Previous posts
BLOG: A Whitehouse Spokesperson says
February 2010
Will moving the boundaries move the election goalposts?
In the knowledge that Gordon Brown will soon call for the general election, it is worth considering what effect changes to the boundaries of constituencies across the UK could have on polling day.
At the moment, Labour has a working majority of 57 seats, meaning that the Conservatives under David Cameron will need to return 326 MPs – a minimum net gain of 131 seats in order to win a majority. This, however, does not take into account the possible impact of boundary changes, where the gain or loss of a rural ward or housing estate could make all the difference to the results in marginal constituencies.
In 2006 the Boundary Commission completed its review of constituency boundaries in England, Wales and Northern Ireland after a three year project. The result was that some areas in England, such as Lancashire and Essex, gained a constituency, while others like Tyne & Wear had one removed.
The narrowing of the polls over the recent weeks and months mean that it could yet be boundary changes that propel David Cameron to Downing Street. The Boundary Commission’s changes appear to favour the Conservatives, with a number of new seats being created in traditional Conservative heartlands in the south, while Labour’s majority appears certain to be slashed.
Thirteen new seats have been created for this general election (10 Conservative seats and three Liberal Democrat), with nine abolished (six Labour, two Conservative, one Liberal Democrat) – and the likelihood that 20 seats would be won by different parties under the new boundaries.
If this had happened in 2005, Labour would have had a majority of 44 seats rather than 64.
This does not mean that David Cameron and his team have any room for comfort ahead of the election. Anticipating the effect of boundary changes is by no means straightforward, and it is virtually impossible to predict the size of majorities based on the voting patterns of different areas within the same constituency. Two seats in particular sum this up: York Outer (a ring of suburbs outside the city) and Filton & Bradley Stoke (north of Bristol) will be contested in the first time in 2010. Both are made up of elements of constituencies with very different political persuasions, and it is impossible to predict what will happen in these two seats.
Gordon Brown can take some comfort in Labour’s improved performance over recent weeks, along with the fact that under our electoral system Labour traditionally has a better distribution votes and is more likely to ‘win small but lose big’ than its opponents. In 2005 across England Labour won a seat for every 28,111 of its votes – whereas for the Conservatives it was 41,982, and for the Liberal Democrats, 110,591.
After the boundary changes, if the Conservatives are to win the election the Party will need a swing of 6.9% to earn a majority – more than the Conservatives have managed at any point since World War II, and considerably more than Margaret Thatcher’s famous victory of 1979, which saw a swing of 5.3%. The boundary changes might support the Conservatives, but they have an electoral mountain to climb if David Cameron is to be handed the keys to 10 Downing Street.
Gary Jones, Consultant
January 2010
What do the Conservatives have in mind for the NHS?
The recent publication of the Conservative Party’s draft health manifesto has been widely seen as the opening salvo in a long general election campaign. The early signs are that the NHS is once again set to be a political battleground. But how far will their policies differ from those of the current Government?
In important respects, Conservative health policy will represent continuity rather than change. The Conservatives have backed Labour’s market-based reforms such as the introduction of Foundation Trusts and provision of NHS health care by the private and voluntary sector. Their biggest criticism is that Labour has not gone far enough; there has been some obvious back-peddling recently from Health Secretary Andy Burnham in saying that the NHS is the “preferred provider” of healthcare. The Conservatives have said unequivocally that “any service provider from the private or voluntary sectors will be able to compete on equal terms for a NHS contract.”
Likewise, it is likely that under the Conservatives practice-based commissioning will be stepped up, with GPs given the power to actually hold patients’ budgets and commission care on their behalf. Under the current situation, GPs only hold a “virtual budget”, while Primary Care Trusts actually hold the cash.
However, there are important aspects in which policy will differ. Most importantly, it will be impossible for the Conservatives to offer the NHS funding increases at the same rate as the current Government, which has doubled funding in real terms. Funding will probably stay the same in real terms, but with so many upward pressures on health spending the NHS may still be left short-changed.
Other changes included in the draft manifesto include: an independent NHS board to allocate resources; turning the Department of Health into the Department for Public Health with increased emphasis on preventing illness; changes in the approval process for drugs; and the replacement of process targets with outcome measures. Health outcomes from different providers will be published so that patients can use the information to choose between different providers in order to drive up quality.
Overall, it seems unlikely that the NHS will see fundamental reform under the Conservatives. The current market based system will almost certainly provide a large degree of continuity, although the Conservatives are likely to embrace it more fully than the Labour Government has. They have pledged to reduce interference in the day-to-day running of the NHS, and stop the constant stream of reforms seen over the last 12 years. Only time will tell how accurate this pledge turns out to be.
Frances Powrie, Junior Consultant
December 2009
The importance of local lobbying
A key priority for the current Government has been the devolution of ever greater decision-making powers to local government, to empower local communities to determine their own priorities.
This began with the Strong and Prosperous Communities White Paper in 2006 and more recently the introduction of Comprehensive Area Assessments to measure how well-run local public services are and how effectively they use taxpayers’ money.
The imminent general election focuses on key national policy battlegrounds, like climate change and the NHS, so it is important to ensure policy messages are communicated at local level – particularly given the Conservatives’ support for policies to devolve more power to local government.
Effective local lobbying relies on identifying those at the local level who can best help you to achieve your objectives and not only includes key local authority decision-makers, but also prospective Parliamentary candidates and networks such as IDeA, the Improvement and Development Agency for local government, and Regional Government Offices.
Many of our clients have made progress towards their strategic objectives at local level, by providing tools, training and support for local staff, and monitoring implementation and progress. Incorporating a local level programme in public affairs campaigns can deliver real success.
Katie McDowell, Consultant
November 2009
Free public affairs representation for Ovarian Cancer Action
Our team really value being able to provide a pro bono service and so it is with great pleasure that we take on Ovarian Cancer Action as Whitehouse’s pro bono client for 2009/2010, receiving free public affairs representation.
Ovarian Cancer Action is dedicated to improving women’s chances of surviving ovarian cancer by raising awareness of the disease and its symptoms; funding research at the Ovarian Cancer Action Research Centre based at Imperial College Hammersmith; and giving a voice to women affected by the disease.
Annually we invite worthy organisations to apply for our scheme, offering strategic public affairs advice to organisations who otherwise may not be in a position to undertake public affairs activity.
This is an exciting opportunity for Ovarian Cancer Action to get their foot in the door in Westminster and Whitehall and we look forward to working with them to help them take their campaigning to the next level. This is an important time to contribute to the policy development process, with the general election less than a year away.
Whitehouse has significant experience working with health and third sector clients, so Ovarian Cancer Action is the perfect fit. Our team look forward to working with them to increase awareness of the symptoms of ovarian cancer, allowing earlier detection and improving women’s chances of surviving ovarian cancer.
Chris Whitehouse, Managing Director
October 2009
Lobbyists drinking in the last chance saloon
The government has refused to force lobbyists to operate more transparently, contrary to the recommendations of the Public Administration Select Committee into lobbying.
This confirms our prediction that regulation of the lobbying profession is unlikely to be a high priority for either of the main political parties in the run up to, or immediately following the coming general election.
But the issue will remain on the political agenda. The profession is drinking in the last chance saloon and is only ever one major scandal away from burdensome and expensive legislation.
This should be a wake-up call to make self-regulation credible.
Chris Whitehouse, Managing Director
Champagne still on ice for Conservatives
The Conservative Party conference in Manchester saw the party seemingly on the brink of power. The pendulum certainly appears to have swung in the Conservatives’ direction with reports that people could hardly move for party members, exhibitors and, of course, lobbyists, in sharp contrast to the Labour Party conference where cameras captured wide shots of rows of empty chairs.
The Conservatives might be ahead in the polls but they still couldn’t afford for the conference to be an anti-climax. Senior Conservatives warned attendees not to be complacent, that the general election was not yet won. There were even reports that Chairman Eric Pickles banned champagne at the conference, insisting the party must appear ‘humble’. However, this seemed to backfire when several prominent Conservative MPs, including David Cameron himself, were caught glass in hand.
Following the Irish 'yes’ vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum the issue of Europe threatened to rear its head with hints of Conservative divisions over Europe and this was not helped when Mayor of London Boris Johnson, called for a referendum to take back powers from Brussels. The pro-European Shadow Business Secretary Kenneth Clarke then appeared to suggest that he would campaign for a yes vote if the Conservatives were to hold a referendum. This put the Conservative leadership on the back foot and they went to great lengths to play down any sense of division in trying to defuse the situation.
Shadow Chancellor George Osborne’s keynote speech outlined plans to raise the pension age, freeze public sector pay and stop families with a household income of more than £50,000 getting child tax credit. While under normal circumstances this would be considered electoral suicide the Conservative are hoping that by being upfront at a time when public sector finances are in a perilous state voters will reward their honesty when the time comes. There were of course more popular measures for the party faithful including an announcement that there would be no more government funding for fixed speed cameras and new plans to cut business red-tape.
In closing the conference David Cameron left the party members upbeat, offering a determinedly optimistic vision of the future under a Conservative government in contrast to the austere tone of his Shadow Chancellor. He resisted turning the speech into a victory rally perhaps conscious of Labour's 1992 Sheffield rally, when Neil Kinnock celebrated a victory his party had not yet won.
In recent times there has been a tendency for party conferences to be built up to be the 'make or break' moments in the fortunes of political parties and their leaders. This year was no exception with David Cameron challenged by the media at the start of the week to ‘seal the deal’ with the public. In reality this was never going to be the case and as the week drew to a close the challenge for the Conservatives remains the same. Despite an unpopular government, public unrest over the economy and the state of politics this has not resulted in the public shifting their support towards the 'government in waiting' so Cameron’s challenge over the coming months is to unite voters in order to claim victory.
Gary Jones, Junior Consultant
September 2009
Party conferences - are they worth it?
It has finally arrived.
The time of year when all the UK political parties, large and small, along with the trade unions, gather for their annual jamboree. Each differs in tone and content but some things are ubiquitous: late nights, frantic networking, large amounts of booze and some rather questionable finger-food.
For politicians and local activists it can be a great time to come together and share stories, debate and discuss contentious issues, and show the outside world that they are a united force capable of representing their constituents. But what about all of the other attendees; the charities, businesses, campaigning groups and trade associations, all seeking to influence the political process? When the hangover finally dies down, will it have been worth it, especially when recent research showed that last year one in four MPs didn't even bother going to their party conference, rising to almost one in three Labour MPs.
Estimates indicate that, for a presence at all three main party conferences, including a fringe meeting, a stand and a reception, the cost, including staff time, travel and accommodation, can come in at a cool £45,000. Small wonder that cash-strapped political parties market them so hard.
There is little doubt that, for that investment, you will get time with policy makers and have the opportunity to present your case. You will also get a sense of the political mood. 2008 saw Labour delegates agonising over what to do about a perceived listless leadership. For the Tories, it was about showing they were ready to lead. Little will have changed this year but subtlety and nuance can be sensed from spending time at conference and with less than nine months before a general election must take place that is valuable intelligence.
But the continual question remains, and will be the focus of much discussion during October: could we have achieved all of that elsewhere and for less cost? The answer in many cases is yes, and as marketing budgets get squeezed harder and harder, with 50% of UK businesses anticipating cutting their marketing budgets yet further in the next six months, the assumption that conference should be an annual budget line must be challenged, and challenged robustly.
David Hare, Director
January 2009
Lobbying: Access and Influence in Whitehall
Chris Whitehouse, Managing Director, The Whitehouse Consultancy Ltd respond to the Report of the Public Administration Select Committee on “Lobbying: Access and Influence in Whitehall”.
The Report is a valuable contribution to debate on the regulation of lobbying in the UK.
It seems the Committee’s message to the industry is that it is drinking in the last chance saloon and must improve its reputation if statutory control is to be avoided.
We fully support the call for a fundamental reappraisal of the role of the industry bodies. We have consistently argued that the APPC should exist to maintain a register of members’ clients, to develop a Code of Practice, and to ensure compliance by members with the requirement to register clients and adhere to the Code. It should not seek to be a trade association promoting the commercial interests of members since this is incompatible with the self-regulatory role.
On a positive note, the Committee was unable to identify any major crisis of ethics in the profession or to unearth any major scandals despite the high profile of its inquiry. It also accepted the argument that there are many others besides political consultancies who indulge in what it also acknowledges is the legitimate practice of lobbying Government and its agencies.
The timetable for action put forward by the Committee – a challenge to reform within six months or face statutory control – is unrealistic but should focus attention on the need to act. It is clear from the report that in the absence of evidence of any real scandals, there is little appetite for action on the part of Government. It is unlikely to be high on a priority legislation list in the run–up to, or immediately following the next General Election. So, the industry has perhaps two years to reform.
The most worrying aspect of the Report is the consistently low opinion that so many contributors to the debate have of the APPC - within the industry, within the Committee, within the House of Commons, and more widely. There are clearly lessons to be learned.
Chris Whitehouse, Managing Director