Perhaps it’s our suspicions of a lingering class system, or maybe it’s our ingrained sense of fair play, but social mobility is a subject that always gets the British chattering classes in a tizzy. This week we can expect a new bout of hand-wringing when the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Social Mobility publishes a report entitled ‘Seven Truths about Social Mobility’. Due for release tomorrow, the report will focus on the UK’s relatively poor record on social mobility compared to similar developed nations, concluding that the ‘success’ of a child in the UK is determined long before they even enter the education system.
Although the APPG is cross-party in nature, the report will almost certainly be used as a brick-bat by politicians to bash their rivals. Already Hazel Blears, a Labour member of the APPG has said “…We need to ensure that young people from working-class backgrounds, whose parents don't have the same exclusive networks as some in the City of London, are given the opportunities to achieve. This means ending unpaid internships and opening up opportunities as well as education and support.” A less than subtle dig at the Government’s internships programme and perceived cosiness with the City perhaps?
But other less traditional critics have also been quick to put the boot into Government. Conservative MP Nadine Dorries recently described David Cameron and George Osborne as “Two arrogant posh boys who show no remorse, no contrition, and no passion to want to understand the lives of others.” For many this was a visceral attack based simply on personal and professional differences. But for others, this was further proof of the Conservatives being out-of-touch and unconcerned with improving the lot of Britain’s working class. Labour in contrast continues to be seen in a much more favourable light, and despite a brief blip in 2009, has regularly polled higher than the other parties on the issue of which party is seen as the champion of the poor. Undoubtedly its working class-roots have helped in this sense, but does New Labour really have a better record on improving social mobility?
Maybe statistics can cut through the bluster and highlight the true political champion of the working classes and social mobility? Well, no, and most accounts of social mobility in the UK make pretty grim reading all round. In fact, a London School of Economics report in 2007 concluded that low social mobility in the UK has not improved in 30 years. Clearly, no governing party has covered themselves in glory.
Despite this, social mobility remains a significant communications challenge for the Conservatives; to a much greater extent than it does for Labour, and long after the supposed ‘de-toxification’ of the Tory brand was completed. This points to the difficulties organisations in all industries face when confronted with the need to overturn entrenched views – it takes time and patience. Moreover, it takes very little for people to revert to old perceptions and ideas. Numerous studies have shown peoples’ cognitive biases when interpreting political messages. Considerable evidence suggests people presented with balanced arguments place greater weight on those they already agree with, exhibiting what is termed confirmation bias. This confirmation bias is perhaps seen in people’s perceptions of the relative strengths of the political parties in improving social mobility.
There are other communications forces at work here as well, and they were highlighted in a recent Financial Times (FT) article on effective spokespeople for the relative political parties. The article suggested some Conservative MPs felt they lacked a regional presence compared to the Labour party, with fewer MPs with regional accents willing and able to deliver difficult messaging to regional audiences. This points to another communications challenge, the fact people are more likely to trust messages delivered by those who ‘speak their language’. For Conservative MPs from the South East discussing social mobility issues in Northern cities, the message is sometimes not as important as the voice in which it is being delivered.
Few politicians have resisted the urge to criticise their opposite number on the subject of social mobility, and this practice is unlikely to end this week. But determining who comes out on top when the mud begins to fly can often be as simple as understanding our inate communications biases.
John Hood
Consultant
john@linstockcommunications.com
30 April 2012
25 April 2012
Working with government, challenging public perceptions
Whatever mistrust the British electorate feels for politicians, it pales in comparison to the cynicism reserved for private organisations working with government. From schools to hospitals to railways, public services have seen private sector involvement in recent years. In almost every case, outrage has followed. It is clear that the British public still has deep reservations about private sector involvement in traditional public sectors.
These concerns are not without foundation. Private companies have a bottom line and their primary motive is to turn a profit. Certain PFI initiatives, the botched NHS IT upgrade and privatisation of the railways are all examples of private sector involvement in projects that encountered problems. But is public cynicism grounded in reality or the result of more irrational fears? And what communications challenges does this pose for private companies working with government?
This week it was reported that statisticians at the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) had signed off on controversial research developed by private procurement specialists Opera Solutions. The research claimed councils could save £10bn a year through improved procurement. Clearly, this is a significant piece of research with a bold central assertion; the sort of research that will raise eyebrows and receive criticism.
And surely enough, criticism arrived. In particular, questions were raised over the report’s methodology, which involved examining the spending of three local authorities on energy, mobile phones and legal services, determining savings that they could make through working together, and then extrapolating these findings for all local authorities. While Opera would no doubt stand by these findings, it is easy to see why others have been sceptical, particularly given the current government’s desire for councils to make cuts. It is an important and instructive tale for those engaging with government – sometimes your client’s wider political objectives and interpretation of your work may draw you into the firing line.
Opera Solution's recent problems point to other communications difficulties facing private companies working with government. If simply providing statistics can be seen to have a sinister motive behind it, what chance for those providing services that the electorate has an emotive response to, such as health and education? To further confuse matters, public responses to private sector involvement with government are not always predictable. Private companies such as YouGov regularly provide statistics for political parties; statistics that are generally accepted to be impartial by the electorate. Admittedly there are good reasons for this, including YouGov’s transparency of methodology and the trust it has accrued over some time. But public cynicism is somewhat inconsistent, and dependent on media.
So what are the communications principles for private companies working with government, both at a local and central level? Firstly, go in with your eyes open. Political agendas of all persuasions will mean that the likelihood of becoming part of the story is always a distinct possibility. Secondly, be transparent. Private companies found lurking in the shadows behind government will always raise concerns for some and questions for others. While it is not always desirable or appropriate to put yourself front and centre, you should never look to obfuscate your involvement. Thirdly, make sure your communications are consistent with those you are providing services for. Mixed messages are often the cause of increased public anxiety. Finally, and most importantly, be confident in the integrity of the services you provide. Private companies provide government with valuable services in numerous areas at many levels. We should not be afraid to champion the value that we bring to government and the wider public.
John Hood
Consultant
john@linstockcommunications.com
These concerns are not without foundation. Private companies have a bottom line and their primary motive is to turn a profit. Certain PFI initiatives, the botched NHS IT upgrade and privatisation of the railways are all examples of private sector involvement in projects that encountered problems. But is public cynicism grounded in reality or the result of more irrational fears? And what communications challenges does this pose for private companies working with government?
This week it was reported that statisticians at the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) had signed off on controversial research developed by private procurement specialists Opera Solutions. The research claimed councils could save £10bn a year through improved procurement. Clearly, this is a significant piece of research with a bold central assertion; the sort of research that will raise eyebrows and receive criticism.
And surely enough, criticism arrived. In particular, questions were raised over the report’s methodology, which involved examining the spending of three local authorities on energy, mobile phones and legal services, determining savings that they could make through working together, and then extrapolating these findings for all local authorities. While Opera would no doubt stand by these findings, it is easy to see why others have been sceptical, particularly given the current government’s desire for councils to make cuts. It is an important and instructive tale for those engaging with government – sometimes your client’s wider political objectives and interpretation of your work may draw you into the firing line.
Opera Solution's recent problems point to other communications difficulties facing private companies working with government. If simply providing statistics can be seen to have a sinister motive behind it, what chance for those providing services that the electorate has an emotive response to, such as health and education? To further confuse matters, public responses to private sector involvement with government are not always predictable. Private companies such as YouGov regularly provide statistics for political parties; statistics that are generally accepted to be impartial by the electorate. Admittedly there are good reasons for this, including YouGov’s transparency of methodology and the trust it has accrued over some time. But public cynicism is somewhat inconsistent, and dependent on media.
So what are the communications principles for private companies working with government, both at a local and central level? Firstly, go in with your eyes open. Political agendas of all persuasions will mean that the likelihood of becoming part of the story is always a distinct possibility. Secondly, be transparent. Private companies found lurking in the shadows behind government will always raise concerns for some and questions for others. While it is not always desirable or appropriate to put yourself front and centre, you should never look to obfuscate your involvement. Thirdly, make sure your communications are consistent with those you are providing services for. Mixed messages are often the cause of increased public anxiety. Finally, and most importantly, be confident in the integrity of the services you provide. Private companies provide government with valuable services in numerous areas at many levels. We should not be afraid to champion the value that we bring to government and the wider public.
John Hood
Consultant
john@linstockcommunications.com
23 April 2012
A choice dilemma in pensions
For a libertarian the concept of choice is fundamental. It means
providing individuals with maximum opportunity to make their own decisions and
pursue their personal dreams.
But does this freedom always produce the best outcome, both for
the individual and for society more widely? And if not, does that matter less
than the ideological integrity of choice at the outset?
The concept of choice is central to many discussions in the
pensions industry at the moment. It was the subject of debate at the recent
pension conference organised by our client, TheCityUK.
There is an argument that too much choice worries and confuses
people – and results in no choice being made at all. This is supported by
recent research from NEST that found almost 6 out of 10 people find
pensions so complicated that they can’t understand the best options available,
while around 1 in 3 are put off thinking about saving for retirement because
they find pensions confusing.
One bold option being pursued is to offer savers no choice
whatsoever. This proposition was put forward at the conference by ex-Pensions
Minister Nigel Waterson. Although it was delicately pointed out to Mr Waterson
by another ex-politician chairing the event, James Purnell, that he had
attacked the then government for not offering enough choice in the new
auto-enrolment pensions scheme!
Putting that gentle political ribbing to one side, in this type of
scheme all savings are invested in one single fund. Diversification may appear
to be a problem but as long as the fund itself is well diversified that can be
overcome.
In communications terms this allows for a simpler message to
consumers. Don’t worry about choosing funds or choosing providers. When
thinking about retirement saving start early, save more and carry on. This kind
of simplicity is the key to good communications with consumers.
Of course, this message relies on consumer trust in the pensions
system, which is a whole other debate.
Tony Cox
Consultant
17 April 2012
Media coverage and the mayoral election
London’s mayoral election has finally turned nasty. Inevitable perhaps given the personalities involved, but as the faux bonhomie between Red Ken and Toff Boris subsides, the sense of anticipation of a good old fashioned ding-dong of smear and counter-smear is palpable within the national media. As they continue to tear strips off one another, the media focus has understandably fallen on the two front-runners. But a question few have asked is ‘how has this affected the other candidates?’ The conventional wisdom is that, starved of the crucial oxygen of publicity, they will disappear in the electoral winds, voting chaff to ‘KenBo’s’ wheat. But is conventional wisdom right?
Certainly, at face-value, the polls would suggest so. The latest poll by YouGov has given Boris 45% of first preference voters, Ken 40%, Brian Paddick 7% and UKIP’s Lawrence Webb 3%, with the Green’s Jenny Jones pushed into a tied fourth place for the first time on just 2% alongside independent Siobhan Benita. So far so good, right? Maybe, but the final name on that list should raise some eyebrows; the relationship between media coverage and voting patterns may be more nuanced. Benita’s rise to joint fourth in the polls is a result of an extremely small media profile and even smaller funding. Yes, she is some way off challenging the big guns, but it’s still a remarkable achievement. It’s also true that press coverage of Benita has increased as the campaign has moved on, but compared to the other established names, it’s been fairly limited until recently. Moreover, it seems the media’s interest in Benita has occurred as a result of her popularity, rather than actively helping to drive it.
Plenty have questioned the media coverage she is now enjoying, and as a relative political tyro, this seems a genuine question to ask. But the dismissiveness of this commentary highlights the seriousness with which the major parties are beginning to take her. Of course, there is no concern that she might genuinely win, but after George Galloway’s recent landslide by-election victory, political parties are wary of the embarrassment of election bloody-noses being dealt by fringe candidates.
Some observers see this as a shift in voting, the advent of gesture politics, where voters are more interested in providing the major parties with a two-finger salute at the ballot box than determining which candidate best fits with their personal priorities and beliefs. But in reality, it represents a communications challenge as old as the hills – how do you make your message genuinely personal while appealing to a large audience. George Galloway neatly by-passed this concern altogether by focusing on issues of relevance to a specific demographic large enough to get him elected. But Benita’s “mum’s common sense” has provided a more ‘everywoman’ quality, neatly marrying high-end political objectives such as better transport and lower crime with the high-concern nimbyism of dog mess and bin collections. It’s a potent blend, and it should remind mainstream politicians, should they need it, of the power of connecting at a grass-roots level with simple messaging.
This question of how to deliver a grass-roots mobilisation of votes has vexed politicians for years, and will continue to exercise those looking for election in the forthcoming mayoral elections around the country. Siobhan Benita’s success has been built upon a perceived transparency. She has no apparent agenda and there is no obvious craven careerism; just policies based on her own experiences, experiences that mirror many of those of fellow Londoners. For politicians of major political parties, complete with the baggage of past administrations and their policies, this is not such an easy proposal. Ken Livingstone has already found that the image of a rebellious outsider he so successfully cultivated prior to his election has quickly eroded since his reintroduction into the Labour party. If the most recent polls are accurate, Londoners are not quite ready to do away with the old parties just yet. But with confidence in mainstream politics at an all-time low, it seems mayoral candidates seen as less in thrall to their parties may be better placed to achieve office than those with the full weight of the party machine and its media influence behind them.
John Hood
Consultant
john@linstockcommunications.com
Certainly, at face-value, the polls would suggest so. The latest poll by YouGov has given Boris 45% of first preference voters, Ken 40%, Brian Paddick 7% and UKIP’s Lawrence Webb 3%, with the Green’s Jenny Jones pushed into a tied fourth place for the first time on just 2% alongside independent Siobhan Benita. So far so good, right? Maybe, but the final name on that list should raise some eyebrows; the relationship between media coverage and voting patterns may be more nuanced. Benita’s rise to joint fourth in the polls is a result of an extremely small media profile and even smaller funding. Yes, she is some way off challenging the big guns, but it’s still a remarkable achievement. It’s also true that press coverage of Benita has increased as the campaign has moved on, but compared to the other established names, it’s been fairly limited until recently. Moreover, it seems the media’s interest in Benita has occurred as a result of her popularity, rather than actively helping to drive it.
Plenty have questioned the media coverage she is now enjoying, and as a relative political tyro, this seems a genuine question to ask. But the dismissiveness of this commentary highlights the seriousness with which the major parties are beginning to take her. Of course, there is no concern that she might genuinely win, but after George Galloway’s recent landslide by-election victory, political parties are wary of the embarrassment of election bloody-noses being dealt by fringe candidates.
Some observers see this as a shift in voting, the advent of gesture politics, where voters are more interested in providing the major parties with a two-finger salute at the ballot box than determining which candidate best fits with their personal priorities and beliefs. But in reality, it represents a communications challenge as old as the hills – how do you make your message genuinely personal while appealing to a large audience. George Galloway neatly by-passed this concern altogether by focusing on issues of relevance to a specific demographic large enough to get him elected. But Benita’s “mum’s common sense” has provided a more ‘everywoman’ quality, neatly marrying high-end political objectives such as better transport and lower crime with the high-concern nimbyism of dog mess and bin collections. It’s a potent blend, and it should remind mainstream politicians, should they need it, of the power of connecting at a grass-roots level with simple messaging.
This question of how to deliver a grass-roots mobilisation of votes has vexed politicians for years, and will continue to exercise those looking for election in the forthcoming mayoral elections around the country. Siobhan Benita’s success has been built upon a perceived transparency. She has no apparent agenda and there is no obvious craven careerism; just policies based on her own experiences, experiences that mirror many of those of fellow Londoners. For politicians of major political parties, complete with the baggage of past administrations and their policies, this is not such an easy proposal. Ken Livingstone has already found that the image of a rebellious outsider he so successfully cultivated prior to his election has quickly eroded since his reintroduction into the Labour party. If the most recent polls are accurate, Londoners are not quite ready to do away with the old parties just yet. But with confidence in mainstream politics at an all-time low, it seems mayoral candidates seen as less in thrall to their parties may be better placed to achieve office than those with the full weight of the party machine and its media influence behind them.
John Hood
Consultant
john@linstockcommunications.com
3 April 2012
Communicating strategy
Strategy. Just because it’s an overused word, doesn’t mean it’s an over rated virtue. Alvin Toffler summed it up nicely, when he said, “You’ve got to think about big things while you’re doing small things, so that all the small things go in the right direction.” But it’s not easy to think about the big things when people want to see action and they want to see it now. And they probably don’t care too much what the action is if they’re honest. Just look busy.
Two cases in point from the last week spring to mind. First, Kay Sheldon, Board Member of the Care Quality Commission, went on the Today programme to discuss a critical report on her organisation from the Public Accounts Committee. The regulator needs someone at the top who, “…knows how to lead, set a coherent strategy, develop a business plan and develop and inspire the workforce,” said Sheldon. Sadly, this was too, “Wishy washy,” for interviewer Justin Webb who wanted to hear about more staff on the ground or more money to be invested. Well done to Sheldon for talking about the real issues. But we all need to remember the media’s need for quick fire reportable numbers. They’re a must if you want to encourage some decent headlines. At least in the short term…
In my view, chasing short term plaudits played a big role in the demise of the Regional Development Agencies, which finally closed this week. I should know – I chased a few as head of communications there. The RDAs were meant to be strategic bodies, set up to take a long term view, encourage a wide range of public and private sector partners to work together and leave the delivery to other organisations closer to the ground. They were pretty good at it. But it’s not a role that’s easy to communicate and it’s not a route to quick results. So they fell into the trap of the short term win, chasing headlines for the amount of cash invested in project x or y and talking about the number of jobs created each year (supposedly). What a different public sector world; where spending more money was supposed to suggest high performance. Government found RDAs to be a useful dumping ground for Whitehall inspired wheezes and they were soon subject to a range of additional responsibilities and powers without being resourced to deliver. Before too long, RDAs were doing too many things, not doing them well enough, and exacerbating the hostility from some in local government who felt they should have been awarded the funding directly. Not a strong position from which to welcome an incoming government.
So how do you strike the right communications balance between a strategy that seems too highfalutin and just looking busy so no-one notices the big gap where the strategy should be? First keep it simple. The core of your strategy needs to be something your people can explain in a moment or two without referring to a dusty tome on the bookshelf. Second, only do things that contribute to the strategy and keep talking about the way in which they do. Third, remember that communication only serves a purpose if it helps deliver against the strategy itself. Don’t fall into the trap of expressing long term strategic goals in short term sound bites and numbers. Yes, you’ll get some headlines, but you’ll also set yourself up for a fall further down the line.
There’s a lot being written at the moment about tactics as the new strategy. Just get on with the day to day and let tomorrow take care of itself. There’s some truth in the need for flexibility, as long as your audiences buy into the core values you express. But without a big idea to hang it all on you end up like the political parties at the moment – at the mercy of events and widely misunderstood. As Sun Tzu said: “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”
Jon Bennett
Director
jon@linstockcommunications.com
Two cases in point from the last week spring to mind. First, Kay Sheldon, Board Member of the Care Quality Commission, went on the Today programme to discuss a critical report on her organisation from the Public Accounts Committee. The regulator needs someone at the top who, “…knows how to lead, set a coherent strategy, develop a business plan and develop and inspire the workforce,” said Sheldon. Sadly, this was too, “Wishy washy,” for interviewer Justin Webb who wanted to hear about more staff on the ground or more money to be invested. Well done to Sheldon for talking about the real issues. But we all need to remember the media’s need for quick fire reportable numbers. They’re a must if you want to encourage some decent headlines. At least in the short term…
In my view, chasing short term plaudits played a big role in the demise of the Regional Development Agencies, which finally closed this week. I should know – I chased a few as head of communications there. The RDAs were meant to be strategic bodies, set up to take a long term view, encourage a wide range of public and private sector partners to work together and leave the delivery to other organisations closer to the ground. They were pretty good at it. But it’s not a role that’s easy to communicate and it’s not a route to quick results. So they fell into the trap of the short term win, chasing headlines for the amount of cash invested in project x or y and talking about the number of jobs created each year (supposedly). What a different public sector world; where spending more money was supposed to suggest high performance. Government found RDAs to be a useful dumping ground for Whitehall inspired wheezes and they were soon subject to a range of additional responsibilities and powers without being resourced to deliver. Before too long, RDAs were doing too many things, not doing them well enough, and exacerbating the hostility from some in local government who felt they should have been awarded the funding directly. Not a strong position from which to welcome an incoming government.
So how do you strike the right communications balance between a strategy that seems too highfalutin and just looking busy so no-one notices the big gap where the strategy should be? First keep it simple. The core of your strategy needs to be something your people can explain in a moment or two without referring to a dusty tome on the bookshelf. Second, only do things that contribute to the strategy and keep talking about the way in which they do. Third, remember that communication only serves a purpose if it helps deliver against the strategy itself. Don’t fall into the trap of expressing long term strategic goals in short term sound bites and numbers. Yes, you’ll get some headlines, but you’ll also set yourself up for a fall further down the line.
There’s a lot being written at the moment about tactics as the new strategy. Just get on with the day to day and let tomorrow take care of itself. There’s some truth in the need for flexibility, as long as your audiences buy into the core values you express. But without a big idea to hang it all on you end up like the political parties at the moment – at the mercy of events and widely misunderstood. As Sun Tzu said: “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”
Jon Bennett
Director
jon@linstockcommunications.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
