Political Services

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

October 31, 2024/0 Comments/in Politics, Public Affairs Political Monitoring, Political Services, Political Database 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 Services, Political Database, Political Monitoring 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 Database, Political Monitoring, Political Services 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 Services, Political Database, Political Monitoring 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 Monitoring, Political Services, Political Database 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.

One month on from the 2024 UK General Election: What have we learned?

August 1, 2024/0 Comments/in Politics, Public Affairs Political Services, Political Database, Political Monitoring Blog Posts /by Helen Stott

Written by Helen Stott and Michael Kane.

It was nearly a month ago that the United Kingdom voted to deliver Labour to their first electoral majority since 2005, leaving the Conservatives with a measly 121 seats.

The democratic repercussions of this result are potentially seismic, with Labour propelled to over 400 seats on a 33.7% share of the UK wide vote. Yet, research from the IPPR showed that only 52.4% of adults voted. The Conservatives and Labour – two parties who have come to dominate UK politics over the last 100 years – only received just over 55% of the vote share combined.

How have the parties responded to this? What have we learned one month on from the General Election?

Labour’s first few days: the formation of the Government

The day after Labour achieved its landslide victory, Starmer’s senior team will have been well aware of the need to hit the ground running. There was no time to waste on last minute reshuffles, so Starmer’s Government for the most part mirrors the makeup of his Shadow Cabinet when they were Opposition. There are a few notable exceptions, however. Starmer was forced to find alternatives when former Shadow Cabinet members Thangham Debbonaire and Jonathan Ashworth both lost their seats. More surprisingly, Emily Thornberry was snubbed for Attorney General after shadowing the role for over three years. Starmer instead appointed Lord Hermer, who has more extensive legal experience and, interestingly, was a key signatory of a letter which espoused that Israel must be guided by international law. This perhaps signals that Starmer has heard the concerns of voters who rejected Labour over its position on Israel, and is prepared to shift to a more critical stance.

Labour set their priorities and agenda

Later in the month, Labour used the King’s Speech to set out their immediate priorities for Government, launching a jam-packed legislative agenda, with almost 40 new Bills introduced. The speech focused on Labour’s economic growth mission, with measures announced to reform planning laws, renationalise railways, and create a new publicly-owned clean energy company in Great British Energy.

However, Starmer has faced his first rebellion, as seven Labour MPs broke the party whip to vote for an SNP tabled amendment calling to end the two-child benefit cap. There had been speculation that the Government would compromise on this due to external pressure, but instead Starmer responded by suspending the rebels – including former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell. These strong arm tactics send a clear message to the new intake of MPs that Starmer expects absolute loyalty, but will his refusal to abolish this much derided policy backfire?

The Labour leadership have signalled that they would be open to ending the two-child limit in the future, but at the moment they are standing firm that public finances are not in the place for immediate action. Backbench MPs will be appeased by Starmer’s commitment to setting up a child poverty task force, but if this does not start delivering change soon, we may see more significant rebellions in future.

Throughout Labour’s first few weeks in Government, senior Cabinet members have had their own individual moments in the sun to help Labour set the policy and political agenda in their favour. On 11 July, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Wes Streeting announced an investigation into the NHS, also resuming talks with junior doctors regarding industrial action.

Minister for Women and Equalities Bridget Phillipson continued this reset sentiment as she conducted a question and answer session on 16 July, noting that her priority was to ‘reset the relationship between the Department and the education sector.’ Phillipson also launched a curriculum and assessment review on 19 July. On 22 July, testament to its importance to Labour’s agenda, Starmer himself spoke on Labour’s plans to establish Skills England and reform the ‘broken’ skills system, which he argued had failed young people. A day later, and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liz Kendall reasserted the focus on employment and training as she unveiled the Government’s plans to tackle economic inactivity among young people.

In a similar vein, earlier this week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves gave a statement to the Commons, where she said public finances were in an even worse state than they had believed prior to the election. Reeves claims that Labour have inherited a ‘black hole’ of £22bn of unfunded spending promises, announcing the cancellation of various infrastructure projects committed to by the previous Government, and means testing the pensioners’ winter fuel payment in order to fill the gap. Part of the ‘black hole’ Reeves mentioned is from the cost of giving public sector workers a 5.5% pay rise – something which the previous Government avoided doing. Shadow Chancellor Jeremy Hunt strongly repudiated Reeves’ claims and accused her of ‘laying the ground for tax rises’.

Reeves has since confirmed tax rises will be announced as part of October’s Budget, although she reaffirmed that Labour would stick to its manifesto promise not to hike national insurance, VAT, or income tax. Whether tax hikes will be accompanied by further spending cuts remains to be seen.

Is Vaughan Gething’s resignation Keir Starmer’s first hiccup as Prime Minister?

With the drama of the General Election, attention had been pulled away from devolved politics. Then Vaughan Gething announced he will be stepping down as First Minister of Wales after just 78 days in office. Gething’s premiership was plagued by scandal from the very beginning, as he faced questions over his election campaign donations, and the sacking of ministers over leaked text conversations. This led Plaid Cymru to pull out of their cooperation agreement with Welsh Labour, and Gething was forced to resign after facing a no confidence vote and numerous cabinet resignations.

Cabinet Secretary for Health Eluned Morgan looks set to become the next First Minister, as she was elected unopposed as Welsh Labour’s first female leader. Writing for Labourlist, former Welsh Cabinet Minister Lee Waters said there needed to be ‘honest debate’ about the future of Welsh Labour, cautioning that it could go the same way as Scottish Labour in the 2010s. Waters also pointed out that while First Past the Post served Labour very well during the most recent Westminster elections, the Welsh Parliament will be moving to a new proportional system in 2026, which may leave Welsh Labour in trouble if their polling doesn’t go up.

For Starmer, this debacle over the Welsh leadership may draw an unwelcome comparison to former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s struggles with the devolved Governments upon the establishment of Holyrood and Senedd in the 1990s. Blair had famously struggled initially to get his preferred candidate as either Welsh or Scottish First Minister. Whether the Welsh Government proves to be a hiccup for Starmer is yet to be seen.

Conservative leadership race begins in a surprisingly low key fashion

Conservative leadership battles are often seismic in both their political significance and their domination of political debate. Testament to this: the ousting of Margaret Thatcher in 1990; John Major standing down, only recapture the leadership against John Redwood in 1995; and David Cameron’s ‘no notes’ victory against then favourite David Davis. Yet, the current leadership contest seems far removed from previous Conservative leadership battles. Perhaps this is a reflection of the Conservatives’ sidelined position against a Labour Government, who control the Commons so emphatically.

As we stand, the Conservatives will continue with ousted Prime Minister Rishi Sunak as the Leader of the Opposition (LOTO) until their new leader is elected on the 2 November. Nominations were formally declared earlier this week for Tom Tugendhat; Mel Stride; James Cleverly; Kemi Badenoch; Robert Jenrick; and Priti Patel (read more about the leadership candidates and their backgrounds here).

This should be a significant Conservative leadership race, with the winner required to guide the party through a potentially fragile five years, squeezed from the left (the Liberal Democrats) and the right (Reform UK). The Conservatives must also negotiate their identity in the face of a post-Brexit UK, as the party has not won an outright majority in the Commons since the 1992 General Election without a major electoral promise on Europe. While this observation may be unwelcome to some it signifies the wider identity crisis that the future leader must confront and address to unite the party and challenge Labour at the next election.

What to expect in the months ahead

As Parliament heads into recess, the Government will be looking to prepare as much as possible for what will inevitably be a packed Parliamentary schedule in Autumn. Parliament will return in September for a brief session before adjourning again for party conference season. We can expect the mood at the Labour party conference to be triumphant, although the leadership may also face pushback on the two-child benefit from a disgruntled membership.

Meanwhile, at the Conservative party conference, there will be a debate between the four remaining leadership candidates – a key moment in determining the future of the party.

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.

Labour’s King’s Speech: an interventionist streak but more to come

July 23, 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.

With the King’s Speech, Labour may have hoped to represent an emancipatory moment after almost a generation in what seemed to be perennial opposition. However, it was instead borne out of the political, economic, and democratic challenges that riddle the UK right now.

It’s 15 years since Labour’s last State Opening of Parliament, where Gordon Brown’s Government’s final legislative programme was influenced by external factors. Specifically, one key proposal focused on strengthening the governance of financial services amid the backdrop of increasing negative sentiment towards bankers and a global financial crisis. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s first legislative programme may also be shaped, and perhaps constrained, by significant external factors.

Labour are facing what Chancellor Rachel Reeves has called the worst fiscal inheritance since 1945, with a ballooning tax burden and national debt, mixed in with struggling public services, alongside a wider feeling of political apathy. For instance, the 2024 British Social Attitudes revealed that 79% of participants were dissatisfied with the way the UK is governed. Meanwhile, University College London’s ‘Policy Lab’ report found 74% of the public now believe that Britain is rigged to serve the rich and influential.

This feeling arguably manifested in the 2024 General Election, with only 52% of adults in the UK voting, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research. Interestingly, this is the lowest figure since universal suffrage for those over 21 years old was granted in 1928. This is complemented by a sentiment of democratic deficit around Labour, with their 170 seat majority being propelled by a meagre 34% of the vote. To add to this, the election highlighted the relative fragility of Labour’s electoral coalition, with the Greens doing well in more cosmopolitan urban areas, and Reform UK finishing second in a significant number of Labour’s traditional ‘red wall’ heartlands.

In this sense, Starmer’s legislative programme comes at a time of immense challenges for the country where few actually believe political institutions can address them.

Economic growth and interventionism

Prior to the election, many would have been forgiven for tuning out of Labour’s economic message for how repetitive it was – the central tenet being that the UK must return to economic growth. It formed the first mission of Labour’s five: to make the UK the fastest growing economy in the G7. Only four days into Government, and Reeves reminded us that striving for economic growth would dictate HM’s Treasury activity. This focus on economic growth stems from two places – Labour’s repudiation of the UK’s economic stagnation under the previous government, and the practical necessity of funding their plans for public services, housing, and the impending net zero and digital transition. Chief Secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones admitted to Channel 4 that the only way to ‘find more money to spend on public services is by growing the economy’.

The pre-eminence of growth is also evident in King Charles’ remarks, which were composed by the Government. In an age of 24-hour news, most people’s exposure to the King’s Speech comes through brief coverage of the King’s remarks, rather than the Bills themselves. Therefore, it’s significant that King Charles opened his speech by detailing the Government’s mission to secure economic growth before detailing the means that Labour will employ to achieve this: 1) planning reform; 2) GB Energy; and 3) Skills England.

All three of these tenets arguably represent a shift to a more interventionist approach from Labour. Their proposals on planning reform would represent a sudden departure from the Conservatives’ inaction through the implementation of new compulsory purchase compensation rules and mandatory housing targets. Whether this proves to be morally contradictory with Labour’s desire to devolve decision making to local communities (the English Devolution Bill) remains to be seen.

Likewise, the legislation to create GB Energy clarified that it will not just serve as an investment vehicle but will ‘own, manage, and operate clean power projects’ – a radical shift, perhaps, from the implication by Cabinet Minister Pat McFadden that it may only serve as a funnel for private investment. Skills England is the proposal that ties these measures together. The new national skills body would develop a ‘national and local picture’ of skills shortages through working with the ‘Migration Advisory Committee, unions and the Industrial Strategy Council’. Such a proposal is a direct attempt to remedy skills gaps and labour shortages – as illustrated by the New Economics Foundation. These gaps, along with low productivity, impeded the prior Government’s pursuit of growth and limited its ability to address the housing crisis or the impending net zero transition.

These three proposals under the overarching vision of economic growth may indeed illustrate a more interventionist approach than initially suspected – however, only once the Government’s tax and spending plans are elucidated in the forthcoming Budget can this be confirmed.

Interventionism continued through the New Deal for Working People

Years winning the 2024 General Election, Labour had been clear that their plans for economic growth would go hand-in-hand with those to strengthen workers’ rights. The Government used the King’s Speech to introduce the Employment Rights Bill, which the party says will deliver on the policies set out in its New Deal for Working People. This includes requiring that employers accommodate flexible working ‘as far as reasonable’; banning zero hour contracts; ending ‘fire and rehire’ practices; removing ‘unnecessary restrictions’ on trade unions; and strengthening other employment rights, such as parental leave, sick pay, and protection from unfair dismissal. Alongside the Bill, Labour said that they will introduce a ‘genuine living wage’ and get rid of age bands for pay.

The last Government had somewhat adversarial relationships with the trade unions, and as Labour come into power we will see this relationship shift drastically. However, that doesn’t mean it will all be plain sailing. It is true that Labour has a structural link with the trade union movement going back to the party’s creation, and unions like Unite remain some of Labour’s biggest donors. However, Starmer and Reeves have repeatedly stressed that they want Labour to be the ‘natural party of business’, and under Starmer’s leadership the proportion of party funding received from companies and individuals has dwarfed the contribution of unions. Sharon Graham, who won the election to become General Secretary of Unite in 2021, has taken quite a pragmatic stance towards Starmer’s Labour party – she has not threatened dis-affiliation, but has been very clear that her unions’ continued financial support comes with strings attached. Prior to the General Election, she refused to give the union’s endorsement to Labour’s manifesto, and there has been protracted conflict between the Labour leadership and the unions over what some see as a watering down of the original commitments on workers’ rights.

The contents of the Bill announced during the King’s Speech last week will likely please the unions, but the legislation will have to go through debate in Parliament, and business will be lobbying to make sure the new regulations don’t impact their bottom line too much. Business leaders have already voiced their concern about some of the proposals. Earlier this year the President of the Confederation for British Industry said the UK needed to avoid a ‘European model’ of excessive regulation, warning of the ‘unintended consequences’ of Labour’s plans. The difficulties Labour will have in implementing this legislation are symptomatic of the fragile coalition they need to hold together should they survive another term in government.

What’s missing and what’s next?

While the King’s Speech proved to be a comprehensive legislative programme with over 35 Bills, it is equally important to pay attention to what was omitted. King Charles’ speech made reference to the Government’s intention to regulate AI and reform the apprenticeship levy, but there weren’t any Bills introduced on these topics. This indicates that they may be on the Government’s future legislative agenda, but are not an immediate priority.

Ending the VAT tax break for private schools was also mentioned, and this will likely be in the forthcoming budget. Meanwhile, legal migration and the two child benefit limit were not explicitly mentioned. This is interesting, considering how pervasive these issues have been and how they encapsulate some of the electoral challenges Labour face; from the left with the Greens and new intake of Independents, and from the right with Reform UK.

However, since the King’s Speech, there has been some mention of these issues, with Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson admitting on the morning of the 22 July that the Government would consider ending the two child benefit cap – a stance that Starmer later endorsed. On the same day, Starmer’s speech on plans to establish Skills England posited the reforms through the lens of migration, as he condemned the UK’s overreliance on foreign labour.

While the King’s Speech elucidates how Labour will begin to address the political, economic, and democratic challenges that riddle the UK right now, it is not a comprehensive guide to Labour’s plans. Further clarity will likely come in Labour’s forthcoming Budget and their plans to address the important issues yet to be tackled.

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.

Will a Liberal Democrat revival be impeded by perceived ideological ambivalence?

July 2, 2024/0 Comments/in PR Pulse, Politics, Public Affairs Political Services, PR, Political Database, Political Monitoring Blog Posts /by Michael Kane

Just over 40 years ago, Liberal Democrats forerunner the SDP-Liberal Alliance returned their best collective election result in 1983 as they finished third – only 2% below the Labour party. While the party might have hoped that the 1983 election would serve as the turning point in their bid to remodel British politics, this wasn’t to be. Aside from 2005 and 2010 – where the party achieved over 50 MPs and over 20% of the vote – 1983 was the high-water mark.

Today, the Liberal Democrats face a different challenge. Since 2015, they have been pushed into the fourth-largest party spot in the Commons, and have often battled to remain politically relevant rather than politically significant. Nonetheless, a multi-pronged strategy has seen them return to electoral relevance, while being significantly helped by anti-Conservative sentiment across the country.

On the one hand, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey has pursued an occasionally bordering-on-ridiculous campaign with attention-grabbing stunts serving to highlight significant issues – paddleboarding in Lake Windermere as an example. Meanwhile, campaigning has focused less on being a viable alternative government, instead targeting disaffected Conservative voters in the Home Counties in a bid to increase their seats. The focus has been less on macro campaigns, such as Jo Swinson’s emphasis on Brexit, but instead on seemingly under-discussed issues that cut through to the very voters they need to target: adult social care and sewage pollution.

This, coupled with an election broadcast that focused on Davey’s relationship with his disabled son, has seen the Liberal Democrats rise as high as 15% in YouGov’s voting intention tracker. Moreover, because of their targeted campaigning in the Home Counties, their relative support translates well into the first past the post system, with some MRPs putting them as high as 67 seats.

Ideological clarity

If the Liberal Democrats are to increase their seat share in the House of Commons as significantly as the MRP polls suggest, this will bring greater media and political attention and scrutiny of their policy platform. This has already begun, with Davey being questioned on BBC 5Live on his seemingly contradictory support for the proposed phased smoking ban and a regulated market for cannabis. Interestingly, Davey had previously voted against the proposed ban on smoking indoors in pubs.

This perhaps reflects a wider fissure within the modern Liberal Democrat movement. This has previously dogged the party and turned some voters away, with tuition fees as a key example, but there are also wider divisions between the Beveridge and Orange Book wings of the party. A concern, perhaps – exposure of any ideological ambivalence should they return to the political prominence that would come with more seats in the Commons.

The Brexit cloud

Against a backdrop of a potential no-deal outcome coupled with the Labour party’s triangulation, former Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson sought to establish the party as a vehicle to stop Brexit. The party was subsequently burned for such an overt stance as Swinson lost her seat. Contrastingly, their 2024 manifesto only mentioned Brexit twice. At the manifesto launch, when pushed, Davey committed to rejoining the EU, but noted that it was a long-term ambition.

This strategy of careful vagueness has brought them comparative joy, bringing the ability to target disgruntled Conservative voters in the Home Counties. Many of whom are leave voters, with both the South East and South West voting leave in the referendum. However, with Labour set to move into Government, seeking to resettle the UK’s relationship with the EU, the Liberal Democrats will not be able to avoid the issue for much longer, nor should they wish to.

Perhaps this Brexit cloud instead represents an opportunity for the Liberal Democrats. Specifically, they could use the agenda shift to carve out a genuine dividing line with Labour by pushing their competitor party on membership of the customs union or single market while simultaneously appeasing their pro-european core vote.

While their manifesto quietly pledged to rejoin the single market, they will need to overtly take on the wider European issue. Whether the Liberal Democrats face their reckoning with their stance on the EU out of necessity or desire, it may help them oppose a future Labour Government.

Devolution

Regional devolution should be a hallmark for a Liberal Democrat manifesto given their long-standing commitment to constitutional reform and political and economic decentralisation. Yet their manifesto seems to step back from any regional devolution. The absence of detail on how they would end top-heavy councils or pursue alternative forms of devolution should communities reject elected mayors is thought provoking. The lack of a clear vision on local government reorganisation could be seen as disappointing for a party whose bread and butter should be innovative ideas around the devolution of power.

Criminal justice

Criminal justice reform has often served as a key distinguisher for the Liberal Democrats against Labour and the Conservatives, with former leader Charles Kennedy successfully rallying against New Labour’s proposed counter terrorism bills in the 2000s. Yet as the Institute for Fiscal Studies notes, under Lib Dem manifesto spending plans, prisons would still suffer billions in cuts. In the face of Conservative commitments to expanding whole life sentences, increasing scrutiny of IPP sentences and Labour’s reluctance to remove IPPs and the immense pressure faced by prisons, there might be space for the Liberal Democrats to speak to their liberal and reformist ideological convictions. Their pledges are largely restricted to vague proposals to end prison overcrowding, recruit and retain more prison staff or improve the provision of training, education and work opportunities in prisons – but the money is not there in their funding proposals.

Housing

In a recent interview with The BBC, Nick Robinson exposed the Liberal Democrats’ ambiguity over housing policy. Robinson raised the example of the Liberal Democrat-run councils that had opposed plans to build 3,000 homes on an airfield in Oxfordshire, coupling this with a repeat of Davey’s criticism of housing targets in Surrey.

In some sense, this seems to at least symbolically contradict the Liberal Democrat manifesto plans to a year target of 380,000 new homes and within that 150,000 new social housing. This perhaps shows that the Liberal Democrats divergent local and national political strategy may not hold should it come under increased scrutiny. Historically, the Liberal Democrats have looked to campaign on separate local issues compared to their national campaign as they targeted disgruntled voters. While a repeat of this strategy may have helped them in the Conservative blue wall, they may have to revisit their housing policy – especially with Labour so forthright on their plans to alter environmental regulations on the green belt.

Why not Labour?

The biggest challenge that faces the Liberal Democrats, and the one that perhaps encapsulates all of the above, is the very change that will likely result from the upcoming General Election: a Labour Government. This is important, as the very political context – large swathes of frustration at the Conservative Government – that sparked their resurgence is removed and they will have to pivot their attention to a new focus. With this will come new questions for the Liberal Democrats to propose, and dividing lines to draw against Labour. This will bring new challenges but also opportunities for the Liberal Democrats – they will be forced to answer the question many voters will be asking themselves: why vote for the Liberal Democrats, and not Labour?

When Tony Blair became Labour leader, some predicted that it could signal the end of the Liberal Democrats, with them being ideologically crowded out. Yet the party increased their vote share in 2001, 2005, and 2010. A Starmer Government may represent a similar opportunity for the party to squeeze Labour. The Lib Dems already have a strong basis for this with their ambitious social care plan and their proposal to scrap the two child benefit cap. Should they solve their issues around ideological clarity, this would be an interesting development to keep an eye on.

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 the General Election conversation has evolved

How the General Election 2024 conversation evolved from the announcement to voting week

July 1, 2024/0 Comments/in Politics, PR, Communications, Media, Public Affairs Political Monitoring, Media Analysis, Political Services, PR, Political Database, Press and Bloggers Blog Posts /by Phoebe-Jane Boyd

By Phoebe-Jane Boyd, Michael Kane, and Dahye Lee.

Despite the General Election announcement by the Government on a rain-soaked Wednesday evening coming as a complete surprise, the themes and dividing lines that have defined the Conservatives and Labour’s campaigns have not.

While the Conservatives have faced ridicule for their 14-year record, fueling significant anti-Conservative rhetoric across the country, Labour have consistently been questioned on their alleged opaque plans for Government, and what they envision for the future of the country should they take power.

But how has the wider online conversation and press coverage evolved since the first week of campaigning to today? What topics captured the interest of political reporters and the voting public, and which media platforms shaped the narratives?

We analysed the UK General Election 2024 conversation across online and print news, TV, radio, and podcasts as well as X, Threads, Facebook, blogs, and forums, from 23 May – 1 July to examine these fluctuations as we head towards an historic decision for the UK.

Which topics have preoccupied the press and public, now and then?

When laying out the top-mentioned topics during this last week against that of 23 – 29 May, conversation around the top ranked has intensified, while the remaining topics have not experienced dramatic changes since the initial General Election announcement.

NHS/Health remains a key consideration, making up 12.6% of discussion over the last week. Natural, perhaps, following major party pledges and public concerns surrounding the state of healthcare following the election.

A topic that started off top of the agenda in the press and on social media and has since fallen out of conversation drastically? Sunak’s National Service idea, which fell by 60%. Controversy has stayed with Sunak, however, with mentions of Sleaze jumping by 80% due to recent gambling scandals. This scandal has also spread to Labour.

While the first leadership debate, hosted by ITV on the 4 June, saw Sunak consistently stressing the ambiguity in Labour’s plans for tax, the junior doctors strikes, and curbing illegal immigration, Starmer focused on a need for Sunak to be ‘ashamed of the last 14 years.’

Flash forward to the last leadership debate hosted by the BBC just last week and the underlying messages remained the same. Sunak ramped up the rhetoric as he urged voters to ‘not surrender’ their pensions, taxes, or borders to Labour. Starmer, again, sought to associate Sunak with the last 14 years of Conservative Government, condemning him as ‘Liz Truss Mark II.’

Labour has managed to hold its lead over the Conservatives in polling, at around 20%, showing the party’s defensive strategy has paid off.

What topics are Labour and the Conservatives each associated with?

Each party’s associations are shaped by their core political priorities, as shown in the above breakdown of conversation by Conservative and Labour. Conservatives prioritise National Service and Foreign Affairs, consistently scoring above 70, which is partly weighted by public criticism.

Labour has seen an uptick when it comes to housing, with mentions coming from a mixture of audiences – Labour candidates, and supporters of other parties. Yet, these mentions are still less than those from anti-Tory audiences.

Have the media and public been aligned on what matters?

Social and news data breakdown signals how the public and media (mis)aligned on what matters to them.

News coverage has focused on Tax, NHS, and immigration – issues that highlight contentious aspects of major party pledges, from Sunak’s proposed tax hike, to Reform UK’s immigration policies, and Labour’s latest NHS plans.

In contrast, the public’s interest, shown on social media, has focused on Foreign Affairs, Sleaze and the NHS, featuring speculation on Sunak’s early election call, and the growing calls for action from the Government.

Online conversations on the General Election today continue to lean towards news and political events. Channel 4’s TikTok dominance, particularly among young people, highlights its influence.

With UK party leaders showing less visibility on TikTok compared to figures like France’s Jordan Bardella – who boasts 1.7M followers – it could be argued that there is less emphasis on populist styles of leadership for the majority of UK political parties.

Where this is markedly different – Reform UK. The party’s burgeoning impact in TikTok dialogues has challenged the traditional discourse dominated by major parties.

In fact, the return of Nigel Farage as leader of Reform UK, alongside Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey’s campaign stunts and serious focus on social care, has squeezed the incumbent Conservatives from both the left and the right throughout the 2024 General Election campaign.

This has the potential to redraw political boundaries as Farage may finally be elected as an MP in Clacton and the Liberal Democrats may return to become the third largest party in the Commons, removing many Conservatives from the blue wall.

Personality-focused campaigns can project messaging further into new audiences, providing beneficial, and unforeseen, impacts (if not on votes, as Farage has found in previous years, with no election to office).

Which outlets are leading the conversation and coverage now?

The Guardian and the Mirror emerge as the top-shared media sources among the public – both left-leaning outlets. Notably, people frequently share articles from The Guardian to substantiate their opinions, often using them as evidence in debates.

The most engaged articles focus on questions around the timing of the General Election, and scrutinisation of Sunak’s representation throughout his campaign.

Meanwhile, right-leaning publications such as The Telegraph and GB News, previously outside the top ranks, have also emerged among the top credible sources. This is largely due to the growing social sharing by ex-Tories and Brexiteers who are keenly watching Reform UK’s rising influence.

It was only October 2022 that Sunak promised to deliver ‘integrity, professionalism and accountability’ in Government while Starmer has consistently emphasised the importance of returning politics to the ‘service’ of working people. Whether these aspirations materialise after the election is a different question but no one can doubt the importance of this with the last few weeks, and years, in mind.

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.

The scandals of General Election 2024: How the D-Day and gambling controversies spread among audiences

June 27, 2024/0 Comments/in Politics, PR, Communications, Media, Public Affairs Media Analysis, Political Services, PR, Political Database, Press and Bloggers, Political Monitoring Blog Posts /by Phoebe-Jane Boyd

By Phoebe-Jane Boyd, Dahye Lee, and Ingrid Marin.

While political experts predict a lack of enthusiasm from the public when it comes to voting on 4 July, there has been growing interest in the scandals of the UK 2024 General Election across the press and social media.

The big two controversies providing catalysts for column inches and social snarking? Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s early departure from this year’s D-Day celebrations, and the numerous political figures currently under investigation for gambling on the election date.

With no two scandals quite the same, we explore how each story reached audiences on different platforms and grew, analysing the UK General Election 2024 conversation across online and print news, TV, radio, and podcasts as well as X, Threads, Facebook, blogs, and forums, from 27 May – 27 June.

A disastrous D-Day for Sunak

Right at the beginning of the General Election campaign, Sunak walked out of D-Day celebrations in France to appear on ITV News. Despite the apology from the PM, this story hasn’t gone away, earning another mention during last night’s final Sunak vs Starmer BBC debate. But how did the story originally grasp the attention of reporters and potential voters?

Breaking down the D-Day conversation across different platforms shows that it was reporting from broadcast media that initially sparked interest in the D-Day scandal, with social media picking up the story and amplifying it to new audiences. Early broadcast clips proved perfect fodder for panels criticising Sunak, and for people to share on their social channels.

While the D-Day scandal went quiet from 11 June across broadcast, press, and social media, it made a comeback on 21 June, propelled by Byline Times’ decision to circle back to the issue as part of its reporting on the use of veteran ID cards for voting.

Given the prominence issues like defence and security have had so far in this election campaign, Sunak’s mistake has ultimately been a gift to his rivals, leaving the stage clear for Keir Starmer to show leadership and patriotism.

However, Starmer has not been immune from scandal…

Bad bets placed by politicians

The betting scandal has dominated election campaigns as the run-up to the General Election rumbles into its final week.

Some quick context to the latest controversy: reporting started prior to last weekend, with parliamentary candidates Craig Williams and Laura Saunders, an unnamed Metropolitan police officer, and the Conservatives’ Director of Campaigns Tony Lee first implicated in the betting crisis. Nick Mason, the Conservative’s Chief Data Officer, was subsequently revealed to be under investigation by the Gambling Commission. According to a BBC report, 15 Conservative candidates and officials are now being investigated by the commission.

Nevertheless, the betting scandal is not contained to the Conservative party, as Labour revealed the suspension of Central Suffolk and North Ipswich candidate Kevin Craig following his admittance of betting against himself.

In contrast to the D-Day scandal, the spread of this story shows the crucial role of social media in shaping a scandal’s narrative from its early stages, well before it gains mainstream attention.

Behind the early social peak on 12 June – a Channel 4 TikTok video breaking the news of the MP Craig Williams inquiry going viral (102k views to date).

On June 19, social media swiftly circulated news of Williams’ alleged arrest on betting allegations, which was then backed by BBC coverage.

The revelations of additional Conservatives’ betting activities, coupled with Craig’s suspension from Labour on 25 June, furthered the narrative – gaining the attention of political journalists, and propelling the story into mainstream media outlets.

Over time, the scandal has captured the attention of both press news outlets and broadcast channels, both mirroring the narrative arc of the discourse happening on social media.

A lesson for the comms teams for each of the political parties vying for power at the 2024 General Election, perhaps: in the modern climate of interconnected media, crisis management has to start early in the cycle of a story, and across all platforms, before a scandal can spread.

Sunak and Starmer’s latest responses to the scandals

Last night, Sunak and Starmer drew the curtain on five weeks of intense campaigning in their final head-to-head television debate.

The D-Day and gambling scandals got early mentions, but weren’t the only controversies to feature in the latest clash.

Both Partygate and ‘Covid contracts’ were brought back into debate by Starmer – showing that while scandals can fall out of the public eye and press columns for a time, there’s always the possibility they will be weaponised at the most inopportune moments for those involved or implicated.

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.

Are all bets off for the Conservatives at the 2024 General Election?

Are all bets off for the Conservatives? Analysis of the General Election conversation and coverage

June 24, 2024/0 Comments/in Politics, PR, Communications, Media Political Services, Political Database, Political Monitoring Blog Posts /by Phoebe-Jane Boyd

By Phoebe-Jane Boyd, Dahye Lee, and Ingrid Marin.

Topics tackled by party leaders during their latest media appearances spanned LGBTQ+ rights, National Service, and the European Court, but one subject in particular has grasped the attention of potential voters…

We analysed the UK General Election 2024 conversation across online and print news, TV, radio, and podcasts as well as Threads, Facebook, blogs, and forums, from 17 June to this morning.

The topic that won’t go away for the Conservatives

Troubles for the Tories

Were the press and public focused on the leaders’ latest performances on radio and TV, as figures in the campaign might have hoped? The impact of broadcast appearances has instead been overshadowed by the Conservative gambling scandal.

Thursday 20 June was a bruising day for the party, with the news that two Conservative candidates are being investigated by the Gambling Commission for using inside information to bet on the date of the election. Rishi Sunak told the ‘Question Time’ leaders’ special audience that he was ‘incredibly angry’ to learn of allegations and said anyone found guilty would be ‘booted out’ of the party.

Despite these assertions, the narrative has shifted, which highlights the Tories’ difficulties in addressing internal crises proactively, leading to broader public awareness of the controversies.

This story is unlikely to go away from the public eye this week, as Labour’s National Campaign Coordinator Pat McFadden wrote to the Gambling Commission’s Chief Executive Andrew Rhodes on Sunday evening, calling for the commission to make ‘the widest possible information about how wide the circle spreads’ available.

Senior Conservatives also responded to the news, with the Home Secretary James Cleverly refusing to defend those who placed bets, insisting that it was a ‘small circle.’ Michael Gove, who is standing down at this election, compared the scandal to Partygate. This morning, Tobias Ellwood called for anyone who has broken the law to be removed from the party.

Poor performance from the Conservatives meant potentially good things for one other party in particular…

A boost for Reform UK

Amidst the Conservatives’ scandal, the growing dominance of Reform UK in polls has become a motif in both traditional media and social platforms. Reform UK’s impact on social media is led by their own proponents – going against the stereotype that its base is made up of tech-averse pensioners.

What do the polls say?

A poll from The Telegraph showed that 69% of over 50,000 readers thought Sunak came out on top of Thursday’s TV debate, with Starmer receiving only 17% of readers’ votes.

Despite this, several polls published on Thursday portended catastrophic results for the Conservatives, with a poll for The Telegraph predicting they could retain just 53 seats, and Sunak could become the first sitting Prime Minister in history to lose his seat.

One of the leading topics of conversation among Telegraph readers was the absence of Nigel Farage representing Reform at Thursday’s BBC Question Time, especially as a new poll suggests that voters would prefer him to a Conservative as the leader of the opposition to a future Labour Government. The BBC has since announced it will add another Question Time leaders’ special featuring representatives from Reform UK and the Green Party.

The impact of radio

Despite the two LBC interviews and an episode of BBC’s Question Time, the highest radio impact was created by the aforementioned Conservative gambling scandal, which generated almost three times the volume of Labour in the General Election conversation.

The top radio shows with the highest engagement turned out to be LBC and The Times, with both generating a reach of 1.1 million and 703,000 on that day, respectively.

While social media drives the Labour conversation, it was radio that made an impact on Reform UK voters, who actively engaged in response to Starmer’s interview and his answers to a voter on LBC.

Social media peaked following Conservative leader Rishi Sunak’s interview with LBC. Poll results seem increasingly influential among Labour supporters, who are using them to bolster voter confidence and sway swing voters across Conservative, Reform, and Liberal Democrats.

Is radio time a good investment for General Election hopefuls? With clips being shared on social media, use of the format drives engagement. But will the content of these clips impact voting on 4 July?

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.

What does the reestablishment of Stormont mean for Northern Ireland’s future?

June 20, 2024/0 Comments/in PR Pulse, Politics, Public Affairs Political Monitoring, Political Services, Political Database Blog Posts /by Alexandra Moran

The prolonged period of uncertainty in Northern Irish politics may finally be coming to an end with the restoration of local governance.

But what exactly does this mean for the future of politics in Northern Ireland, and what comes next? Read on for our overview of the reestablishment of Stormont.

What’s happened over the last few years?

The Brexit vote was the turning point which cast questions over Northern Ireland’s future position within the UK. The issue of Brexit became uniquely challenging for Northern Ireland. It remained inside the EU’s single market for goods (while the rest of the UK left) to allow for free-flowing trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Northern Ireland’s Brexit deal, however, was to see the introduction of trade barriers and an ‘Irish Sea Border’. In January 2019, when Theresa May’s Conservative Government was trying to get DUP support for the deal, it published ‘UK government commitments to Northern Ireland and its integral place in the United Kingdom’. The document promised that there would be ‘no divergence in the rules applied in Great Britain and Northern Ireland in areas covered by the protocol’. In other words, the whole of the UK would continue to align with whatever EU rules applied in Northern Ireland, thereby removing the need for what became known as the Brexit sea border.

This compromise was strongly opposed by Northern Ireland unionists (those who are loyal to the idea of ‘the United Kingdom’), with virtually none being happy with the fact Northern Ireland was being drawn closer to the EU. The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) was opposed to this compromise so much that in February 2022, they abandoned the power-sharing agreement with the Irish republican party Sinn Féin.

Without one party, the power-sharing arrangement fell apart.

Developments over the last few months

In February 2023, Brussels made major concessions in replacing the original Northern Ireland protocol Brexit trading arrangements with the Windsor framework. The main features of the Framework were the creation of a new ‘green lane’, with very reduced checks and formalities for goods ‘not at risk’ of moving into the EU Single Market. It was thought at the time that easing the problems with the initial Brexit deal would end the boycott, but this didn’t happen.

In December, the UK Government offered Northern Ireland a £3.3bn financial package to aid the country’s ‘crumbling’ public services – with the condition that Stormont would be reestablished. Initially, this did not tempt the DUP, but following the largest strikes in more than 50 years in January, the party saw the real need for this injection of cash, and for the return of Stormont.

On 29 January 2024, then-DUP Leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson met with colleagues to discuss how to get the Northern Ireland Executive back on track. The meeting lasted five hours and, once Sir Donaldson emerged, he confirmed that the party executive had accepted the proposals made by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on the Irish Sea Border offer, thus ending a boycott that had lasted 726 days.

Two days later, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Chris Heaton-Harris unveiled the agreement that the Government had reached with the DUP to allow power sharing to resume in Northern Ireland, with Sinn Féin as the largest party.

The Government followed through on its promise to deliver £3.3 billion, and Sunak also made some tweaks to the Windsor Framework, including the lifting of some routine checks on goods coming into Northern Ireland from Great Britain, therefore reducing checks and paperwork on these goods. By Monday morning (5 February), Stormont was back up and running.

Where are we at now?

After two years of deadlock, Northern Ireland has a functioning government. However, with the deal coming under criticism from some Brexiteers, who argue that the new deal will prevent the UK from diverging further from EU rules, the future appears somewhat uncertain.

The return of Stormont also meant that Michelle O’Neill became the first nationalist First Minister of Northern Ireland. This was touted as a moment of ‘very great significance’ by Sinn Féin Leader Mary Lou McDonald, as this is the first time a nationalist politician has held the role since power-sharing was established after the Good Friday Agreement.

Prime Minister Sunak urged that the return of Stormont ‘is not constitutional change’ but about ‘delivering on the day-to-day things that matter to people’. Then-Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar echoed this sentiment, saying that ‘day-to-day concerns of people’ should be the priority of the executive over ‘constitutional questions’.

Mary Lou McDonald has also said that Irish reunification is within ‘touching distance’ and that there will be a referendum on the issue by 2030. The Good Friday Agreement states that the Secretary of State should call a referendum or ‘border poll’, if it appears ‘that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland’. A poll from LucidTalk found that a majority of respondents in Northern Ireland (49%) would be in favour of staying in the UK, with 39% supporting reunification, and 11% unsure. Support for a united Ireland was stronger among younger age groups, with most under-45s preferring reunification.

Depending on performance, Sinn Féin may be able to win over more voters in the Republic of Ireland in the next election. Additionally, if the deal holds up, Northern Ireland will be in a win-win position where it can trade freely with both the UK and the EU. The UK Government, too, want this to work – not just so that devolution returns but also so that the Sunak administration can chalk it up as a win. Sir Donaldson praised Prime Minister Sunak for the deal, saying he had ‘delivered where others haven’t’.

To connect with MPs and keep up to date with the political landscape, find out more about Vuelio’s Political Services.

Questions for Labour and Keir Starmer ahead of the 2024 UK General Election

June 18, 2024/0 Comments/in Politics, Public Affairs Political Services, Political Database, Political Monitoring Blog Posts /by Daniel Loman

Labour leader Keir Starmer is expected to become the UK’s next Prime Minister – here we look at questions he and the Labour party should be looking to find answers to.

Could the lack of experience in the Shadow Cabinet be an issue?

The Shadow Cabinet currently has 29 MPs in it – only eight of whom were MPs when Labour was last in power; seven have served in Government; and three have held roles as a Secretary of State (or equivalent). Yvette Cooper, Ed Miliband, and Hilary Benn combined have roughly nine and a half years of experience in senior roles in Government. It seems fair to assume that the current Shadow Cabinet will make up the majority of the Cabinet should Labour win the General Election. If we compare the current Labour Shadow Cabinet to David Cameron’s first, there were 16 Conservatives in that Cabinet – even with 13 fewer members, they still have around a year and half more experience of being in Government.

Labour have been out of power for 14 years, so it is not expected that they would have an abundance of ministerial experience to choose from. This is seen as one of the reasons that Sue Gray was hired, granting Labour some nous to get things done and make progress on their priorities quickly. However, should Labour be successful, the ministerial ranks will still be lacking in experience. With public services under pressure and public finances restricted by Labour’s fiscal rules, ministers will need to get creative. Perhaps this means Labour can develop their own version of what Michael Gove brought to his various ministerial positions.

What is the plan with social care?

The Labour party made no funded commitments in its manifesto but they do pledge to create a ‘National Care Service’ with local delivered services and support for people to ‘live independently for as long as possible’. There are commitments to partnership working, high quality care, and ensuring providers behave responsibly. There is also mention of a ‘Fair Pay Agreement in adult social care’. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies points out, these do not have any specific funding set aside for them, either meaning taxes, borrowing goes up, or other services get cut.

The Chief Executive of The King’s Fund Sarah Woolnough puts it rather aptly; saying Labour have put forward what is ‘a plan to come up with a plan’. With the current social care system widely viewed as not working, the Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting even said he would have wanted the manifesto to go further on social care. Streeting said that if the economy grows then more money could go towards health spending, but that does nothing for immediate problems.

At present, the Labour Party are able to say they need to see all the information and are inheriting a difficult situation. However, soon all of this could be theirs to own and they will be expected to come up with a plan.

Is the two child benefit cap here to stay?

Scrapping the two child benefit cap would lift nearly 500,000 children out of poverty and would come at a cost of under £4bn a year. It is believed that the consequences on children and families go far beyond the money saved. Starmer has previously said he would not be against scrapping the policy, but he has refused to commit to a timeline for doing so. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that an additional 670,000 children will be impacted by the cap by the end of the next Parliament, so some action is surely called for.

Members of the Shadow Cabinet have previously spoken out in criticism at the policy. Starmer said it was a ‘tough decision’ but Labour had to avoid repeating the mistakes of Liz Truss’s Government. However, taking action to reduce child poverty is likely to be received differently than Truss’s tax cut-laden mini-budget.

Is there room for diversity of thought in the Labour party?

One of the biggest challenges the Labour leadership has faced during this campaign is dealing with the fallout of how they have acted around selections. The Labour leadership have taken a hardline approach in terms of selecting (and deselecting) candidates.

Jeremy Corbyn is running as an Independent candidate in Islington North; Diane Abbott would likely have been running as an Independent if it was not for external pressure. Rosie Duffield has also spoken about a lack of support from the Labour leadership and how it had tempted her to defect.

Perhaps Labour do not want to rock the boat until a victory is sealed, and that will then be the time for diversity of thought. However, recent jibes towards Corbyn and his leadership of the party appear slightly odd considering Starmer was a key figure in Corbyn’s Shadow Cabinet. It is often said that the Labour party is a broad church, but Starmer could be seen to be set on narrowing the ideological view of its Parliamentary membership. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown took no action against a rebellious MP in Corbyn who voted against them 428 times – some expect Starmer to have a similarly large majority, and it will be interesting to see whether he changes his approach.

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.

Reform UK releases ‘contract’ manifesto – what was the press and public reaction?

June 18, 2024/0 Comments/in Politics, PR, Communications, Media, Public Affairs Media Monitoring, Political Services, Political Database, Political Monitoring Blog Posts /by Phoebe-Jane Boyd

By Phoebe-Jane Boyd, Dahye Lee, and Ingrid Marin.

After a wave of manifesto releases last week, Reform UK have released their ‘contract’ for the UK General Election.

In rebranding the manifesto as a ‘contract’, and repositioning the vote for country leadership as ‘the immigration election’, have Farage’s efforts to distinguish his party from its competitors, and get people talking, made an impact?

Here is analysis of the UK General Election 2024 conversation across online and print news, TV, radio, and podcasts as well as TikTok, Threads, Facebook, blogs, and forums, from midday 17 June, as we map the media and audience reaction.

What topics cut through the conversation regarding Reform UK’s manifesto?

Reform UK’s manifesto/’contract’ has significantly impacted one theme – immigration. As anticipated by anyone paying attention to Farage’s media appearances, the data shows just how much the topic has cut through into the public consciousness – immigration (+15.04%) emerges as a critical topic.

The party’s primary commitment to freeze what it has branded ‘non-essential’ immigration, and deport individuals crossing the Channel in small boats, has dominated the news coverage alongside the switch to the ‘contract’ nomenclature.

Perhaps surprisingly, this narrative has gained momentum on TikTok – the home of Gen Z – through Channel 4’s coverage, amplifying engagement among younger supporters of the Reform UK party.

While conversation across other social media platforms has been comparatively quiet in comparison to that of other parties, Labour supporters – particularly vocal pro-Palestinian activists – have passionately engaged with Reform UK’s immigration agenda. This segment of social media users are actively positioning Labour as the antidote to Reform UK’s potential influence on the 2029 election.

Energy and sustainability, largely overlooked in Reform UK’s pre-manifesto discussions, have also come into focus with a modest increase (+1.02%). The controversial move to abandon Net Zero goals in favor of bolstering fossil fuels has been extensively covered by the press, including BBC, ITV, LBC, and Sky News, alongside the party’s core policy pledges.

The practicalities of Reform UK’s manifesto – will it help the party’s chances at the voting booths this year?

The ‘contract’ was ambitious and could be considered somewhat scattergun in its policies – perhaps a reflection of Reform UK’s diverse voter base. Reform committed to around £140bn in spending commitments and tax cuts including raising income tax thresholds; abolishing stamp duty; tax relief for independent schools; and abolishing inheritance tax for all estates under £2 million. The party revealed this would be funded through £156 billion in savings in public spending and an assumption of increased tax revenue from higher growth.

These plans have drawn criticism around credibility, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies noting that Reform’s tax cuts and spending commitments would cost more than stated. Meanwhile, the Tax Policy Associates observed that £33bn of Reform’s commitments were found to be uncosted – this amounts to nearly double the unfunded commitments in Liz Truss’s mini-budget.

Concerns around the fiscal credibility of Reform UK’s manifesto are maybe not so important, however. A recent poll by Ipsos revealed that a significant portion of voters do not believe the main parties will be able to fund their own manifesto commitments anyway. The poll showed that 50% did not believe Labour could afford their plans, while 62% thought the Conservatives’ plans were unaffordable. 57% were not confident in the affordability of the Liberal Democrats plans either.

Perhaps this best encapsulates the relative apathy in the UK right now regarding choices at the 2024 General Election: with the UK facing significant economic and political challenges in the forthcoming years, a majority of voters do not believe that the main parties’ manifestos can deliver.

Could Farage’s warning during the 7 June TV debate that change is on the way, with support for Reform UK set to grow, prove true?

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.

Ambition, ‘bad ideas’, and pushes to be ‘bolder’: General Election 2024 manifesto reactions among audiences and the media

June 14, 2024/0 Comments/in Politics, PR, Communications, Media, Public Affairs Media Monitoring, Political Services, Political Database, Press and Bloggers, Political Monitoring Blog Posts /by Phoebe-Jane Boyd

By Phoebe-Jane Boyd, Dahye Lee, and Ingrid Marin.

This week represented the midpoint of the General Election campaign and it was a pivotal moment for all parties to pitch to voters.

Manifestos from the main parties were released throughout the week – with the exclusion of Reform UK, due to come on Monday 17 June.

To understand how the releases impacted press coverage and online discussion, here is analysis of the UK General Election 2024 conversation across online and print news, TV, radio, and podcasts as well as TikTok, Threads, Facebook, blogs, and forums, from 11 – 14 June, as well as a deep dive into political stakeholder reaction as the week progressed.

First, a look at the big two – the incumbent Conservatives, and the party expected by many to oust them come 4 July, Labour.

Manifesto coverage and conversation – Conservatives vs Labour

Following the passionate clashes during the ITV and BBC debates between Conservative and Labour, the main impact of their manifestos is focused on tax.

Conversation has risen around this topic following Labour’s manifesto pledge to increase taxes, in a potential boost to the Tories.

Did Labour’s manifesto make an impact?

As to whether Labour’s manifesto has changed reporting and social media discussion around its policies and promises, analysis of the pre- and post- release shows an impact on the topics of tax (+5.3%) and energy policy (+7.5%).

The increase in coverage and discussion of tax is driven by diverse news narratives surrounding Labour’s related policies. The highest engagement is for ITV‘s focus on Labour’s tax lock, while GBNews highlights voter concerns about Labour’s proposed tax increases.

Why the spike for energy? Labour’s pledge to ban new petrol and diesel cars and ensure ‘certainty to manufacturers’ in energy and sustainability has prompted Conservative communities to generate criticism.

Did the Conservative manifesto make a difference?

The Conservative manifesto also made an impact on Tax (+8.2%), alongside Housing (+2.3%).

BBC’s coverage of Keir Starmer’s condemnations of Sunak’s National Insurance cuts dominates the tax narrative, as the Tory campaign becomes increasingly embattled. Over on social media, the proposal to scrap National Insurance for the self-employed is provoking negative reaction due to perceived unfairness.

Unsurprisingly, Nigel Farage is enmeshed in discussion of Conservative chances at the election, as the Reform UK leader criticises policies as they are announced – this week’s manifesto included. Gaining traction online now – his comment that a Conservative promise regarding its Rwanda Bill was ‘another lie’.

Political stakeholder reaction – a look back at the week

Monday: Liberal Democrats got ambitious
The week began with the Liberal Democrats releasing their party manifesto. They pledged a £8.35bn NHS and care package – funded by reversing tax cuts for banks and closing tax loopholes – and set out long-term plans for rejoining the EU.

Nuffield Trust Chief Executive Thea Stein responded to the manifesto, calling it highly ambitious. However, she also said the funding proposed appeared ‘insufficient’, and that the sums ‘simply don’t add up’. Additionally, IFS Director Paul Johnson said that the tax measures would not raise the £27bn a year that the party claims, and that some of the tax raising proposals are, economically, a ‘bad idea’.

Tuesday: Conservatives sparked questions regarding costings
Questions about how proposals will be paid for were also raised on Tuesday when the Conservatives released their manifesto and pledged to cut taxes (including entirely scrapping the main rate of self-employed National Insurance) and introduce a new Help to Buy scheme by abolishing stamp duty for first-time buyers (on homes up to £425,000).

Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the manifesto promised £17bn a year of tax cuts, alongside a big hike in defence spending, and questioned how this would be paid for. The Conservatives suggest they will fund some of their commitments by cutting the rising welfare bill, but Johnson questions how achievable this is.

Similarly, Labour leader Keir Starmer said it was a ‘Jeremy Corbyn-style manifesto’, suggesting the Conservatives had not explained how they would pay for their policies. He promised that Labour’s manifesto would be ‘fully costed’ and would only include ‘promises that we can keep and that […] the country can afford’.

Wednesday: Green Party pushed Labour to be bolder
Wednesday marked the release of the Green Party manifesto, pledging to raise taxes on the wealthy to fund more spending on housing, the NHS, and the climate crisis.

The manifesto includes the introduction of a wealth tax and a raising of National Insurance on annual wages above £50,270. Focusing on the four seats which the party believes are winnable, the co-leaders Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay said electing Green MPs would ‘push Labour to be bolder’, particularly on net-zero climate change policies, which they accused other parties of ‘running away from’.

Thursday: Was Labour too cautious?
On Thursday, Keir Starmer launched the Labour party’s manifesto, where he pledged to prioritise ‘wealth creation’. As commentators expected, the document was relatively light on policy detail, and didn’t contain any big surprises.

Some commentators have suggested that Labour’s spending plans are more cautious than the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. If Labour are firmly committed to not raising taxes, this does raise questions about how they would be able to avoid cuts to public services.

Former Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls warned the manifesto could be a ‘straitjacket’, and make the first year of a Labour Government very difficult. Senior Labour figures have responded to such criticisms by saying they would deliver growth, and therefore expand the total revenue available for public services without having to raise taxes.

Still to come: Reform UK
Ahead of the Reform UK manifesto being released on Monday 17 June, a poll found that Reform UK had overtaken the Conservatives for the first time. Farage has said his party ‘are now the opposition to Labour’, and that a Tory vote would only ‘enable’ Starmer’s party.

Whether the release of Reform manifesto adds solidity and credibility to their challenge, or else sees their recent progress melt away, is something that will be closely monitored by politics watchers.

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.

UK General Election 2024: What was the state of the public conversation leading into the first debate?

June 5, 2024/0 Comments/in PR Pulse, Politics, PR, Communications, Media Media Database, Media Monitoring, Political Services, PR, Political Database, Press and Bloggers Blog Posts /by Phoebe-Jane Boyd

By Phoebe-Jane Boyd and Dahye Lee.

The first television debate between party leaders took place on Tuesday 4 June, coming at the culmination of two weeks campaigning in which both Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer set out their stalls for the country. But, as the studio lights went up on Tuesday evening, which policies and points of view had already cut through into public consciousness?

Read the full transcript of the ITV debate here.

Using Pulsar TRAC, we analysed social and news mentions of themes in the UK General Election 2024 conversation across X, TikTok, Threads, Facebook, blogs, forums, online news, print news, TV, radio, and podcasts between 23 May – 5 June 2024.

Here is what is capturing the attention of the media and the public.

As the UK prepares for the upcoming General Election, stay informed with the latest news by signing up to our Vuelio General Election Updates.

Labour vs Conservatives: Who’s dominating discussion around specific topics?

Analysis of these key topics broken down by mentions of each party shows a mostly equal split of coverage and conversation for Labour and Conservative… with the expected outlier of National Service. The Tory proposal has been further amplified by ITV’s coverage.

As of today, a major focus of mentions for Labour are foreign affairs, NHS/health, and energy & sustainability, and this was driven by Tuesday’s debate directly. An X post from MP David Lammy regarding the NHS triggered intense engagement online, as did his commentary on bombing in Gaza.

News vs social media: Where are people talking and engaging?

While both social media and news outlets focus on the NHS, the narratives unfolding on each platform differ.

News coverage centres on questions regarding how national service can support NHS issues, while social media users urge support of the NHS and junior doctor strikes.

Immigration is the second highest topic in news coverage. Tackled by Sunak and Starmer during the debate, the resulting high number of mentions is largely driven by write-ups in right-wing outlets. Their focus? Reports regarding migrant channel crossings.

Media outlets leading coverage and engagement around the General Election

Which media outlets are leading coverage of the 2024 UK General Election so far, and sparking shares on social media?

The Mirror’s reporting of Sunak’s interactions with Russian associates – not covered in Tuesdsay’s debate – has received considerable traction among left-leaning readers, who have expressed concern over his affiliations with Russia.

While BBC’s coverage of Sunak’s National Service plan maintains broader audience interest, the Scottish Daily Express has sparked controversy, and engagement, with its reporting of alleged ‘outright lies’ in the Scottish National Party’s campaigning.

While Tuesday’s debate did not necessarily introduce anything new into the fabric of discussion, with both leaders returning to topics and talking points that they know to be important to their audiences and stakeholders, it did re-entrench battle lines. Tax is now more central to the overall discussion, which had previously not attained much prominence, or airtime.

Whether it’s Sunak’s £2,000 tax attack line, or the subsequent debunking of the figure the next day, which sticks in voter’s minds, the subsequent weeks will reveal.

For extra on the UK political landscape, sign up to the weekly Vuelio Point of Order newsletter.

Find out more about Vuelio’s solutions for public affairs and politics.

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

Labour’s first few days: the formation of the Government

Labour set their priorities and agenda

Is Vaughan Gething’s resignation Keir Starmer’s first hiccup as Prime Minister?

Conservative leadership race begins in a surprisingly low key fashion

What to expect in the months ahead

Economic growth and interventionism

Interventionism continued through the New Deal for Working People

What’s missing and what’s next?

Ideological clarity

The Brexit cloud

Devolution

Criminal justice

Housing

Why not Labour?

Which topics have preoccupied the press and public, now and then?

What topics are Labour and the Conservatives each associated with?

Have the media and public been aligned on what matters?

Which outlets are leading the conversation and coverage now?

A disastrous D-Day for Sunak

Bad bets placed by politicians

Sunak and Starmer’s latest responses to the scandals

The topic that won’t go away for the Conservatives

What do the polls say?

The impact of radio

What’s happened over the last few years?

Developments over the last few months

Where are we at now?

Could the lack of experience in the Shadow Cabinet be an issue?

What is the plan with social care?

Is the two child benefit cap here to stay?

Is there room for diversity of thought in the Labour party?

What topics cut through the conversation regarding Reform UK’s manifesto?

The practicalities of Reform UK’s manifesto – will it help the party’s chances at the voting booths this year?

Manifesto coverage and conversation – Conservatives vs Labour

Did Labour’s manifesto make an impact?

Did the Conservative manifesto make a difference?

Political stakeholder reaction – a look back at the week

Top mentioned topics in UK General Election 2024 coverage and conversation

National Service stirs engagement

Balance of conversation

Labour vs Conservatives: Who’s dominating discussion around specific topics?

News vs social media: Where are people talking and engaging?

Media outlets leading coverage and engagement around the General Election

Try it for yourself

Subscribe to Vuelio newsletters!

Products

Industries

Resources

Request a Quote