The UK is getting older. More of us are living into our seventies and eighties and this trend is projected to continue throughout the twenty-first century. One consequence will be a substantial increase in the market for long term care. But are care homes ready for the opportunities of the future? In one important respect a wake up call is needed. The UK’s population is not just getting older; it’s also becoming increasingly ethnically diverse. But the reputation of care homes among ethnic minorities is so poor that a market worth £9 billion by 2051 could go begging.
A study by Linstock Communications and research partner Stimulating World reveals that UK care homes need to improve their understanding of, and reputation amongst, Britain’s minority ethnic communities. We staged focus groups with people of Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Indian (Hindu) and Black Caribbean ethnicity, who were all considering long term care options for elderly relatives.
We found that in many respects a community’s attitudes to care in old age can be determined by the length of time they have spent in the UK. So people in the Caribbean community, for example, are more open to the idea of paid for care and want to take control of personalised care budgets, whereas more recent arrivals, such as some from the Bangladeshi community, are more reticent and have less desire to control their own finances for care. We also uncovered a stigma amongst communities of South Asian ethnicity (Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi), where putting older members of the family into care is seen as a dereliction of duty.
Furthermore, across the board the minority ethnic communities we spoke to believe that care homes won’t cater to their specific cultural, dietary or religious needs. Some fear that regular prayer won’t be possible or that care staff won’t speak the same language as the people in their care.
The truth is that there is good practice out there. Some care homes are specifically targeting this market and others have good practices in place to support people from minority communities, but their measures are not well understood. The UK care industry clearly needs to understand and tackle some widely held opinions if it wants to serve an increasingly diverse community. Care homes need to stop being a last resort and start presenting themselves as a positive choice.
To see the full research summary by Linstock and Stimulating World please click here.
Tom Yazdi, Linstock Consultant (tom@linstockcommunications.com)
http://www.linstockcommunications.com
10 March 2011
4 March 2011
What now for Special Educational Needs?
This month should see the publication of the Government’s green paper on Special Educational Needs (SEN). The development of the long awaited paper has been anything but straightforward. Announced by the Government as far back as last July, it has subsequently been frequently delayed. Yesterday’s publication of the Wolf Report, and Michael Gove’s subsequent glowing praise for its findings, suggests this is a Government keen to exercise greater control over the educational and career paths of lower achieving students. But how does this apply to those with SEN, given the Report only mentions these people in passing. More specifically, what are the Government’s plans for the education and employment of SEN students with complex disabilities?
The green paper will need to cover these questions and others, but the concern for Government is that whatever is proposed, significant communications challenges will present themselves. Special educational needs is an emotive topic. This is amplified when narrowed down to discussions on those with multiple and complex disabilities. For a Government struggling to address criticism over its programme of spending cuts, SEN is a real minefield. Cuts to the Education Maintenance Allowance and the possible reform of the Disability Living Allowance, have led to accusations that the Government is unwilling to protect society’s most vulnerable while belts are being tightened. Another delay to the green paper may be seen as a snub too far and risks sending a message to parents that their children are an afterthought on the political agenda. Given Cameron’s very public statements of commitment on SEN, including pledging to remove the perceived ‘inclusion bias’ within the system, this could be especially damaging. Equally, if proposals are perceived as too hard on those with the most complex learning difficulties, there is a danger the Government will be portrayed as callous. Given the lengths the Conservatives in particular have gone to ‘detoxify’ their image, the green paper therefore presents a substantial challenge.
This is clearly a Government with a number of pressing issues, but there are increasing murmurs that it has bitten off more than it can chew with its legislative programme. Last week’s announcement that the Higher Education White Paper would be delayed demonstrates the difficulty the Government is having juggling a collection of contentious issues. Time isn’t the only factor here of course. Delays also point to the inherent difficulties associated with developing legislation as part of a Coalition, even when all parties appear to be singing from the same sheet.
For those working within the realm of SEN, the green paper cannot come soon enough. Department for Education statistics show last year nearly 1.5 million students with SEN were yet to receive statements outlining the support they would receive. This of course doesn’t include the numerous tribunal cases involving parents unhappy with their child’s statement. The system, if not at breaking point, is being severely bent. Details of exactly what will be in the green paper remain, unhelpfully, shady. Proposals such as the introduction of personal budgets have proved hard to reach a consensus on, not least among parent representative groups. Whether or not the green paper includes more ambitious arrangements regarding SEN employability remains unclear. What is certain is that SEN services need clarity of purpose and direction. The Government will need to ensure its messaging offers similar clarity when the paper is finally revealed.
John Hood, Linstock Consultant (john@linstockcommunications.com)
2 March 2011
Davos – more than just an economics conference?
Earlier this year 2,000 of the world’s richest and most powerful people descended on Davos for the 41st annual meeting of the World Economic Forum. More than twelve hundred senior executives from 69 countries rubbed shoulders with leading politicians including David Cameron, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, as well as Bill and Melinda Gates, Google co-founder Larry Page, steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal and even the odd celebrity. But despite the high profile attendees, you could be forgiven for asking just what the point of Davos is.
The media coverage of Davos starts weeks before the conference begins, as companies and spokespeople talk about what they expect to see on the Davos agenda and potential outcomes of the event. The conference is probably the biggest platform in the world for commentary on global trends and development of new ideas, and the discussions start early. Indeed, this advance coverage is arguably more insightful and effective than anything that comes out of the conference itself: for all the hype, Davos produces very little in concrete terms. Despite the most powerful politicians and business leaders in the world gathering together, there are almost never any major policy decisions or product launches made at the conference itself.
However, that is not to say that the conference is not a worthwhile endeavour or an important meeting on the global calendar. One of the most important aspects of Davos is the networking opportunities it affords, and one can only guess at the number of business deals governments and companies agree in the mountain air. But the event also provides a unique opportunity for smaller organisations to draw attention to important issues. By lobbying key figures who will be attending and offering journalists insightful and timely commentary on global topics, firms can ensure that the world’s leaders are aware of and discussing the subjects that are important to them.
Davos also provides an opportunity for organisations to be creative in approaching key influencers in their fields. Hosting parties, running workshops or organising unusual events can provide otherwise almost impossible access to the world’s most powerful people. For instance, for the past few years Crossroads Global Village, which works to support welfare organisations around the world, has partnered with UNHCR, the United Nations’ refugee agency, and Global Risk Forum to host Refugee Run. Through this simulation event, world leaders such as Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon have experienced life as a refugee.
Likewise, Davos can provide a unique platform for leaders to change the world for the better. For instance, former Turkish Prime Minister Turgut Ozal claims that his country did not go to war with Greece when tensions between the two countries escalated in 1987 because he had met his Greek counterpart Andreas Papandreou at Davos the year before and knew he could trust him. More recently, rock star Bono and billionaire couple Bill and Melinda Gates used this year’s meeting to secure millions of pounds of investment for polio vaccinations.
Critics still argue that despite all the publicity and media coverage, Davos achieves very little in terms of solving the world’s problems. But as BBC Business Editor Tim Weber points out “that’s not what it’s been designed for. The event is a talking shop, a networking event – but one that can set the agenda, generate new ideas, build bridges.” By having the kinds of discussions that are possible at Davos, global leaders can be inspired to act differently and maybe, just maybe, transform the world in the process.
Jo Nussbaum, Linstock Consultant (jo@linstockcommunications.com)
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/
The media coverage of Davos starts weeks before the conference begins, as companies and spokespeople talk about what they expect to see on the Davos agenda and potential outcomes of the event. The conference is probably the biggest platform in the world for commentary on global trends and development of new ideas, and the discussions start early. Indeed, this advance coverage is arguably more insightful and effective than anything that comes out of the conference itself: for all the hype, Davos produces very little in concrete terms. Despite the most powerful politicians and business leaders in the world gathering together, there are almost never any major policy decisions or product launches made at the conference itself.
However, that is not to say that the conference is not a worthwhile endeavour or an important meeting on the global calendar. One of the most important aspects of Davos is the networking opportunities it affords, and one can only guess at the number of business deals governments and companies agree in the mountain air. But the event also provides a unique opportunity for smaller organisations to draw attention to important issues. By lobbying key figures who will be attending and offering journalists insightful and timely commentary on global topics, firms can ensure that the world’s leaders are aware of and discussing the subjects that are important to them.
Davos also provides an opportunity for organisations to be creative in approaching key influencers in their fields. Hosting parties, running workshops or organising unusual events can provide otherwise almost impossible access to the world’s most powerful people. For instance, for the past few years Crossroads Global Village, which works to support welfare organisations around the world, has partnered with UNHCR, the United Nations’ refugee agency, and Global Risk Forum to host Refugee Run. Through this simulation event, world leaders such as Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon have experienced life as a refugee.
Likewise, Davos can provide a unique platform for leaders to change the world for the better. For instance, former Turkish Prime Minister Turgut Ozal claims that his country did not go to war with Greece when tensions between the two countries escalated in 1987 because he had met his Greek counterpart Andreas Papandreou at Davos the year before and knew he could trust him. More recently, rock star Bono and billionaire couple Bill and Melinda Gates used this year’s meeting to secure millions of pounds of investment for polio vaccinations.
Critics still argue that despite all the publicity and media coverage, Davos achieves very little in terms of solving the world’s problems. But as BBC Business Editor Tim Weber points out “that’s not what it’s been designed for. The event is a talking shop, a networking event – but one that can set the agenda, generate new ideas, build bridges.” By having the kinds of discussions that are possible at Davos, global leaders can be inspired to act differently and maybe, just maybe, transform the world in the process.
Jo Nussbaum, Linstock Consultant (jo@linstockcommunications.com)
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/
10 December 2010
Has the new media bubble burst?
Tim Berners Lee, creator of the internet, recently proclaimed that social networking sites are ruining the internet. What does he mean by this? Lee argues that social networks are becoming so closed off and guarded by stringent privacy settings that they are creating their own mini internets. Tim’s comments smack of old man ‘things were better in my day’ rhetoric, there’s also a suspicion he’s still kicking himself for not patenting the greatest invention of the 20th century.
But Tim does have a valid point. Virtual monopolies like Facebook have an incredible amount of influence on the future direction of the internet. The fact is half a billion people have Facebook accounts, which means Zuckerberg and co have access to half a billion peoples’ personal details, interests and habits – an advertisers dream. However with new privacy settings guarding that information and the invention of tools like Facebook email, a rival to established email programs Gmail and Hotmail, users are encouraged to stay within the facebook network and never venture out into cyber space.
Two problems arise from this, firstly it stifles innovation – new ideas are based around adding to established existing social networks such as Facebook, twitter and Myspace rather than creating new ways of communicating. Secondly, from a marketing prospective, communicating with social networkers will become increasingly difficult.
The new privacy settings mean that advertisers and marketing professionals won’t be able to access as much information as before and the invention of @facebook.com email addresses means that users will be able to automatically deflect non Facebook email addresses away from their inbox and into a specific folder. Most likely spam.
These are good ideas from the Facebook team but another step towards closing off a previously open market. Communications companies are cautious, maybe even apprehensive about social networking, possibly because due to a lack of understanding. But there is no doubt they see the potential benefits of a solid new media campaign – endless new media ‘master classes’ prove that. However, tactics will have to change if a bitter battle for user time supremacy ensues between the leading online players. Maintaining a loyal user base will be essential to stay competitive, which means offering as wide a range of services as possible and protecting your users from threats of rival services. Thus closing down communication channels and eliminating what made social networking so popular in the first place – free open communication.
Jay McGregor, Linstock Consultant
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/
But Tim does have a valid point. Virtual monopolies like Facebook have an incredible amount of influence on the future direction of the internet. The fact is half a billion people have Facebook accounts, which means Zuckerberg and co have access to half a billion peoples’ personal details, interests and habits – an advertisers dream. However with new privacy settings guarding that information and the invention of tools like Facebook email, a rival to established email programs Gmail and Hotmail, users are encouraged to stay within the facebook network and never venture out into cyber space.
Two problems arise from this, firstly it stifles innovation – new ideas are based around adding to established existing social networks such as Facebook, twitter and Myspace rather than creating new ways of communicating. Secondly, from a marketing prospective, communicating with social networkers will become increasingly difficult.
The new privacy settings mean that advertisers and marketing professionals won’t be able to access as much information as before and the invention of @facebook.com email addresses means that users will be able to automatically deflect non Facebook email addresses away from their inbox and into a specific folder. Most likely spam.
These are good ideas from the Facebook team but another step towards closing off a previously open market. Communications companies are cautious, maybe even apprehensive about social networking, possibly because due to a lack of understanding. But there is no doubt they see the potential benefits of a solid new media campaign – endless new media ‘master classes’ prove that. However, tactics will have to change if a bitter battle for user time supremacy ensues between the leading online players. Maintaining a loyal user base will be essential to stay competitive, which means offering as wide a range of services as possible and protecting your users from threats of rival services. Thus closing down communication channels and eliminating what made social networking so popular in the first place – free open communication.
Jay McGregor, Linstock Consultant
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/
2 December 2010
Linstock hires NLGN news supremo - as seen in PR week 2 December 2010
Linstock Communications has recruited James Hulme from the public policy think-tank to head its newly created ‘local government futures’ unit.
Hulme, who has headed the think-tank’s branding, comms and external relations since 2006, is joining Linstock to set up the new unit.
The Local Government futures team will advise clients on developing relationships with local authorities and their partners and how to interpret and work with the Government’s localism agenda.
Hulme said: ‘The localism agenda is dominating politics in Westminster and beyond, and huge changes are imminent in areas such as housing, planning, economic development and service delivery.’
He added: ‘Organisations working with the public sector need to get to grips with these fundamental reforms.
‘I look forward to using my experience and expertise within the local government world to support Linstock’s clients.’
Previously, Hulme was parliamentary and government relations manager at Citizens Advice.
PR week
Hulme, who has headed the think-tank’s branding, comms and external relations since 2006, is joining Linstock to set up the new unit.
The Local Government futures team will advise clients on developing relationships with local authorities and their partners and how to interpret and work with the Government’s localism agenda.
Hulme said: ‘The localism agenda is dominating politics in Westminster and beyond, and huge changes are imminent in areas such as housing, planning, economic development and service delivery.’
He added: ‘Organisations working with the public sector need to get to grips with these fundamental reforms.
‘I look forward to using my experience and expertise within the local government world to support Linstock’s clients.’
Previously, Hulme was parliamentary and government relations manager at Citizens Advice.
PR week
14 October 2010
Cable breaks ties with party policy – the communications challenge of policy U-turns
So the Browne Report has finally arrived, and depending on what side of the fence you sit on, it’s likely to be a lot better or worse than you predicted. While a raising of the cap on fees was always likely, the possibility of unlimited fees will undoubtedly cause a few raised eyebrows also. The report will be pored over in greater detail over the coming days, and particularly after the Comprehensive Spending Review, but two issues are immediately apparent.
Firstly, the report, if implemented along the lines set out by Vince Cable, will see a genuinely fundamental shift in the funding of students, with the burden moving most sharply from government to students. In the long-term of course, unlimited fees, or significantly higher fees, are likely to result in a tiered system of higher education. This ‘marketisation’, it is hoped, will ultimately increase competition and ultimately, perhaps, drive down costs. In the meantime however, how will prospective students react to increased fees and an uncertain graduate jobs market? Although it is quite possible measures to ensure access for disadvantaged students are successful, there is no real way of knowing whether poorer students in particular will be put off entering higher education by these higher fees. Equally, Browne’s recommendations may result in a more fundamental shift in how students choose to study – could we see an explosion in part-time/stay-at-home students for example? Channel 4’s Factcheck blog has provided an interesting account of the progressiveness of Lord Browne’s recommendations, but what is of most interest is how these measures are perceived.
This brings us neatly onto the second issue raised by the Report; how will audiences respond to recent announcements and how should the Coalition, and the Lib Dems in particular react. Vince Cable’s broad support of the Report provides himself and the party leadership with the agonising challenge of selling a policy U-turn to the electorate and to the Lib Dem party faithful. There are suggestions of the communications angle the Lib Dems will take, with Cable arguing that the party’s previous position was unfeasible as a result of the finances left by the previous Labour administration. The dangers of this approach are as obvious as its attractions. There are already signs that the electorate is growing tired of the Coalition’s insistence that irresponsible Labour spending is to blame for future spending cuts, irrespective of whether they broadly agree with the statement. If the Lib Dems are to successfully navigate this difficult period, it is vital they do not fall into an obvious mud-slinging match.
Lib Dems equally must not be constrained by an overestimation of the policy’s importance. Committing to abolish tuition feed was politically popular, but nowhere near the vote winner it was made out to be. Cable and the Lib Dem leadership must reject the urge to blame Labour and instead focus on making the economic argument relevant to middle class voters. Spelling out the cost of degrees and the size of the deficit will not be enough, messaging must discuss improved life chances and securing a higher education system that allows people’s children to compete for future jobs. Of course, cutting off the media’s creeping estimation that the Browne Report will hit middle-class families hardest will not be easy. After the child benefits fiasco at Conservative conference, the Coalition can ill afford such headlines.
Perhaps the greatest danger, but the one most within the party’s control, will be how it deals with rebellious backbenchers. A number of former heavyweights have committed to rebel and Greg Mulholland MP has already blogged on the issue. Cutting off such a rebellion is essential if the party is not to descend into opposing camps and risk appearing weak and divided.
Undoubtedly, the Lib Dems will be harmed by offering support for the Browne Report recommendations, but there is already a suggestion that the common sense of the policy has been accepted by the media, the Times already running a leader in support. If the Coalition can ride out this period of unrest and prove raised fees do not limit social mobility; it could cause more problems for the Labour party. Even with Lib Dem rebellions the Coalition should gain a small majority on a vote. In this scenario, attention would switch back to the Labour Party.
The Lib Dem’s policy of abolishment was politically popular but economically and logistically unsound. Ed Miliband’s support for a graduate tax is likely to be equally difficult to implement. Just as the Lib Dems may struggle to deflect criticism in the coming months, support of a graduate tax could similarly store problems for the Labour leadership in the future.
Firstly, the report, if implemented along the lines set out by Vince Cable, will see a genuinely fundamental shift in the funding of students, with the burden moving most sharply from government to students. In the long-term of course, unlimited fees, or significantly higher fees, are likely to result in a tiered system of higher education. This ‘marketisation’, it is hoped, will ultimately increase competition and ultimately, perhaps, drive down costs. In the meantime however, how will prospective students react to increased fees and an uncertain graduate jobs market? Although it is quite possible measures to ensure access for disadvantaged students are successful, there is no real way of knowing whether poorer students in particular will be put off entering higher education by these higher fees. Equally, Browne’s recommendations may result in a more fundamental shift in how students choose to study – could we see an explosion in part-time/stay-at-home students for example? Channel 4’s Factcheck blog has provided an interesting account of the progressiveness of Lord Browne’s recommendations, but what is of most interest is how these measures are perceived.
This brings us neatly onto the second issue raised by the Report; how will audiences respond to recent announcements and how should the Coalition, and the Lib Dems in particular react. Vince Cable’s broad support of the Report provides himself and the party leadership with the agonising challenge of selling a policy U-turn to the electorate and to the Lib Dem party faithful. There are suggestions of the communications angle the Lib Dems will take, with Cable arguing that the party’s previous position was unfeasible as a result of the finances left by the previous Labour administration. The dangers of this approach are as obvious as its attractions. There are already signs that the electorate is growing tired of the Coalition’s insistence that irresponsible Labour spending is to blame for future spending cuts, irrespective of whether they broadly agree with the statement. If the Lib Dems are to successfully navigate this difficult period, it is vital they do not fall into an obvious mud-slinging match.
Lib Dems equally must not be constrained by an overestimation of the policy’s importance. Committing to abolish tuition feed was politically popular, but nowhere near the vote winner it was made out to be. Cable and the Lib Dem leadership must reject the urge to blame Labour and instead focus on making the economic argument relevant to middle class voters. Spelling out the cost of degrees and the size of the deficit will not be enough, messaging must discuss improved life chances and securing a higher education system that allows people’s children to compete for future jobs. Of course, cutting off the media’s creeping estimation that the Browne Report will hit middle-class families hardest will not be easy. After the child benefits fiasco at Conservative conference, the Coalition can ill afford such headlines.
Perhaps the greatest danger, but the one most within the party’s control, will be how it deals with rebellious backbenchers. A number of former heavyweights have committed to rebel and Greg Mulholland MP has already blogged on the issue. Cutting off such a rebellion is essential if the party is not to descend into opposing camps and risk appearing weak and divided.
Undoubtedly, the Lib Dems will be harmed by offering support for the Browne Report recommendations, but there is already a suggestion that the common sense of the policy has been accepted by the media, the Times already running a leader in support. If the Coalition can ride out this period of unrest and prove raised fees do not limit social mobility; it could cause more problems for the Labour party. Even with Lib Dem rebellions the Coalition should gain a small majority on a vote. In this scenario, attention would switch back to the Labour Party.
The Lib Dem’s policy of abolishment was politically popular but economically and logistically unsound. Ed Miliband’s support for a graduate tax is likely to be equally difficult to implement. Just as the Lib Dems may struggle to deflect criticism in the coming months, support of a graduate tax could similarly store problems for the Labour leadership in the future.
5 October 2010
Local Authorities: Are they too big to fail?
Last week we had a positive announcement from Nick Clegg on increased borrowing freedoms for local authorities and the planned introduction of Tax Increment Financing schemes, which was broadly welcomed across local government and the private sector.
Debate at the Conservative conference has now turned to its implementation.
How much freedom will local authorities really be given? How loose will the Treasury allow its purse strings to go?
One interesting question raised at a Respublica fringe event today is what happens if a local authority borrows to much? Of course, the rhetoric from councils is that it will only ever be 'prudential' borrowing. But this can mean different things to different people and no investment is ever 100 per cent secure.
So what would happen if a local authority was allowed to borrow what it liked and left itself overstretched? Will local government then be left with the potentially painful result of its freedoms and flexibilities? Or is it too big too fail?
We need to debate these issues not just at a national level but at a local level too. There is a vital role for communication between councils, business and local people about the risks that should be taken. Otherwise they may be left to foot the bill for a debt they knew nothing about it. And we know where that has left trust in the financial services sector.
Tony Cox - Linstock Consultant
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/
Debate at the Conservative conference has now turned to its implementation.
How much freedom will local authorities really be given? How loose will the Treasury allow its purse strings to go?
One interesting question raised at a Respublica fringe event today is what happens if a local authority borrows to much? Of course, the rhetoric from councils is that it will only ever be 'prudential' borrowing. But this can mean different things to different people and no investment is ever 100 per cent secure.
So what would happen if a local authority was allowed to borrow what it liked and left itself overstretched? Will local government then be left with the potentially painful result of its freedoms and flexibilities? Or is it too big too fail?
We need to debate these issues not just at a national level but at a local level too. There is a vital role for communication between councils, business and local people about the risks that should be taken. Otherwise they may be left to foot the bill for a debt they knew nothing about it. And we know where that has left trust in the financial services sector.
Tony Cox - Linstock Consultant
http://www.linstockcommunications.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
