Archive

Sector: Government Relations and Public Affairs

Conservative Party Conference 2025

   |   By  |  0 Comments

Manchester Conservative Party Conference Logo

“Quiet here, isn’t it?” is how many conversations in Manchester began this week. The Conservative Party Conference this year was certainly a smaller and quieter affair than it has been for a long time. With last year’s conference dedicated to the leadership contest, this is the first ‘ordinary’ Tory gathering in Opposition since 2009, and it felt noticeably different for it.

And once attendees had moved past discussion of how quiet Conference was, there was only one topic on everybody’s lips – the leadership. It is, of course, not unusual for Tories to speculate about changing their leader, whether in Government or Opposition. But consensus before Conference was very much that the departure of Kemi Badenoch as Leader is a matter of when, not if.

That being said, Badenoch and her team did everything they could to keep people talking about anything else, with what can only be described as a policy blitz over the course of the four days. Although this began with eye-catching (and expected) announcements designed to stave off the exodus of voters to Reform UK, such as leaving the ECHR and scrapping the Climate Change Act. But, as the Conference progressed, the focus shifted onto economic and domestic matters as a means to seriously differentiate the Conservatives from the other political parties.

Whilst the announcement of intentions to scrap stamp duty, reform business rates and rethink the judicial appointment process might not be ‘sexy politics’, they were part of a twofold strategy from the leadership. Firstly, the plan of holding policy back and just speaking about ‘values’ for the first few years has been clearly dropped, in a bid to try and get more engagement from the media. But more importantly, they indicate the Conservative Party’s policy direction moving forward, returning to their most comfortable ground – the economy.

Another oft-repeated line at Conference, by MPs and shadow ministers, was that the Tories are the only party right-of-centre on the economy. They know that talking about migration and cultural matters is important, but there is a growing consensus that they cannot “out-Reform Reform” on these topics, at least for now. So, by leaning into the economy, there is the hope that the Conservative Party can present itself as taking on the real concerns of voters, especially those in the South who might be looking toward the Lib Dems. Not only that, but this approach also allows them to have a concerted pop at the Government, whilst trying to reconnect with business. The challenge will, however, be when Labour – and indeed voters and industry – will retort with two simple words – “Liz Truss”.

But even with a change of leadership in the offing – MPs, aides and staffers are split on whether that is most likely to be in November (when the rules permit a formal challenge) or May (after the local elections) –  a refreshed focus on economic policy shows where the Conservative Party wants to be heading. With a diminished parliamentary cohort, the same figures will be playing a key role irrespective of the leadership over the course of this Parliament. Indeed, some of the new MPs, like Katie Lam or Harriett Cross, are making a name for themselves within the Party and across social media in particular with their strong communication and details-based approach. The small number of MPs means that each has more space to push the leadership, and indeed the Government, on policy areas of interest. Despite last year’s crushing electoral loss, a third of Tory MPs are new to Parliament, and stand ready to make their mark and have the space to do it.

The Conservative Party knows that it has a lot to do to regain the trust of voters and businesses, but Conference marked a shift in its approach to how it will do this. The question is how long the approach – and indeed the Leader – will be able to last if the polls don’t change?

To discuss your Opposition engagement strategy with our public affairs team, please contact zak.wagman@grayling.com

 

 

Where next for transport? Labour Party Conference leaves more questions than answers.

   |   By  |  0 Comments

Where's next for transport

As the dust settles on a Labour Party Conference used largely to draw the battle lines with Reform ahead of a pivotal election period next year, transport policy found itself quietly sidelined. What was (and what wasn’t) said about rail dominated the transport space, but the question remains – where do we go from here?

It wouldn’t be surprising if the Transport Secretary, Heidi Alexander, left Liverpool feeling deflated. In the build up to conference, lofty ambitions to revive Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) were touted in the press and transport was going to be front-and-centre of Labour’s conference offer. However, as the Prime Minister rowed back on the move, Alexander took to the stage to focus on ‘national renewal’ and the threat of Reform.

Rehashing renationalisation

Part of this pitch was focused on the shift towards rail nationalisation, reiterating Labour’s central view that the current system is run in the interest of private profit. Alexander then listed the next rail operators to be nationalised (West Midlands Trains, Govia Thameslink, Chiltern Railways and Great Western Railways). Although none of this was new in terms of policy announcements, it received a rapturous applause around the conference hall, which was exactly the intention – and indeed a theme amongst all Cabinet speeches – to play wholeheartedly towards a weary party faithful.

Once again, a major piece of Northern transport infrastructure has been pushed down the pecking order, reflecting a familiar theme across successive governments – rowing back on long-term infrastructure investment when the going gets tough.

Labour made a promising start to deliver a favourable long-term investment landscape, with the 10-Year Infrastructure and Industrial Strategy signalling intent. However, for business leaders in the North of England, strategies without a concrete commitment to invest are only half the battle.

The impact on the North

While West Yorkshire mass transit is to be applauded, there remains uncertainty over wider schemes desperately needed across the country. NPR was promised over a decade ago, and is estimated to add £7bn GVA to the UK economy per year, largely in the North, yet, we remain far from breaking ground. There is the argument that this adds further fuel to the fire of Andy Burnham in his potential leadership manoeuvring, but what is clear is the ‘chicken and egg’ situation between infrastructure and economic growth is one that continues to plague the North.

Without investment in transport, productivity and connectivity remain stifled. Yet without demonstrable economic uplift, the case for investment is weakened. It’s a cycle that successive governments have failed to break, and Labour’s current posture suggests it may not be the one to do so either.

Transport, particularly rail, is not just a matter of connectivity – it’s a matter of economic justice. The disparity between transport investment in London and the South East versus the North is stark. According to IPPR North, London receives more than twice the transport spending per capita compared to the North. This imbalance has real consequences: it affects job opportunities, access to education, and quality of life.

Where does Labour go from here?

Heidi Alexander’s speech, while passionate, lacked the policy depth needed to reassure business leaders and regional stakeholders. Painting a GB flag on a South Western Railway train does not address some of the most fundamental and structural issues facing the rail network: outdated infrastructure and lack of capacity where it is desperately needed.

While Labour may not want to tie themselves down to an overarching transport strategy, there is a dire need to provide a long-term vision for the sector – one that spans political and economic cycles. The upcoming Integrated National Transport Strategy provides an opportunity for the government to lay its cards on the table and show a bold vision for transport.

If Labour truly wants to be the party of national renewal, it must start by delivering on the infrastructure that connects the nation – physically, economically, and socially.

If you or your business would like to talk about the future of UK transport policy, do get in touch with michael.broughton@grayling.com.

 

 

Progressive Patriotism: Starmer’s Pitch at Labour Conference

  |   By  |  0 Comments

Labour Conference 2025

There is little debate that the first year of the Labour Government has been fraught. Despite some policy progress, the past few months have been marked by a string of resignations, u-turns and revolts among the Parliamentary Labour Party. Business relations have become strained and the Government feels bruised by poor public polling, entering Conference as an administration on the back foot.

It was in this context that the party faithful gathered in Liverpool at what can only be described as a conference lacking spark. This is remarkable, really, given we’re just over one year on from a landslide election and Labour has a sizable parliamentary majority. But against a backdrop of economic woes – and the rise of Reform – there’s a feeling that Starmer has tried to please everyone and in doing so pleased no-one, straying into the rhetoric of the right, and flip-flopping between a platform of social justice and economic growth at all costs.

The PM’s speech yesterday was a rallying cry: Labour will “renew Britain”, he said, and restore much-needed pride in communities. Throughout, Starmer appealed to so-called British values of respect and decency, a bid to reclaim a narrative of patriotism and pose the Government as the rational, sensible antidote to Reform-led chaos and division. The speech was hailed by allies as Starmer’s ‘most political’ yet, and he was reportedly speaking from the heart – the rumour mill suggesting it was largely penned by the Prime Minister himself, contrary to the usual behind-the-scenes drafting efforts from Downing Street advisers.

Light on policy, this didn’t feel like a speech for business. Indeed, the PM conceded that the Government has “asked a lot” from industry, and hinted that businesses might shoulder a short-term pinch for the benefit of long-term economic gain. There were also warnings of difficult choices, weathering storms and global volatility – setting the tone for trade-offs and compromises at the Autumn Budget next month.

In the room, the ultimate goal was to demonstrate change in action – to reassure jittery members and urge the party faithful for patience and trust that government can deliver. But outside the conference hall, the challenge for the PM will now be ensuring his vision resonates with voters at a tangible level amidst a political environment dominated by culture wars and polarisation. Rhetoric aside, will voters feel better off and see proof that the policy programme is working?

What will be most telling, though, is not what Starmer said but how it lands within his own party. The deputy leadership race is already being touted as a proxy war between Starmer and Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham. This is perhaps unfair, for both Philipson and Powell are two accomplished leaders in their own right. Nonetheless, the contest has highlighted a growing divide between the Cabinet and dissatisfied voices on the soft-left. It’s unsurprising then that Starmer used his platform to fire some thinly-veiled shots towards the Burnham camp, steadfastly recommitting to the Government’s fiscal rules and rejecting a wealth tax and other so-called ‘easy solutions’.

So, behind the platform of national renewal, factions are deepening. Over warm wine and nibbles, the questions on everyone’s lips: has Andy Burnham moved too soon? Can Sir Keir step up to the fight of his political life? And does the Labour Party need a change of direction to tackle the threat of Reform?

Ministers have been quick to dismiss hints of an impending rift within the party (as one might expect). But, in this new order, it seems Labour must quickly decide which party it wishes to be. For now, not being Reform might just be enough.

To get in touch with our Public Affairs team, please contact Helena.Cox-Smith@grayling.com.

Starmer: what’s going on?

   |   By  |  0 Comments

By Tanya Joseph, Senior Counsel

 

It is hard being Prime Minister. All the hopes and dreams you had in opposition and during the campaign are dashed immediately by the reality of politics and economics. Inevitably the people who voted for you, who expected immediate change, are disappointed. Whilst it is not surprising that Sir Keir Starmer and his Labour government are less popular than they were at the time of the election. It is the degree of that unpopularity that is most surprising.

This morning, there are a lot of people, Starmer included, asking themselves how within a year of winning a landslide election did the Labour government have to abandon a major plank of its welfare reform to avoid a humiliating parliamentary defeat at the hands of its own backbenchers.

To be fair to Starmer he was dealt a bad hand at the start: there is much less money to invest in his growth agenda than Labour had expected and having promised not to increase taxes, wriggle room is limited. He has also had to deal with the fallout of the new Trump presidency: trade wars and actual wars alongside Trump’s very clear demand that NATO allies should increase their defence spending if they expect military backing from the USA. Mindful that the first duty of the Prime Minister is to protect the security of the country, Starmer increased defence spending, further tightening the room for fiscal manoeuvre.

Given their limited options, it was inevitable that Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves would have to look at welfare spending to find some cash. You won’t find many, if any, MPs who don’t agree that the system is in need of serious reform but there is no consensus either on what or how to do it. Labour, with its 165 majority, certainly has the parliamentary power, and, with the history of the party so entwined with the welfare state, it has the legitimacy to grasp the nettle. But it faltered in large part because the decision was not taken as part of a wider strategy to deliver a clear vision.

It is a fundamental problem because without one you are directionless, constantly distracted by the new, shiny, and urgent; you will be busy but going nowhere. You also won’t be able to tell the story of what you are doing as a government and why.

To be clear, growth is not a vision, neither is stabilising the economy, they are priorities. All the talk of Starmer’s five missions has quietened. Now it feels like they are looking at issues one at a time with no golden thread tying them together. It begs the question on what basis decisions are being taken. Is it political conviction or Treasury exigences?

The result is disenchantment and grumpiness. Voters are turning away from Starmer and Labour in droves, Labour’s own backbench MPs are in rebel mode and the markets are jittery.

Thus, we have the government reversing its position on three high profile issues in the space of two weeks. Three issues where policy decisions hadn’t been properly thought through, the impact assessed, and communications plans made. Three own goals.

If there was an overall strategic vision, these issues could have been sense-checked against it. The Government might have come to the same conclusion on any or all of them, but it would have been more certain confident about those conclusions, better able to defend them and would have been able to weave them into its broader narrative.

The first hint that were was a problem was the winter fuel payment decision. In policy terms it wasn’t, in my view, a bad decision. As a universal benefit, the payment is a very expensive way of supporting the poorest pensioners. The large majority of pensioners might enjoy the benefit, but they don’t really need it. Does Elton John need it? Rod Stewart? Helen Mirren? There are already other, better targeted ways to support poor pensioners, but uptake is low mainly because of lack of awareness or the complexity of applying. So, there is a story to be told about how the Government is going to focus resources on the most vulnerable, helping them to access the support that is already there for them while freeing up much needed cash for public investment.

It wouldn’t have been the place I would start if I was going to cut the welfare bill and I certainly wouldn’t have just announced it within days of taking office out of the blue, on its own.  But this is what Starmer and Reeves did. No effort was made to explain why, what the government was doing to do to support poorer pensioners. Nothing. Voters were unhappy, the opposition parties made hay with it and it became a thorn in the government’s side.

Then there were the Labour backbenchers who had to spend weeks and months justifying the decision to their constituents. It was hard. As one said to me “making poor people poorer is not what we do”. For the most part they bit their lips publicly. But then came the u-turn. While happy about the outcome they were angry with the PM and his team for making them defend the policy and now they felt like fools. With the changes to personal independence plans (PIPs) on the horizon, they were determined not to be placed in the same position again and forced massive concessions from Starmer.

The price of those concessions will be high. Reeves will have to find £10 billion to fund the government’s investment plans and it feels like the only way she will be raise that money is through taxes. The political price is equally high. Starmer and his front bench have been made to look weak. How they recover from this will determine the outcome of the next election.

All is not lost, yet. But the Prime Minister needs to regroup rapidly. He needs to be clear on his “project” – where he wants to take us as a country and why and then build a strong narrative to articulate it. He might need some help but there are lots of us who can and will help. Of course there will events, both domestic and foreign, which will require attention but clarity on the project will help him get back on track. Without this, he may be toast.

Grayling Analysis: Spending Review

   |   By  |  0 Comments

Another big day for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves today delivered the outcome of her Spending Review, laying out the government’s spending plans for the next few years.

The review has been months in the making with ministers, special advisers and officials from across Government, negotiating with their Treasury counterparts against a backdrop of private and public political manoeuvring and strong-arming. Departments want as much money as they can, to get over as long a period as possible. This time round the negotiations were continuing up to the wire, with all manner of big guns being brought out to make the public case for their particular interest. The Chancellor has had to ignore the special pleading and focus on the bigger political objective: to convince voters that you are spending money on the things they care about while reassuring the bond markets that this is not at the expense of fiscal prudence.

Spending Priorities Revealed: Who Gets What?

Characteristically downbeat (she is very much in the Gorden Brown mould of Chancellors), Reeves spoke about choosing “stability” over “chaos”. “investment” over “decline” and “national renewal” over “retreat” and then proceeded to announce a surprisingly generous package of spending.

We already knew a fair amount about where she intended to shine her beneficence. So the promised increased spending for the NHS and to defence were confirmed. At the heart of the package was £113 billion of additional capital spending including £39 billion on housing, £14.2 billion on a new nuclear power plant at Sizewell and a major uplift in spending on transport projects across the country.

But, of course, not everyone was a winner. Some departments like Defra and DCMS have had their day-to-day budgets cut. The Home Office faces a 1.7% cut which should largely be covered by planned cuts to asylum support and the 40% cut to overseas aid contributed to an overall 6.9% reduction to the Foreign Office budget.

Reeves is banking on the huge capital spend boosting growth and doing it relatively quickly – the number of shovel-ready schemes which received funding is notable. She wants voters to see the tangible benefits of the Labour government investment before the next election. It is a pretty bet. She has very little wriggle room and there is much outside of her control.

Storm Clouds Ahead: Global Headwinds and Fiscal Risks

The statement came just a day after the World Bank published its latest global economic prospects report in which it downgraded global GDP outlook by 0.5 percentage points to 2.3 per cent. It attributed the downgrade to the “turmoil” caused by US trade policy. In the UK this turmoil has already increased the cost of government borrowing and if the economy doesn’t grow as quickly as now being predicted in her budget in the Autumn, Reeves will have very little choice than to put up taxes. Not something she will want to do. I am sure there are lots of crossed fingers at Numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street.

 

To speak with our team of Public Affairs specialists, contact alan.boyd-hall@grayling.com. 

Trend-Report von Grayling: 5 Dinge, die Kommunikationsprofis im Jahr 2024 am Radar haben sollten

   |   By  |  0 Comments

Frankfurt / Wien – Grayling startet das noch junge Jahr mit einer Trendanalyse, die heuer bereits zum neunten Mal in Folge erscheint. Dabei werden zentrale Entwicklungen für die PR- und Public Affairs-Arbeit von Unternehmen und Organisationen im Jahr 2024 beleuchtet. Ergänzt durch konkrete Handlungsempfehlungen für unterschiedlichste Kommunikationsdisziplinen liefert der Grayling Report wichtige Impulse für Kampagnen und Maßnahmen, die beim gewünschten Zielpublikum auch wirklich ankommen.

Der erste Teil der Analyse greift fünf globale Trends auf, die von Grayling Expert*innen aus aller Welt eingeordnet werden. Kurz zusammengefasst werden dabei folgende Entwicklungen thematisiert:

  • Superwahljahr ändert Spielregeln: 2024 wird das bisher ereignisreichste Wahljahr aller Zeiten sein, denn rund die Hälfte der Weltbevölkerung in über 70 Ländern wird zur Urne gebeten. Insbesondere die Präsidentschaftswahlen in den USA im November, aber auch die EU-Wahl im Juni, werden voraussichtlich tiefgreifende Auswirkungen auf Unternehmen und Branchen haben und ganz sicher die Medien- und Public-Affairs-Arbeit entscheidend prägen.
  • KI muss in der IK ankommen: Künstliche Intelligenz (KI) wird zu einem allgegenwärtigen Bestandteil des Arbeitsalltags werden. Dies muss in der internen Kommunikation (IK) entsprechend berücksichtigt werden. Mitarbeiter*innen bei der Einführung von KI-Anwendungen zu unterstützen und einzubeziehen wird erfolgsentscheidend. Auch im Hinblick auf die Reputation einer Organisation oder Marke.
  • Aus der Berichtspflicht eine Kür machen: Auch wenn es Anzeichen dafür gibt, dass Klimaschutzbemühungen an Priorität verloren haben, wird die EU-Richtlinie zur Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung von Unternehmen (CSRD) dem Thema mehr Gewicht verleihen und eine faire, transparente, verantwortungsbewusste und zugängliche Berichterstattung aller Unternehmen sicherstellen. Dies eröffnet neue Möglichkeiten der Positionierung und Kommunikation.
  • Echte Hilfe statt Marketing-Bling-Bling: Die sogenannte ‚Customer Experience‘ – also das Erlebnis, das Kund*innen an den Schnittstellen mit einer Marke haben – wurde lange Zeit vernachlässigt. In der aktuellen geopolitischen Lage und in einer Welt, die unter der täglichen Informationsflut stöhnt, müssen die Inhalte von Marken und Unternehmen noch genauer auf die Bedürfnisse der Menschen, die erreicht werden sollen, zugeschnitten werden.
  • „De-Growth-Trend“ als Chance nutzen: Bewusster Konsum im Sinne von „weniger ist mehr“ wird auch im Jahr 2024 ein Trend bleiben. Dies zeigt nicht nur der Erfolg von Second-Hand bzw. Pre-Loved, sondern auch von diversen Sharing-Angeboten. Zudem fordern neue Gesetze die Erleichterung von Reparaturen und den Erwerb von Ersatzteilen. Für Marken und Unternehmen ergeben sich aus diesen Entwicklungen neue Anknüpfungspunkte für kreative Kommunikation.

Der zweite Teil des Trend-Reports von Grayling befasst sich mit zehn weiteren Micro-Trends, auf die Unternehmen sofort reagieren sollten, wenn sie diese für sich nutzen wollen. Von der optimalen Zusammenarbeit mit Influencer*innen bis hin zur Wiederbelebung von Business-Events werden Möglichkeiten aufgezeigt, die im harten Wettbewerb um Aufmerksamkeit Vorteile schaffen.

„Die großen Veränderungen, die das Jahr 2024 in politischer und technologischer Sicht mit sich bringen wird, stellen Marken und Unternehmen vor neue kommunikative Herausforderungen. Unser Trend-Report zeigt auf, wie wichtig es ist, Nuancen zu verstehen und sie richtig in die strategische Kommunikation einzubinden“, so Sigrid Krupica, CEO von Grayling Austria.

„Unternehmen und Organisationen stehen vor den größten transformativen Herausforderungen ihrerzeit. Effizientes Leadership beruht auf effizienter Kommunikation. Wir betrachten Stakeholder-Engagement und Reputationsmanagement als integrale Säulen, um die von uns identifizierten Haupttrends wie KI, Nachhaltigkeit und geopolitische Auswirkungen erfolgreich zu nutzen“, sagt Emmanuelle Bitton-Glaab, CEO Grayling Deutschland. „Es ist unbestritten, dass sich die Art und Weise, wie wir zusammenarbeiten, Probleme lösen und Erfolg messen, grundlegend verändern wird.“

Die Vollversion des Trend-Reports (in englischer Sprache) steht hier kostenlos zum Download zur Verfügung.

 

Government Reshuffle: The Opening Act

   |   By  |  0 Comments

When it comes to Cabinet reshuffles, most politicians are well versed in the day’s proceedings. An anxious wait, a scurry to Number 10, a forced smile to the press – regardless of a promotion, demotion, or full-blown defenestration. As some ministers wait to know their fate, few would have woken up this morning and accurately guessed how the day would unfold. Before most had the chance to make a cup of coffee, Rishi Sunak had already rolled the dice on one of the greatest political gambles we’ve seen in recent years.

Westminster has been awash with reshuffle rumours since party conference season. With the Conservatives trailing heavily in the polls – and key events such as the Autumn Statement fast approaching – there was little doubt that Sunak would reshuffle his top team to prepare for the impending general election and once again attempt to reset his fortunes. Plus, with Suella Braverman’s controversial article in The Times critiquing the police without Number 10 approval, the Prime Minister seized his opportunity to stamp his authority on the government machine.

Braverman’s sacking would have no doubt stolen today’s broadsheet headlines if it weren’t for Sunak’s “dead cat strategy” – a Cabinet appointment leaving SW1 in total shock. Enter the stage – David Cameron. The former Prime Minister was this morning created a life peer in order to take up the position of Foreign Secretary, in an attempt to reclaim the centre ground from Labour.

The reshuffle of the great offices of state also raises serious policy dilemmas. The new Home Secretary, James Cleverly has publicly lobbied against Braverman’s decision to place 1,700 asylum seekers on the former RAF Wethersfield, a decision which will now fall under his remit – leaving the Government’s immigration policy here in a somewhat grey area. Meanwhile, only five weeks ago, Cameron was scathing in his criticism of Sunak’s decision to scrap HS2. Coupled with his own premiership denoting a period of closer ties between the UK and China – in stark contrast to this Government’s current position – most will watch with wonder as to how the Government will dutifully line up behind Sunak’s vision and reconcile its differences.

Elsewhere, Liz Truss’ ally and former Deputy Prime Minister Thérèse Coffey has been dismissed as Environment Secretary, while Conservative rising star Laura Trott has been appointed Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Victoria Atkins will be tasked with attempting to cut NHS waiting lists in her new position as Health Secretary, with Steve Barclay taking on the top job at DEFRA. This reshuffle has so far been characterised by bringing Sunak’s friends and allies closer into the tent, while promoting fresh faces that will likely play well in the pre-election media rounds.

As the week continues, we will expect to see further changes at the junior ministerial level. That said, we’ve already had multiple resignations from those who aren’t contesting the next general election– veteran Schools Minister Nick Gibb has left the DfE while Colchester MP Will Quince has stepped down as Minister of State for Health, having announced in the summer his intention not to seek re-election. For others, it presents the chance to refocus their attention onto an electoral footing, doubling down efforts to shore up their slim constituency majorities.

But there will be little chance to dwell on the changes that are being made. Next week’s Autumn Statement will bring home to ministers the challenging fiscal framework they now must work in – and while Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is safe for now, he will be fully aware his day of judgement will come next Wednesday at the despatch box.

The show must go on. Nervous waits will continue, while a few glasses will be raised in quiet celebration amongst those who have climbed the greasy pole. Yet few things in politics are certain – David Cameron’s return emphasises that political destinies are never straight forward, and the stage is constantly set for a triumphant encore, or a crippling opening night.

Authored by Ed Lavelle, Senior Account Manager, Public Affairs

Party conference season delivers anything but bread and butter politics

   |   By  |  0 Comments

Grayling UK FMCG Policy

Now that the dust has settled on party conference season, it would be remiss to say that FMCG policy was high up the agenda for either of the main two UK political parties. While HS2 dominated proceedings in Manchester, Labour Conference provided a platform for Kier Starmer to woo the business community during his Leader’s speech – albeit covered in (hopefully biodegradable) glitter. But there was very little by way of concrete policy for the sector to get its teeth into.

Perhaps it is to be expected that party conference season focuses on the big-ticket items for Sunak and Starmer as they seek to define their approach to the issues that will likely define the forthcoming election campaign – housing, energy, and transport, to name a few. Getting into the weeds of policies including Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), Deposit Return Schemes (DRS), and restrictions to high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) products might not be too palatable for businesses or voters still navigating a cost-of-living crisis.

In fact, Rishi Sunak’s surprise move to ban smoking for the next generation was the closest either party got to outlining an approach to FMCG policy, and even this announcement was directly linked to easing the cost burden on the NHS. A cynic might even suggest this could be a ‘legacy’ policy for a Prime Minister firmly against the ropes.

But just how much is the decision to kick the can down the road damaging progress? Continued government delays to waste reforms have left businesses millions of pounds out of pocket, whilst Labour’s lack of clarity on recycling and HFSS policy makes it difficult for the FMCG sector to develop marketing strategies and plan investments.

To focus in on food, it has been six months since Henry Dimbleby quit his position as the UK’s food tsar amidst anger at a lack of strategy from the government on health and diet. Dimbleby, though, remains a formidable force, and following Conservative Conference, criticised the government’s decision to prioritise smoking regulation over the growing obesity crisis.

It wouldn’t be controversial to say there has been a lack of ambition to develop a coherent, collaborative approach to food policy, with the current government using the guise that any intervention will amount to ‘nanny-state’ politicking. For now, it seems the Conservative Party is keen to brush any policies that could increase the cost of the average shopping basket under the rug, to avoid the potential voter backlash.

On the other hand, the Labour Party signalled a more interventionist approach to tackling the obesity crisis and, at its conference, major retailers lined up to voice their support for mandatory targets and legislation to tackle unhealthy food – arguing that a voluntary approach isn’t going far enough.

While Labour’s shadow public health minister Preet Gill told conference a new ‘health mission delivery board’ would be established as part of a crackdown on HFSS sales and advertising, there remains very little – to pardon the pun – meat on the bones of Labour’s policy proposals. Labour will be aware that backing Dimbleby’s sweeping reforms could risk accusations of putting further strain on the pockets of consumers, and as such, the party remains paralysed on this issue – on the one hand pushing manufacturers to go further to reformulate, and on the other, avoiding saying, well, anything at all really.

So, what about waste and recycling reforms? Both EPR and DRS remain firmly on the backburner while businesses seek to understand exactly how the reforms will work together. Consistent household collections – or ‘seven bins’ – has been villainised by the Prime Minister himself, despite a similar policy proving hugely successful in Wales.

Given how divisive these reforms have become – with DRS becoming the first skirmish of the Internal Market Act – it seems unlikely that the technicalities of food and packaging packing policy will come into the limelight before the election. For Labour, a lack of resource in Shadow Ministerial teams may mean policy cannot be fully formed until, and if, the party gets into government.

But still, as parties’ wargame their election strategies, it is crucial to engage with influencers across the political sphere to outline the technicalities and genuine business impacts of policies impacting the sector.

On HFSS it seems likely we’ll see a change in direction to a more interventionist approach once any new government is in post and has got past the election hurdle, whereas packaging policy remains an open door ahead of DRS and EPR ‘go live’ dates in October 2025. But we know there’s an ambition to do more to boost recyclability and reform the waste system, so what will come next? It’s critical to engage now, to help shape and scope the debate, before the future direction of policy travel becomes too far set in stone.

Polling should always be taken with a pinch of salt, but it seems increasingly likely the UK will welcome its first Labour Government in 15 years – so don’t be slow to forge those relationships. With Starmer’s new-look Labour Party there is a legitimate opportunity for businesses to engage in the policymaking process, and to highlight to positive initiatives underway in the FMCG sector – whether promoting healthier options, low-and-no alcohol alternatives, or innovative packing formats.

At Grayling, our specialist FMCG team is well-versed in navigating this complex and volatile policy landscape. We are proud to help organisations:

  • Target political influencers and media to highlight the need for a supportive policy framework.
  • Navigate a complicated regulatory environment, identifying risks and opportunities on the horizon.
  • Hero the positive consumer story to tell on sustainable diets and packaging, building brand affinity.

To speak with our dedicated FMCG team, please contact Michael Broughton via michael.broughton@grayling.com

Labour Party Conference: Focused on winning

   |   By  |  0 Comments

As the curtain closes on Labour Party Conference 2023 – possibly the last before the next general election – we look at the key themes that businesses should take away.

Last year’s gathering took place against a backdrop of that Liz Truss Budget and a government on the verge of collapse. Labour’s lead in the polls was in ‘crushing landslide’ territory and, perhaps for the first time, there was a real sense of expectation rather than hope. The atmosphere was verging on giddy.

Labour Party Conference 2023 was last year’s older, more mature sibling. The watchword was ‘focus’. Rumours abound that the Shadow Cabinet, backbenchers and PPCs were under strict instructions to limit their refreshments and avoid any potentially compromising situations. It seemed to work; everyone was on their best behaviour.

The message discipline was impressive, and the extensive courting of business by Labour over the last year appeared to have paid off. Businesses were there in their droves, causing some members to mutter that the atmosphere was overly corporate. Senior Labour staffers didn’t mind, though. This was by far the most lucrative conference for the party in recent years, providing an important boost to the coffers ahead of the next election.

In response to the Prime Minister’s backtracking on net zero targets and HS2, shadow ministers confidently and consistently argued for policy stability above all, even if that means making some difficult calls such as not revoking recently awarded oil and gas licenses. In emphasising the economic arguments for ambitious and stable decarbonisation targets to drive private investment, Labour impressed businesses and avoided the trap that Rishi Sunak set last week.

Conference appeared to be a crystalising moment in Labour’s offer to business: we’ll provide the structures, policy certainty and stable government; we expect you to partner with us to drive significant investment. In a “third way” moment that would have made Tony Blair proud, Keir Starmer presented this in his speech as “not state control, not pure free markets…but a genuine partnership”.

The speech, while perhaps not delivered with the same verve and punch as last year’s, presented a clearer vision than we had previously heard from Starmer. That vision is taking shape around the idea of “national renewal”. The central premise of his argument is that the UK is broken and entering an “age of insecurity”, where the forces of technology, economic weakness, movement of people, and climate change combine to demand a remodelling of the British state after 13 years of Conservative neglect.

This is not “sunlit uplands” by any means, more a sober diagnosis of the significant challenges that can be overcome with hard work – and a warning to the party faithful and the country that change will not happen overnight. There was a strong feeling amongst delegates that Labour needs to not just win the next election but win big and govern for at least 10 years.

The big ticket policy in the hour that Starmer spoke had been announced by Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves the day before in her surprisingly tubthumping speech. Labour’s plans to radically overhaul the planning system for critical national infrastructure and building 1.5m new homes, including using development corporations to overcome barriers, sound bold and risky given how local objections can cause political headaches.

Alongside this, there was plenty for Labour’s core voters to get their teeth into, from VAT on private schools to the appointment of a Covid corruption commissioner. Naturally this wasn’t enough for some on the left of the party, who would have preferred less talk of fiscal discipline and more radical investment in public services.

But if the aim of the conference was to present the party as united, serious and ready to govern, then Starmer and his team will feel it is mission accomplished. However, while there was strictly no complacency from the party leadership, expectations of party members are running high. The pressure is now on to deliver the majority that they expect, for which winning in Scotland will be key. Anything less will surely be seen as an enormous missed opportunity.

To chat to the team about your organisation’s Public Affairs strategy, contact Alex Dismore at alex.dismore@grayling.com

Grayling Analysis – 2023 Spanish General Election

   |   By  |  0 Comments

Our Spanish public affairs team has prepared a detailed analysis of the 2023 Spanish General Election. The analysis allows you to discover the political takeaways from July 23rd, with surprising results that will have consequences in the Spanish socio-political arena.

The Popular Party (centre-right party) was the most voted list, although Pedro Sánchez (the current president from the centre-left party, PSOE) is emerging as the main candidate for the investiture. However, a repeat election is an option that cannot be ruled out either.

Click here to read the analysis in full.

Interview with Sarina Kiayani, Senior Public Affairs Officer, Dogs Trust  

   |   By  |  0 Comments

At Grayling we wanted to shine a light on the incredible women in the Public Affairs industry and the work they do. 

Over the next couple of weeks, we will be posting a series of interviews with inspirational women across the Public Affairs industry, discussing their careers and their experiences so far, how we can make the industry more inclusive, welcoming and progressive – for both men and women – as well as their predictions for the year ahead in politics. 

This week, we spoke to Sarina Kiayani, Senior Public Affairs Officer at Dogs Trust.

 

Sarina Kiayani is a Senior Public Affairs Officer at Dogs Trust. She has previously worked in agency at FleishmanHillard and Dentons Global Advisors. She is an advocate of women’s issues and is currently Women’s Officer of Young Labour, Membership and Recruitment Lead of Labour in Communications and Social Media Officer of the London Young Fabians. 

What attracted you to a career in public affairs?
I was always very interested in politics, having studied it at A-Level and university. When I graduated, I knew that I wanted to work in politics but not for a particular party, so that’s how I ended up drawn to Public Affairs. It was actually an internship at Grayling in my second year of university that made me decide to work in Public Affairs!

What advice would you give to women who want a career public affairs?
Joining networking groups, such as Women in Public Affairs, and attending their events is a great way of speaking to people in the sector to get advice on tips on applications. It’s also good to build your own political profile, such as through attending events run by political organisations and writing blogs, and to keep up with the news and key events like the Budget.

What has been your career highlight to date? 
Working with Carolyn Harris MP as part of the Menopause APPG to successfully lobby the Government to cut the cost of HRT prescriptions for those going through menopause. Menopause affects 50% of the population, with many suffering adverse side effects and unable to access sufficient treatment due to high costs. Because of Carolyn and her amazing activism, access to menopause treatment has now become fairer and more open to those on lower incomes.

What are your predictions for the coming year in politics?
The Government has been flagging in the polls for a while, so I think we will see them trying to retain their voter base as much as possible – the immigration announcements are just the start of this. The content of the recent Budget was another indicator of this, but I expect there to be more of a wider focus on driving up economic productivity and keeping closer ties to businesses through regular engagement to avoid losing their support – which is good for Public Affairs professionals, I guess!

How can the public affairs industry deliver gender equity?
Producing surveys and action plans to identify where there are gaps in organisations on gender parity, and how this can be addressed. Also profiling women in the industry, through blogs and knowledge-sharing events. 

MiCA: A critical juncture in the EU-UK crypto race

  |   By  |  0 Comments

A cemented EU position on crypto

Last week, the EU Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour on the final wording of the Markets in Crypto Assets Bill (MiCA), with 517 supportive votes to a mere 38 against. Initially touted by the European Commission in 2020, the new legislation represents a global first in comprehensive measures aimed at regulating the cryptocurrency sector.

Primarily, the Bill impose a range of requirements on crypto providers, traders and token issuers in an attempt to reduce the risk associated with purchasing and exchanging digital tokens. This includes introducing new obligations around alerting potential investors to the risks associated with their services and entering into written agreements with clients. The majority of MiCA provisions will apply in just over twelve months’ time to provide industry with sufficient breathing room to adapt and demonstrate compliance. At that point, crypto platforms, traders and token issuers will face a series of fresh transparency, supervision of transactions, authorisations and disclosure requirements.

Under the Bill, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) will receive powers to intervene or prohibit the continued activity of crypto providers if there is evidence to suggest they are not protecting investors, or that they are posing a threat to financial stability and market integrity. We can expect ESMA to publish secondary legislation that stems from MiCA in due course.

In the same week, European lawmakers also voted in favour of the Transfer of Funds regulation, which will introduce fresh stipulations on crypto providers to demonstrate customer identification in an attempt to pull the plug on money laundering.

The view from the UK

But what do latest developments mean for UK audiences? In the wake of the approval of MiCA, crypto players currently operating in the EU have been awarded greater levels of clarity by the European Parliament as to the shape that regulation will take moving forwards. The US and UK now find themselves playing catch up, as incoming EU regulations provide transparency and credibility to the sector at a time when it needs it most. The sector has been quick to welcome such clarity, with Ian Taylor, Chief Executive of CryptoUK, suggesting that MiCA “puts significant jurisdictional pressure” on the US and Britain to pass their own frameworks.

Despite legislation currently going through the UK Parliament to regulate the sector, namely via the Financial Services and Markets Bill (FSMB), the signing of legislation at the EU level has cast doubt over the ability of UK policymakers to lead from the front, calling the UK’s long-heralded place on the global crypto stage into question. Indeed, former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, has cautioned that the latest step taken by the EU to bring in a robust regulatory framework for cryptocurrency could eclipse UK efforts to become a ‘global crypto hub’.

Historically, the UK Government has been keen to use the financial services sector to demonstrate post-Brexit dividends, heralding its newfound freedoms as a major win for industry and indeed the UK economy. Against that backdrop, the EU’s new offer of a more attractive environment for financial services firms to operate, grounded in an understanding of the specific regulations to expect, will be a particularly painful blow to the UK Government.

While industry voices have praised the EU for striking the right balance between freedom and restriction under the new package of measures, on the face of it, the significance of developments in the EU have not infiltrated the mainstream parliamentary or media debate, with no mention of MiCA in the past week by UK parliamentarians on Twitter and relatively limited coverage in the UK broadsheet papers. As the City Minister, Andrew Griffith MP, continues his heavy engagement programme with stakeholders on the issue and the FSMB prepares to enter its Report Stage in the House of Lords, UK policymakers working on crypto regulation appear to have met their match in their EU counterparts.

If you would like to understand more about the political and regulatory landscape in relation to crypto and the wider financial services sector, please contact Celia Clark at celia.clark@grayling.com