two bills relating to equalities; the Draft Equality (Race and Disability) Bill and the Draft Conversion Practices Bill.

The Draft Equality Bill aims to enshrine in law the full right to equal pay for disabled people and ethnic minorities. It will also introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay reporting for employers with over 250 employees. With the Draft Conversion Practices Bill, Labour have committed to extending the scope of the conversion therapy ban introduced by the last Government to make it trans-inclusive. The bill will work to introduce new criminal offences to target acts of conversion which are not covered by existing legislation.

The details of this have been quite vague so far – presumably because this issue remains controversial, and the party divided on transgender rights. Labour have said the ban would not extend to ‘legitimate psychological support, treatment, or non-directive counselling’, but it remains to be seen exactly how the Government plans on defining conversion therapy in the draft legislation.

Both of these bills build on promises that were laid out in the Labour manifesto, but there are areas in which the new Government has failed to deliver yet. One criticism being faced by the party is that despite having had Vicky Foxcroft as the Shadow Minister for Disabled People, Labour did not reserve this role for their new Government, instead splitting the remit into various departments. As such, Sir Stephen Timms was made Minister of State for Social Security and Disability in DWP and Stephen Kinnock is now Minister of State for Care (with responsibilities for overseeing disabilities and SEND) in DHSC. This also comes after Foxcroft publicly criticised the former government for not appointing a Minister to this role.

Fazilet Hadi, Head of Policy at Disability Rights UK, said that this approach ‘is problematic on so many levels’. Further to this, Hadi said that simply adding equality briefs to ministers who already have major operational duties signals that tackling inequality for those with protected characteristics is not central to Labour’s vision of a changed society.

Similarly, Labour has also failed, so far, to deliver on its promise to create a Department solely dedicated to Women and Equalities. At the 2023 Labour Conference, former Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities Anneliese Dodds said: ‘If Labour wins the next election, I will become the UK’s first ever Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, with a seat at the top table, dedicated to advocating for women in all their diversity in every Cabinet conversation.’

Having held this position for nearly three years, many were baffled by the secrecy and the delay of the announcement – only to find out this role was abolished and the remit was split between Dodds and Bridget Phillipson – who both, again, have other ministerial responsibilities. According to i News, a Downing Street spokesperson denied that the role had been downgraded, and additionally the Fawcett Society, a high-profile charity for women, praised Starmer for appointing not just one, but two Ministers to the role.

With summer recess to soon draw to a close, the resumption of Parliament in the autumn will come as the true test for Starmer and his cabinet. It is to be seen how the opposition party may confront the redrafted Equality Bill, or may criticise the Government’s overall approach to tackling the issue of equalities.

For regular updates on what is happening in UK politics and public affairs, sign up to our weekly Point of Order newsletter, going out every Friday morning.

New Government: What’s on the agenda for international development?

August 9, 2024/0 Comments/in Politics, Public Affairs Political Services, Political Database, Political Monitoring Blog Posts /by Alexandra Moran

When speaking prior to July 2024’s General Election, the then-Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy described Labour’s foreign policy as ‘progressive realism’ which ‘advocates using realist means to pursue progressive ends’. In practice, he said this would include being realistic about the threats that Russia and China pose to our national security, and to that of other countries.

This was reflected in the Labour manifesto as it said, on the topic of Ukraine, a Labour government would work with international partners to enable the seizure and repurposing of frozen Russian state assets to finance support for Ukraine. They also promised to back calls for a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Putin, and to help Ukraine to become a member of NATO.

Lammy previously committed to visiting Ukraine within the first 100 days of a Labour Government, but this was not stated in the manifesto, nor has there been a mention of any plans of this. In Labour’s first few days in Government, however, Lammy visited Germany, Poland, and Sweden, emphasising the UK’s continued backing for Ukraine. Defence Secretary John Healey also headed to Odesa to meet with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. After the meeting, Healey announced that the UK would provide a new package of support to Ukraine. At the NATO summit in Washington last month, Prime Minister Keir Starmer confirmed that the UK would commit to a military aid package for Ukraine which would deliver £3bn every year until at least 2030/31.

When it comes to international development, there were previously some suggestions that Labour would reinstate the Department for International Development (DfID), however, Lammy previously showed opposition to the idea and there was no mention of this in their manifesto. The British Foreign Policy Group said that, because of this, we can expect ‘a lot of continuity’ from the last government – also highlighting that there is little to suggest that Labour will accelerate the pace at which the UK returns to spending 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) on international development.

Labour committed in their manifesto that international development spending would return to 0.7% of GNI ‘as soon as the fiscal situation allows’. Just before Parliament rose for summer recess, Development Minister Anneliese Dodds reaffirmed this target in a written statement. The Center for Global Development said that this target is just one of the seven steps that were laid out by the former Shadow Minister for International Development Lisa Nandy, and the other six should remain priorities for the new Foreign Office- calling them ‘a sound basis for reform’.

Since the Government has been in recess, Dodds has continued Lammy’s globetrotting mission as Labour seek to be active on the international scene. Just this past week, she was in Jordan, where she announced a new UK aid package for Gaza. Dodds also announced £6m in funding to support UNICEF’s work in helping vulnerable families in Gaza. Additionally, following calls from the UNHCR, the Government announced that it is allocating £14m to support Syrian refugees living in the Zaatari refugee camp on Jordan’s border with Syria. The funding will be delivered in September, with £7m going to the UNHCR and another £7m to the World Food Programme.

Israel and Palestine has long been a challenging subject for Labour. The Labour manifesto said the party would continue to push for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages, and the increase of aid into Gaza. Starmer’s Labour, unlike during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, did not commit themselves to recognising a Palestinian state on day one of their Government, but instead said it will recognise the Palestinian state as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution.

Starmer may find that – with such a large majority – some incoming MPs will want Labour to take a more actively pro-Palestine approach, especially as concerns grow about the worsening humanitarian crisis. Such a shift, however, would strain the UK’s relations with key allies, as well as cause challenges to maintaining party unity on the issue – which is already proving difficult, as Starmer suspended seven Labour MPs on a separate issue.

Lammy also previously said that a Labour government would start talks on the creation of a new international contact group to coordinate with Western and Arab partners over Middle East peace, but there was no mention of this in the manifesto or since – but this may be something to look out for in the near future.

Despite conflict in the Middle East receiving mention during the King’s Speech, only one Bill led on by the Foreign Office was announced: the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) and International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (Status) Bill. It was initially a Private Members’ Bill during the 2023/24 parliamentary year, and essentially means that the UK Government can treat the CPA and the ICRC similar to international Organisations the UK is a member of.

For regular updates on what is happening in UK politics and public affairs, sign up to our weekly Point of Order newsletter, going out every Friday morning.

New Government: What are the plans for rail?

August 2, 2024/0 Comments/in Politics, Public Affairs Political Services, Political Database, Political Monitoring Blog Posts /by Ingrid Marin

The Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill was the first introduced by the new Labour Government in Parliament. This Bill is meant to deliver on Labour’s manifesto commitment to reform the railways and bring them into public ownership when existing contracts with private sector operators end, or when operators fail to deliver. Just before summer recess, MPs voted 351 to 84 to give the Bill a second reading. The Bill will have its report stage and third reading on 3 September before moving on to the House of Lords.

Bringing the railways back into public ownership is just one of the Government’s plans. In fact, Rail Partners chief executive Andy Bagnall, said ‘Train companies agree that change is needed but it is disappointing to see Government legislating to ban the use of contracted train companies, without first setting out the detail of how its wider rail reform bill will deliver improvements for passengers and freight customers’.

In their manifesto, Labour pledged to establish Great British Railways (GBR), which would create a unified and simplified governance structure. This plan was confirmed during the King’s Speech, as the Government announced its intention to introduce a Railways Bill. However, the legislation to create GBR is likely to take time, so to offset this Labour will be setting up a ‘shadow GBR’ over the coming months, which will unite key industry bodies.

In its plan for rail, Labour also pledged it would set up a new passenger watchdog, the Passenger Standards Authority, which would have the power to require service improvement plans, inspect the performance of GBR, and assess its performance. The Railways Bill will also establish GBR’s role in ticketing reform and set out a statutory duty on GBR to promote rail freight.

The King’s Speech also confirmed the Government’s position on HS2, with no plans to revive Phase 2. The Government will be continuing to repurpose the High Speed Rail (Crewe to Manchester) Bill for ‘connecting regional centres in the north’.

However, there is still the unanswered question of Euston. Despite speculation that the future of the station hangs in the balance, Chancellor Rachel Reeves did not mention it in her list of spending cuts on Monday this week. However, in her speech, she did announce that the Restoring Your Railway fund has been canceled, which the Campaign for Better Transport is urging the Government to reconsider.

Following the Chancellor’s speech, the Secretary of State for Transport Louise Haigh confirmed she will commission an internal review of the department’s capital spend portfolio. The review will also make recommendations about current and future schemes. This review is expected to also support the development of the long-term strategy for transport, as Labour pledged to develop in their manifesto.

For regular updates on what is happening in UK politics and public affairs, sign up to our weekly Point of Order newsletter, going out every Friday morning.

How politics permeates PR

The role of political monitoring

Moving from passive observation to proactive strategy

In summary, ignore what’s happening in Parliament at your peril…

Treating the NHS

Planning reform goes top of the priority list

The devolution ‘revolution’

The post-16 education and skills landscape

Clean energy by 2030, not 2035

2025 and beyond

The return of tax and spend?

The Government’s farming predicament

Local Government finance

Looking beyond the headlines

Looking forward

‘Where next for social housing?’ by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation

‘Opportunity for all’ by NASUWT

‘Boosting UK health and wealth through Life Sciences research’ by UCB

What now?

‘Speaking up for opportunity’ by the Oracy Commission

‘Prevention-led public services: Can the government make its rhetoric a reality?’ by Institute for Government and The Health Foundation

‘How can higher education help to break down barriers to opportunity across regions’ by MillionPlus

What now?

Why is the employment ‘epidemic’ a growing problem, despite such initiatives?

A look back at Conservative Government actions on unemployment

Labour’s plans to tackle the unemployment issue

Try it for yourself

Subscribe to Vuelio newsletters!

Products

Sectors

Resources

Request a Quote