Paul Scully

My latest Business of Government column: the government has been criticised for ignoring evidence, and now it's getting rid of the people who create it. The social investment approach is supposed to be evidence-driven, so how's that going to work? Also, what Kevin Jenkins is getting up to now that he's retired from the consultancy he co-founded (sometimes referred to as the third branch of government!) https://lnkd.in/gg_E642V

7

New research from Gallup shows how confidence in public institutions has increased since 2006 in all G7 nations apart from the UK and US. The study looks at public views towards the government, military, judiciary and electoral system. 🇺🇲 Ahead of the US elections, it is notable that it has fallen from having the highest confidence in public institutions across the G7 in 2006 to the lowest confidence in 2023. Confidence has declined across a range of measures for the US - including a sharp drop for the military - highlighting the challenge facing Joe Biden. 🇬🇧 Looking at the UK score in more detail, the 'steady' overall position masks a notable drop in confidence in the government that has been offset by growing confidence in the judiciary and democratic process. Further bad news for the Conservatives comes from looking at the UK's position relative to peers, where the healthy lead it held over several nations has now been mostly eroded. #politics #publicconfidence #elections

1

Relativism is not only a cultural problem. It is also rife in finance, economics and politics. We are bombarded with comparisons which make no sense at all. Take the news that the UK plans to increase its defence budget to 2.5 per cent of GDP by the end of the decade. What on earth does military spending have to do with the final value of goods and services produced in a country in one year? Even Nato believes its 2 per cent of GDP guideline “serves as an indicator of a country’s political will to contribute”. No it doesn’t — the denominator has nothing to do with politics. If anything should be calculated bottom-up on an absolute basis it’s national defence, assessing risk versus capability. In any rational world, how many 155mm artillery shells are needed should be independent of consumer confidence (the biggest driver of GDP). Carbon intensity metrics are another example of relative hogwash. Our atmosphere needs lower emissions, period — not having them increase less than revenues. Plus you can end up with a ridiculous situation in which companies are praised when sales outpace emissions solely because of inflation. The hot topic of unemployment also suffers from wayward denominators. America has its jobless claims data, but the rest of the world rarely mentions the actual number of real human beings out of work. Mostly we talk about the unemployment rate, expressed as a percentage. But these are a fiction — usually dividing an arbitrary definition of unemployment by a worse estimate of the number of people who are economically active. And therein lies the appeal of ratios and percentages, I suppose. They are one step removed from having to face unpalatable truths in either the numerator (how many tanks do we actually have compared with Russia) or the denominator (better optics on defence spending is merely due to a recession). You may think markets are above spurious relativities. And to their credit they often are. For example, no one cared that Amazon or Tesla had negative margins for years. That said, investors still do things every bit as silly as comparing defence budgets to national incomes. We rank companies by their price to earnings ratios, say, despite the fact every company and sector measures their net profits differently. Strategist reports are also devoured. These mostly consist of charts of variables which seem to move together. Causation is claimed when the two numbers are merely correlated — if even that. Perhaps our most common investment mistake is comparing today with the past. Sure there are ratios which do revert to a mean. But extrapolating historical relationships is often ruinous, as many a failed hedge fund will admit. Absolute numbers can mislead as well, of course. But we must all be more careful not to take relative facts as given. The are especially dangerous as inaccuracies can lurk in two numbers. And very often these shouldn’t even be compared at all. #investing #Tesla #Amazon #Strategy #Russia

136

8 Comments

What do the Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem and Green election campaigns all have in common? They all include commitments on changing the law on assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults. 🌹 Labour: Kier Starmer has pledged a debate and a free vote on changing the law 🌳 Conservative: A manifesto commitment to respect the will of Parliament and for a free vote 🐥 Lib Dem: A manifesto commitment for a debate and a free vote 🌍 Green: A manifesto commitment that Green MPs will vote in favour of a change in the law Dignity in Dying has led a sea change in parliamentary opinion on assisted dying since the last vote on law change in 2015. Almost every week, politicians who have previously opposed law change tell us they have changed their minds. In the new Parliament, MPs have the opportunity to give dying people choice and control over what happens to them at the end of their lives. It's time for change. #AssistedDying #GE2024 #Labour #Conservative #LiberalDemocrat #GreenParty

19

1 Comment

Looking forward to chairing this session for PLMR Genesis colleagues next week, with an expert panel discussing what may happen in the polls coming July 4th & what the East of England needs from a new administration. Sign-up details below if you want to listen in! #politics #policy #publicaffairs #eastofengland

1

When less is more I’ll leave others better qualified than me to comment on the political or economic ramifications of Friday’s Labour’s landslide victory in the UK elections. But it strikes me that there are a couple of points worth making about the wisdom or otherwise of Labour’s “Ming vase” strategy. Many commentators, not least Tony Blair’s old spokesman Alistair Campbell, expressed a wish that Labour would communicate a more positive vision, and that their mandate would inevitably be weakened by the lack of clear prospectus with which to engage and motivate the electorate. Instinctively, I would have liked to agree. However, my experience as a professional communicator suggests otherwise. We live in a cynical age, with a media and political culture that is more about finding fault than amplifying positive messages. Many’s a time I’ve sat down with a client, eager to “tell their story” and concluded that avoiding unforced errors which attract too much media attention is probably the nearest they’ll get to a PR win. Often it’s because the story is either too complicated, or goes against the media grain. Either way, the risk is that you create a bigger target for your critics to shoot at, while taking the focus off the other side. Much as we hate negative campaining, the old saw that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them has more than a grain of truth. I remember early on in my career I was working up a proposal for a client on how we could put their story across more effectively and boost their share price. It was a great deck but as my boss pointed out after barely a minute flicking through, the underlying thesis was flawed.  “You know the problem here isn’t that people don’t know the client’s story,” he said. “The problem is they know it only too well.” He was absolutely spot on. The British electorate understood only too well why Labour didn’t want to go overboard with promises. The election was in the bag, as long as they avoided drawing attention away from the  Tory omnishambles.  As a strategy it worked a dream. 

28

1 Comment

The FT article today on EU/ UK relations has prompted the following election thoughts …… The real interest in this FT interview is not what Rachel Reeves said (she's said it all before), but that she went to all the trouble to say it in the middle of an election campaign where everybody is scared stiff of talking about UK EU relations. In an election campaign, everything is about voters. Why should RR say this now ? Because their pitch is ‘ change’ and their EU policy is being seen as ‘ no change’. And because a fraction (10%) of potential Labour voters may switch to Lib Dem because they are remainers who think Labour are not listening to them. It is a fine line for Labour to tread ; the big switch is from former Conservative 2019 pro-Brexit towards Labour. They must not get agitated that Labour are going back on Brexit. But they do want a ‘ better’ Brexit. The LOW London office is currently working on a project which will illuminate UK EU relations under a Labour administration. Watch this space. https://on.ft.com/4coZxjC

10

2 Comments

Lessons here for all seeking to build direct reader revenues (and who isn't?): 💡 Make it a joint responsibility between editorial and business. Build common understanding on the why and the what, and work together on it. 🔑 Know what your audience cares about and will spur them to support you. 💰 Be systematic - track revenues and where it comes from (which stories/platforms)daily. 🌲 Build the recurring format elements that drive growth - find your 'Epics' and 'Moments'. #digitalmedia #digitalbusinessmodels #nonprofitnews

6

A bit like sleeping through your alarm and then realising your clock is running slow as well, Reform overtaking the Tories’ poll figure is probably even worse for Sunak than it first appears. All political polling is a mix of art and science (and probably more of the former than pollsters would like to admit), so there’s a lot of guesswork behind the headline numbers. With that in mind, Reform’s electoral support is probably underestimated in current public opinion polls by the methodology used by polling agencies. For example, in published polls, voting intention is weighted according to people’s past voting habits but Reform has not stood in any previous national election in its current guise, so pollsters have to guess at the overlap between future Reform and past Brexit Party supporters. And participants in political surveys are also normally ‘prompted’ for the main parties but not for Reform – so they are asked if they support the Conservatives, Labour, etc, but are only asked if they support Reform if they say intend to vote for ‘another’ party first. Reform’s reported support would probably be higher if voters were given that initial choice of plumping for them. Looking to the other side of polling day, we think that regardless of how parliamentary seats are distributed after the General Election, many constituency contests will have been decided on an unusually large ‘swings’ in support from one party to another, while at the same time the raw majority held by each newly elected MP will often be unusually small (by dint of low turnout). In other words, whichever party or parties do well overall, we predict the results will point towards an increasingly volatile electorate and the potential for small changes to cause widespread reversals in future elections. We also predict that the upcoming Parliament will see an unusually high number of by-elections. Given how the main parties have rushed under-resourced vetting procedures for potential candidates, it is very likely that some newly elected MPs will quickly become associated with scandal or resign over policy differences. We expect there to be more than ten by-elections each year after the first twelve months of this Parliament. Between that and Farage’s latest popularity boost, there’s not a lot of good news for the PM. Whatever time he gets up in the morning, it seems Sunak’s nightmare continues…

8

1 Comment

📅 Last week saw the three main political parties launch their general election manifestos. But how far do these plans go to overhaul our energy-inefficient housing stock and support families to future-proof their homes and drive down bills? The situation is dire for millions of families living in heat-leaking and expensive-to-heat homes. Citizens Advice claims that over half of all houses across Great Britain are still energy inefficient. Sky-high energy bills continue to make things worse, with energy prices likely to remain high and volatile for a long time. 📈 The current government’s progress on these issues has been agonisingly slow, and we now run the risk of falling behind on targets to lift people out of fuel poverty by 2030. 👈 So, what are the main political parties promising the electorate, given such a stark context? Well, all three have promised more investment and action, which should be welcomed. Nevertheless, considering the sheer scale of our home energy efficiency challenges, getting back on course demands an emergency programme to insulate the 15 million properties whose energy efficiency rating is still below EPC C by 2035. But more support for homeowners will be needed. Changes to building regulations and VAT reform for low-carbon technologies would do much to incentivise people to retrofit their homes. 💡The government must also widen access to affordable energy-saving innovations, such as thermal storage and loft insulation protection, to drive energy efficiency in homes. It is high time for our political leaders to seize the moment for change to overhaul Britain’s energy-inefficient homes and deliver the warmer, healthier, greener homes that millions of families and low-income households across Britain deserve. 🎯 Add your comments below. 🙏 #GeneralElection #loftinsulation #warmerhomes #NWHC https://lnkd.in/dQQ6uvP2

1

Commons People As the dust settles on the General Election, there are many things to be excited about with a new Labour government. In the broadest sense, business and society can only benefit from an era of greater political stability, a better quality national debate on the big issues they face and the prospect of a more principled style of politics. One of the most striking aspects has to be the diversity of Kier Starmer’s new Cabinet, where all but one Minister attended state school. In fact, research by The Sutton Trust shows the educational background of the 2024 Commons is more socio-economically diverse than any parliament recorded since 1979. With a turnout of less than 60% - the lowest in over 20 years and as low as 40% in some areas of the UK - this bodes well for an electorate that’s become understandably disengaged with a politics it feels doesn’t represent it, never mind its best interests. Whilst we need policy change and delivery to create better opportunities for people from lower socio-economic groups, a more representative and relatable Commons has to be a plus after decades of privelege across our political system.

36

3 Comments

Based on 'raw' mathematics alone, if Reform UK had not been in the mix yesterday, as was the case in 1997 and (to a large extent) 2019, the Conservatives would have retained around two-thirds of the 250 seats they lost. Of course, things aren't quite that simple in practice, ie in the absence of Reform some protests votes would have gone elsewhere. But it is still a major factor underpinning the total number of seats won by Labour which - compared to both its 1997 victory and its 2019 defeat - is far more generous than its share of the vote would have granted historically. Not only the Conservatives but also Labour itself need to give the implications of this very careful thought indeed looking ahead to the next election. Look too at the collapse of the SNP which was also hugely helpful to Labour. This is not 45 percent of Scots turning their back on independence in perpetuity. But the SNP has a huge task ahead improving its day-to-day governance record if it is to recover before Scottish parliamentary elections which are due no later than 2026.

4

16 Comments

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘂𝗿𝘀 𝗱𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘀 𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱𝘀? After my Valley of Death and comms post, many have spoken about how "inconvenient" it is for many to speak in the defense space during silent periods. Silent periods are on the technology/IP, not on the people. And there's a lot to lose for someone who will soon be able to speak (and fundraise!) publicly -but was shy to do their homework in advance. 1. Topics aren't technologies: the key areas related to the project are areas to establish thought leadership in. These could be industry trends, emerging technologies, or related topics that indirectly align with the project. 1.1 Create valuable content: high-quality content like blog posts, articles, whitepapers, infographics, or even short videos. Anybody can offer valuable insights, analysis, or tips that showcase expertise without directly revealing details about the project. 2. Engage in social media: content sharing and -especially- offering expert opinion on social media platforms such as LinkedIn, Twitter, or industry-specific forums, is a great way to establish thought leadership credentials and help other entrepreneurs in the space. 4. Building relationships: networking with journalists, influencers, industry leaders, and potential collaborators. Building relationships with journalists in the defense space is an asset that will be very helpful in the future; with the added bonus that w͟e͟ ͟d͟o͟ ͟u͟n͟d͟e͟r͟s͟t͟a͟n͟d͟ ͟t͟h͟e͟ ͟s͟i͟t͟u͟a͟t͟i͟o͟n͟ ͟y͟o͟u͟ ͟a͟r͟e͟ ͟i͟n͟. 4.1. If you are extremely shy and would prefer to not even reach out to media professionals under your corporate name, engage a proxy. There are several ways to build contacts through third parties, like independent PR consultants. It takes months, or even years, for PR to work its magic. The sooner this engagement happens, the shorter the wait after restrictions are lifted. These are just a few ideas to establish a thought leader and comply with silent period requirements. PR success takes time, just like capability development, and starting work the day after the restrictions are lifted sounds to a comms person like me, like an unnecessary risk that can be mitigated to the benefit of the entrepreneur and their company. It's a controversial topic, I know. And many cases aren't straight forward. Still, what do you think about engaging specific audiences during periods you aren't supposed to talk about your products and/or capabilities?

4

MY FABIAN SOCIETY REACTION The moment has come. With the announcement of a general election on 4 July, the Fabian Society stands shoulder to shoulder with Labour as a proud affiliate of the party. This will be a generation-defining election. As in 1945, 1964 and 1997, the British left offers the change for which the nation is yearning. Now it is time for Labour to earn the people’s trust. Every single Labour prime minister has been a Fabian and if Labour wins in July Keir Starmer will join their ranks. Keir was a Fabian before he was elected to parliament, and served on our executive committee. In 2021, he wrote The Road Ahead, a Fabian pamphlet setting out his vision of a fairer, more secure and prosperous Britain, built on Labour values. The Fabian Society has helped shape Labour’s policy programme in the run-up to this election. Last Autumn we published Plans for Power: Fabian ideas for transforming Britain, which compiled some of the most important ideas the society has developed and championed in recent years. It is a ‘mixtape’ of our best proposals, from early years to pensions and from the future of work to public service reform. With Labour in power, they could become reality. Fabians have been shaping the left for 140 years. We stand by Labour in this campaign and we will support the next Labour government to transform Britain. The next chapter in our shared history starts now. https://lnkd.in/dDCv7hz2

35

In less than 15 minutes I explain how conservatives have hatched a new scheme - Project 2025 - to threaten democracy and undermine how our government functions. Watch now: https://lnkd.in/eVft5B5j

19

1 Comment

If you didn't stay up all night watching a remarkable set of election results that has transformed the political landscape, the GK team has you covered with our briefing on everything you need to know. And here is some initial thoughts from me: - The electorate were more motivated in removing the Conservatives from office than an overwhelming enthusiam for the Labour Party - The Labour Party vote share was 35%, only a small improvement on the 32% secured at 2019 election result under Corbyn - Keir will still have to win the public trust in office - The call for electoral reform will grow after the Lib Dems secured 12% of the vote, which resulted in 71 seats vs Reform that secured 15% of the vote but ended up with only 4 seats - The performance of Reform will see a temptation for the Conservative Party to lurch to the right - A huge majority will mean party management and the role of the Whips will be critical. The challenge will be in the face of calls from MPs and activists to be more ambitious and radical after 14 years in opposition, how the senior team manage those expectations with the fiscal constraints that Rachel Reeves has imposed.

12