Brexit White Paper Summary

Brexit-White-Paper-Summary-1
How will Brexit impact your organisation?

With the White Paper published and a vote in favour of triggering Article 50, the Government is one step closer to beginning negotiations with the EU.

And with future trade and policy agreements up for grabs, now’s the time to engage with decision makers and ensure the final deal reflects your organisation’s needs.

As the Government gets stuck into negotiations, you need to keep track of conversations taking place in Parliament, your stakeholder community and on social media and – to give you the best chance to prepare for what’s next.

Our Brexit White Paper Summary will provide you with all the key points you need to know from today’s release.

Download the Brexit White Paper Summary now.
 

PR in the Post-Truth Era

 Post-Truth-PR-Vuelio-White-Paper-1
How will the post-truth era impact on the PR industry?

In this era dominated by Brexit, the Trump presidency and the rise of the alt-right and the alt-left, post-truth news is very much (and rather ironically) fact rather than fiction. 

After all, we know the truth will never get in the way of a good story.

One thing is for sure, a post-truth approach can get results. But it’s not without its risks and potential to backfire.

Our new white paper ‘PR in the Post-Truth Era’ explores how PRs should engage with media in this new age, the opportunities and threats in this fast changing world and how to explore the potential and survive the pitfalls of post-truth.

Download our survival guide, PR in the Post-Truth Era now.
 

Top Tips and Trends for PR & Marketing in 2017

top-pr-marketing-tips-for-2017-1
 

In the past year we spoke to many high profile PR and comms practitioners, who shared their thoughts and insights about the future of the industry.

In this tipsheet, Top Tips and Trends for PR & Marketing in 2017, we have compiled predictions from industry expects to give you a head start when it comes to the hottest trends in 2017.

 

Ranging from influencer marketing, the rise in content-led campaigns, the growing importance of reputation management, to the integration between SEO and PR, our top tips will give you all of the inside information you need to prepare the the new year.

 

 
 
Download our Top Tips and Trends for PR & Marketing in 2017 now.
 
 

Public Affairs Awards: who were the big winners?

Last night 430 of the country’s leading figures in public affairs came together to celebrate the industry’s best and brightest at the 2016 Public Affairs Awards. The awards were presented by Vuelio and hosted by PRCA, GovKnow and Zetter’s Political Services, and winners were chosen from 22 categories ranging from Consultancy Campaign to Party Fringe Event of the Year.

The Outstanding Contribution award, which was sponsored by Vuelio, went to Iain Anderson, and the Douglas Smith Prize 2016 was awarded to Liz Laurence of Weber Shandwick. EEF walked away with both In-house Team of the Year and Trade Body Campaign of the Year.

Other big winners include the Royal Mail’s ‎Public Affairs Manager Michael Hogg, who won In-house Professional of the Year, and Consultant of the Year Chris White from Newington Communications.

The Enterprise Forum was handed Party Conference Reception of the Year for ‘The Enterprise Forum’s Business Reception’ campaign, while Party Fringe Event of the Year went to Connect Public Affairs. Royal Mail won Party Conference Stand of the Year for its ‘Royal Mail 500 Years’ stand. H+K Strategies won the Social Media Campaign of the Year award for its work and the Planning Campaign of the Year was awarded to Alpaca Communications for its work on ‘Bridge the Gap’.

A big congratulations to all of the night’s winners, and here’s to another fantastic year in public affairs.

Measuring PR Return on Investment

pr-roi-tipsheet-vuelio-whitepaper-1
As the lines between PR, marketing, customer services and sales continue to blur, it’s never been more important for PR professionals to accurately monitor and measure the success of their campaigns and activities.

 

Measuring PR Return on Invest, examines how the PR industry currently measures success, the challenges it faces in order to remain relevant and the various steps it now needs to take to provide greater transparency and accountability.

 

From Barcelone Principles to proper use of AVE, this essential guide lays down the law on measuring the success of PR campaigns to help you demonstrate the value of your work.

 

Our new tipsheet tells you how to:

 

  • Evaluate the current PR industry metrics, from Advertising Value Equivalent (AVE) to the Barcelona Principles
  • Tackle the main challenges when measuring the results and success of your PR activities
  • Properly define objectives and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to effectively measure ROI

 

Download the tipsheet and find out how you can effectively measure ROI.

Autumn Statement

2016_autumn_statement_banner

Phillip Hammond has delivered his first (and last) Autumn Statement as Chancellor.

With the shadow of Brexit looming large over the country’s economy, who were the winners and losers in yesterday’s outline of cuts and funding?
We’ve summarised all the key information and rounded up opinion from stakeholders, journalists and social media – to give you the best chance to prepare for what’s next.

Fill out the form to download it now.

Trump & Brexit: Why are PR Pros so out of touch with “real” people?

Donald Trump’s victory in the US elections has shocked many people and there probably isn’t a group of people who are more shocked than the PR/Comms community.

According to a recent article in PR Week, nearly two-thirds of PR professionals expected Hilary Clinton to win a landslide victory in the presidential race.

The keyword here is “expected” – this article is definitely not about PR/Comms professionals’ personal political opinions or the right or wrongs with any political argument. It’s about understanding our understanding of what the wider general public believe in and want.

PRs and pollsters have to ask, why do we get it wrong?

There are of course many comparisons here with Brexit with the vocal majority of PR and Comms professionals backing the losing side.

The demographics of the PR industry (young, female, educated, metropolitan, etc.) all point to a more liberal view of politics and the world.  I have to wonder if this, some would argue “charmed” position, puts many PR pros at a disadvantage when trying to shape the opinion of the wider public.

As PR pros, we are all focused on the everyday conversation across traditional and social media channels but how tuned in are we to conversations beyond this space?

If we are to continue to shape opinion and remember, many “disaffected” voters view the media and PR industries with a huge degree of cynicism and mistrust, we need to get more granular and learn more about what the man on the street (who doesn’t post his every political thought to the social web or even read the newspapers beyond the sports pages) wants from life (whether we agree with it or not).

Is it time to leave our Ivory towers and start engaging beyond our traditional realms of influence.

We might not always like the outcome of political events – but isn’t it time we had a better understanding of what influences certain political events and wider life in general?

Political communication: when emotion trumps fact

As the world comes to terms with a Trump Presidency, we come to the end of one of the most bitterly fought and divisive campaigns in recent history. In much the same way as the EU referendum, it’s been a campaign where social media played a major role on both sides: it’s also been one where emotion has trumped fact and where the polls were very, very far off the mark in predicting the outcome. How did Trump defy all odds and make it to the White House?

Trump was touted as the ‘king of Twitter’ during this campaign, something which played a huge role in getting his message out in a way his funds wouldn’t have otherwise allowed. He mastered the art of using the platform for publicity, and dominated the presidential election with an antagonistic style that journalists and public alike found hard to resist. This was a smart move from someone without the financial backing that US presidential hopefuls generally need: what he lacked in funds, he made up for in the publicity he generated through his posts.

Furthermore, by tapping into the disillusionment that voters felt towards the political establishment, Trump gave himself plenty of room to bend the truth and push the boundaries in terms of what he promised voters. He framed debate by appealing to emotion rather than details of policy: not only will he build a wall, but he’ll make Mexico pay for it. It has huge appeal to Americans who feel that their immigration concerns aren’t taken seriously but little realistic consideration of the cost or efficacy of the final result.

This isn’t a problem, because these factors don’t really matter. Peter Thiel, PayPal co-founder and Trump supporter, summed it up nicely when he said ‘’the media always is taking Trump literally. It never takes him seriously, but it always takes him literally. I think a lot of the voters who vote for Trump take Trump seriously, but not literally.”

Like Vote.Leave’s “£350 million to the NHS” claim, this election has shown us that political communication doesn’t need a factual basis if it hits the right spot emotionally. Politicians have always been dishonest: the defining factor of a successful one is that they’re trusted despite this. In the US, Edelman’s Trust Barometer shows a negative correlation between income and trust in government: the lower the income, the less trust exists. As we’ve seen this year, as the political establishment and global institutions have become less representative of lower income voters, the Trump/Farage brand of politician has stepped in to fill the void.

Twitter reacts to Donald Trump’s Victory

Donald Trump’s election as the new president of the free world has created a political earthquake and sent shockwaves through the social media. Here’s how people responded on Twitter.

Comms professionals and bloggers react to Trump’s US election victory

Donald Trump appeared calm and measured during his victory speech, but many are nervous and anxious about a man who will soon become the 45th President of America. With his ten-year-old son by his side and Mike Pence, the new vice president on his right, Trump, despite running a divisive campaign, promised to be a president for ‘all Americans’. Having made countless racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, and homophobic comments, many are sceptical about Trump’s ability to unite a country that is hugely divided.

Trump’s victory will also signal a new era for international relations. Since this morning there has been turbulence in the global stock markets with a fall in the value of the US dollar. Although Trump does not take office until January he has already had an enormous impact on international relations. To evaluate this high-profile communications professionals and bloggers have spoken to us about their reactions to the US election results and what they think future holds.

 

Rev. Stuart Campbell: Blogger, Wings Over Scotland

Rev Stuart Campbell

“My reaction to the result is horror, and a total lack of surprise. I’ve been predicting constantly since last November that if it came to a contest between Trump and Clinton, Trump would win it, and so it proved. He won because this election wasn’t about voting for a President, it was about voting against one. They were the least popular candidates in history, and at least half the electorate was voting for them only because they thought the other one was worse.

“In that contest, Clinton was by a country mile the worst nominee the Democrats could possibly have put forward. In fact, you couldn’t have designed someone more perfect from Trump’s perspective. He sold himself as the anti-establishment figure – however absurd it is for a billionaire businessman to do that – and Clinton is the absolute ultimate stereotype of a dynastic insider.

“She’s unconvincing as a human being – smug, robotic and patronising – and mired in all sorts of controversy. She makes more money for giving a 60-minute speech to some bankers than most voters can earn in a decade. Who could ever identify with her?

“Her nomination reeked of Buggins’ turn more than any sort of merit. Pretty much any other candidate would have beaten Trump handily, but none of his litany of monstrous traits made Clinton any more likeable, and her campaign was woeful. Much like the Remain campaign in the EU referendum, if she’d simply stayed at home and left the stage to Trump she’d probably have won, but the very sight of her put people’s backs up.

“The Democrats have gotten exactly what they deserved. Whether America has or not remains to be seen.”

 

Sarah Pinch: Chart.PR FCIPR MIoD

sarahpinchvueliospotlight

“My reaction to Donald Trump winning the US presidential election was disappointment. Regardless of my personal support, I’m a woman, a working mother and Trump’s policies and rhetoric do not appeal to me in any way. He has made a case all through his campaign to try to undermine women and girls; he’s undermined non-white Americans, and his campaigning was littered with messages of difference and intolerance.

“But in every moment like this there is hope. Hope that women and men who are sleeping activists wake up and take action. We have a responsibility to redress the balance.

“I’m very disappointed that we have still not heard from Hillary Clinton. She needs to stand up and face the music, with dignity quickly.”

“Donald Trump is a media man. In some ways, that may be a good thing. His campaign was successful, so we need to look and understand why. But we must guard against further polarisation of our society. We have a key time as professional communicators to ensure balance, fairness and ethical engagement.”

 

James Dowling: Head of Public Policy, Lansons

james-good

“I believe that Donald Trump winning the election simply increases the level of uncertainty we are seeing. Trump is untested in any elected office, and has proved through this campaign that he does not play by the normal rule book. He will say what he thinks and do what he wants – and has succeeded despite this. This calls into question the role of the US President and the global order. For example, how will he deal with Russia – both in Syria and in Europe. His relationship with Vladimir Putin has been called into question throughout the campaign, so there is a clear sense of uncertainty around whether Russia will feel empowered to push the boundaries further, and how Trump will respond if that happens. He has also said he would ‘dismantle’ the nuclear deal with Iran – a deal that was only agreed in 2015, after years of negotiation. On global trade, Trump has vowed to scrap the ‘TTIP’ deal with the EU and the Trans Pacific Partnership. He will also rewrite the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement.

“However, Trump’s election also brings opportunity. The capture of congress by the Republicans gives the US an opportunity to pass real and life changing legislation. Americans have been sick of the gridlock that has occurred in Government and may see this as an opportunity. If he can work with Capitol Hill, President Trump will enjoy huge power to deliver on a number of areas. He has promised corporation tax reform – this may now be possible. For the UK, Trump has cited Brexit as an inspiration and promised a free trade deal. Despite the wider uncertainties, this may well help the UK as it pivots from Europe to the wider world.

“In relation to the global impact the new president will have on the comms industry, I think it simply adds to the uncertainty we are seeing. Comms professionals are able to help their clients understand how to react – and to deal with their key audiences. Some of the lessons we are learning from Brexit are relevant here too.

“The firms that will profit are those that best understand the nature of the challenge, and can respond accordingly. For businesses exporting to or highly dependent on the US market, the comms world can help clients speak to those who can help them push or manage their concerns in the UK and the US – whether with Government, regulators or investors. Domestically, there is a risk that this feeds a wider sense of uncertainty which could translate to further caution in consumer spending. Consumer-facing organisations will need help to respond – communications professionals are best-placed to help them do so.”

 

Sarah Hall: founder and editor of #FuturePRoof, and CIPR President-Elect 2017

Sarah Hall three quarter

“Trump’s victory goes to show we truly are living in a post-fact era. His success underlines what happens when politicians appeal to the emotions regardless of whether what they are saying is true.

“Despite communicating the potentially catastrophic consequences of having someone unqualified and inexperienced at the helm, Clinton’s campaign was not strong enough to fight underlying anxieties about terrorism and national security, which Trump fed with passionate rhetoric.

“The FBI’s unprecedented intervention a week before voting seriously damaged Clinton’s campaign, creating further trust issues, and no amount of celebrity advocacy was able to disguise her unpopularity with many.

“The fact that in a reality show obsessed society, a TV reality star has been elected as the President of America must also be seen as a contributing factor, creating cut through and a sense of commonality for Trump with the masses.”

Hitachi Rail

Office for Students

What does Russia need? Gunship diplomacy or better PR?

From the ongoing crisis in Syria, troop movements close to EU borders, warships sailing through the English Channel and accusations of conducting cyber warfare against Western targets and widespread doping in Olympic sports, the Russian’s aren’t getting a lot of good press in the UK at the moment.

And while some of this “news” is undoubtedly part of the tabloid press’s constant desire to scare the wits out of the general public and find a boogie man to replace Osama Bin Laden as the next big threat to global civilisation, it’s clear Russia does have a bit of an image problem in Western Europe.

With this in mind, it’s little wonder the Russian state is reportedly looking to spend between $30-50 million per year with Western PR agencies to clean up its image.

According to PR Week, an anonymous source from the Kremlin has confirmed that the Russian government is looking to hire three or four “leading Western PR agencies”.

However, it appears the search for the right PR partners is proving rather difficult.

Dmitry Peskov, press secretary to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, told journalists: “There have been two attempts to attract other foreign companies. However, their work has not satisfied us. Still, there is a possibility that Ketchum’s replacement might be found by the end of the year.”

PR firm Ketchum has a long history of working with the Russian government and the state-owned natural gas company Gazprom – but has confirmed it won’t be bidding for the work.

A number of London-based firms, including Bell Pottinger and Portland, declined journalists’ requests as to whether they would be pitching for the work.

While any PR contracts commissioned by the Russian government are going to be incredibly lucrative, it’s clear that taking on such work might also raise some ethical questions.

Is brand Russia too toxic to touch or is it just misunderstood and in need of a little PR?

Collaboration is key to the future of public affairs

Design, engineering and project management consultancy Atkins hosted an Intelligent Mobility summit this week, which brought together the biggest industry names to discuss the future of transport design and delivery. Speakers discussed everything from decreasing emissions to the impact of autonomous vehicles on our quality of life, but one of the key points of the conference wasn’t so much what they talked about, but the theme of cross-sectoral, cross party collaboration which ran through it.  

The variety of guests points towards a broader, and more open, approach to lobbying and public affairs. Government, academia, clients, providers and business leaders came together for a frank discussion of the opportunities and threats which will likely arise in the future and, far from being a closed doors session between industry and government, this was an open policy discussion.

It also wasn’t a single issue conference: the variety of guests meant everyone had their own take on the challenges and opportunities facing the sector.  Tough questions were posed to speakers, ranging from the government’s bureaucratic tender process to the environmental impact of encouraging a new transport boom in the form of autonomous cars.

Despite the disparate group of guests, there was broad agreement on one thing: there needs to be real collaboration between the transport, infrastructure, digital and housing sectors in the future if the UK is going to successfully counteract the challenges facing each one. There was a ready acceptance that there isn’t enough being done to get cross-industry representatives round the same table, and because of their interdependence, this means a risk of duplication between sectors if this isn’t done.

 

Does Brexit mean new avenues for lobbying?

Despite very little discussion during the referendum of how a pro Brexit vote would actually be translated into Britain leaving the EU, since the outcome of the vote this controversial topic has built considerable momentum, shifting further into the public eye and rising up the government’s agenda. Last week we saw this topic take centre stage when investment banker Gina Miller took legal action against the government in high court, something which could have far broader implications in terms of non-traditional lobbying processes.

Miller made the case in that the Government does not possess the legal authority to wield royal prerogative to enact Brexit without parliamentary approval. The central element of her argument rests on the fact that, legally speaking, ministers cannot use prerogative powers to remove rights established through an act of parliament. The Government enacting Article 50 would violate this and therefore she argues they must seek parliamentary approval.

While this particular news piece is interesting it opens avenues for perhaps a more engrossing debate around circumventing more traditional lobbying routes and using the courts as a means of enacting change within politics.

Recently we have seen the BMA and law organisation ClientEarth launch legal action against the Government with varying success. While the BMA failed in their attempt to block the junior doctors’ contract through the courts, ClientEarth had far more success and the High Court granted their request to pursue a Judicial Review against DEFRA as a result of their inadequate plans to tackle air pollution.

This hearing will take place this week. Regardless of the outcome, ClientEarth has made great strides in bringing public attention to this issue, as well as evoking some fierce media criticism towards the lack on action from the Government.

 

The rise of digital politics: social media and political engagement

A new report from Demos, released yesterday, has continued the conversation surrounding the role that social media plays in political engagement. Twitter and Facebook are now a platform for groups who largely reject the political establishment to engage in a non-traditional way. With social media beginning to play a key role, what does the future of democratic engagement hold?

Since last year’s general election and the EU referendum in June, the role of social media in galvanising groups who would otherwise not engage, and perhaps don’t actually vote, has become more apparent. As outlined in yesterday’s report, social media is at its strongest when it comes to encouraging engagement from 18-24 year olds.

This group is least likely to vote or have an attachment to a particular party, yet it’s the second most likely group to use social media for politics, something which is particularly important considering the steep decline in voter turnout in recent years. This decline has been an area of concern for parliamentarians and in particular, those parties which don’t enjoy the reliability of the ‘grey vote’ as the Conservatives do.

The question now is how this new political space can translate into better democratic outcomes. While some envision the political conversations we see on social media leading to more votes cast on election days, there is still a major disconnect between the ease of writing online and actually voting: a large proportion of social media users are happy to talk about politics online but far less eager to cast a vote.

This is one of the fundamental issues concerning the relationship between social media and politics: there is still some way to go before we see political conversations translate into this kind of democratic action. The Demos report gives some recommendations for social media to be used in this way:

  • Listen to the electorate and treat social media as a two-way street

 

  • Recognise new online groups and mobilisations, and the power they yield

 

  • Move from online discussions to something that can contribute towards the political decisions that are taken

 

  • Be aware of the dangers of digital exclusion

Boris Johnson’s classic PR blunder (or was it?)

OK, let’s assume for just one moment that former London Mayor, current Foreign Secretary and let’s not forget, until recently one of the best-paid newspaper journalists in the country, did just pen an article about remaining in the EU as an elaborate exercise when compiling the pros and cons about the situation before making his mind up about which side to back. Seems feasible – right?

Although, I would have to wonder where this (seemingly) incredibly busy man finds the time to write articles that he has no intention of publishing.

Following publication of the leaked article, Boris told Sky News: ““Everybody was trying to make up their minds about whether or not to leave the European Union and it is perfectly true that back in February I was wrestling with it, like I think a lot of people in this country, and I wrote a long piece which came down overwhelmingly in favour of leaving.

“I then thought I better see if I can make the alternative case for myself so I then wrote a sort of semi-parodic article in the opposite sense, which has mysteriously found its way into the paper this morning because I think I might have sent it to a friend.”

But continuing to assume that Boris uses this process when “wrestling” with important decisions, you have to wonder why he shared it (assumedly via email) with anyone knowing that it might end up in the hands of the press.

I mean, according to reports in The Times, where his alternative view was published, Boris was reassured by a colleague that the article wouldn’t appear for years. Surely, Boris has enough experience in Westminster and in journalism to know that, should something like this leak, the press are going to jump all over it.

Was he naïve, stupid or is there more to the story than it at first might seem?

There is of course, one very clear PR lesson to this rather bizarre political story.

Email is not secure environment to share anything you don’t want in the public domain. It’s PR 101 stuff really, so I just have to assume that Boris wanted to story out there.

Twitter: making political soundbites go viral

Politicians using Twitter to talk, debate and sometimes argue with the public may seem normal now, but this type of interaction is something which would have been hard to imagine fifteen years ago. Twitter is helping to shape a new type of politics where, theoretically, politicians can be held to account by the people who elected them. As well as this, it’s a whole new platform for gaining votes, the perfect way to push easily digestible soundbites to a public that doesn’t have time for large swathes of information.

It’s also increasingly likely that the next day’s news will come from Twitter, with politicians’ tweets often filling more column inches than politics itself. Trump is the poster boy for this, and having mastered the art of using the platform to provoke, has dominated the presidential election with an antagonistic style that journalists find hard to resist. This is a smart move from someone without the financial backing that US presidential hopefuls generally need: what he lacks in funds for advertising, he makes up for in the publicity he generates through his posts.

 

 

Taha Yasseri, a research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, highlights the importance of Twitter for Trump’s style of politics. He told the Guardian that evidence shows that tweets which use “very extreme words either positively or negatively’’ will be most shared and liked. ‘’A lot of people don’t have much chance to get into the details, and the fact that they hear a name a lot can be enough to persuade them to vote for that person.”

Twitter has also become a mouthpiece for politicians other than Trump, offering an insight into their world which previously only journalists had access to. The Labour party has become particularly vocal in this sense: Owen Smith not only set out his leadership agenda through a series of tweets, but also directly tweeted Jeremy Corbyn to accuse him of inaction over a potential party split.

 

Such confrontation suggests a change in the way that MPs engage both with each other and the public: this type of disagreement would previously been leaked to the press, rather than made public on social media. If politics is becoming a more transparent space, then Twitter is playing a key role in shaping the new style that’s emerging.

Conservative Conference 2016: The party with real momentum?

In his second guest post for Vuelio, Stuart Thomson rounds up the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham.

The differences between the two party conferences, Labour and Conservatives, could not have been more stark.  The Conservative conference differed in a number of significant ways, not least in the party’s ability to demonstrate unity.

From the atmosphere to the number of attendees, the number of fringe meetings to the queues at the conference bars, the Conservative Party conference was how a conference should run.  Despite attempts to gain some space for Labour by the #JC4PM campaign, this week was all about showing how different the Conservatives were and could be from Labour.  Even holding an event such as that broke the generally accepted unwritten convention that the parties keep away from each other’s conferences.

The Conservative Party followed some basic rules with their conference:

  • Boils lanced – by getting Brexit out of the way on the first day of conference, Theresa May was able to move on. Things may not be that easy again as the negotiations progress but by talking about Article 50 being triggered before the end of March 2017, she got proceedings off to a bang and kept potential opponents quiet.
  • Unity – differences of opinion were expressed around the fringe meetings but nothing approached a challenge to Mrs May. Proceedings were all about discussion and policy development, not dissent.  It would be easy to forget that she wasn’t elected by her party’s membership but Jeremy Corbyn was, and only the day before Labour’s conference started.
  • Presentation, presentation, presentation – there was no altering of speeches at the last minute, this was a conference which was planned and then delivered to that plan. People clapped at the right time and gave very little away with their body language.
  • Mrs May looked like she wanted to be there – unlike Jeremy Corbyn’s general demeanour especially when arriving very late for business events, Mrs May gave the impression of wanting to attend.
  • Playing the media game – it is a deliberate strategy of Corbyn’s Labour Party not to play the media game. Whilst Mrs May is already setting some clear ground rules about her media engagement, or even lack of it over the summer, she did the right thing at conference with interviews, a few gentle personal revelations and an obvious grid for announcements.

In her end of conference speech, Mrs May tried the same trick that Tony Blair did for Labour in the run-up to 1997, stealing the political clothes of the other party.  Labour won in 1997 at least in part because of Blair’s ability to talk meaningfully about the party’s core issues of health and education whilst stealing the Conservatives’ traditional strengths on the economy.  This was in part down to the Conservatives vacating the economic competence space because of Black Wednesday.  This week May took on Labour by talking about workers’ rights, an industrial strategy and building houses (amongst others).  She is obviously assuming that Labour has vacated those spaces in the eyes of many voters.  If successful, it would be one of the most successful political land grabs of all time.

At the end of the two conferences it is clear that the Conservatives have a unity of purpose that is lacking across Labour.  The Conservatives are the ones with all the momentum.