Insights

Circle graphic Circle graphic Circle graphic

Braemar in London 2024 – Science for Good

Science for Good: Anita Anand; Hayaatun Sillem, CEO Royal Academy of Engineering; Dorothy Chou, Public Policy Leader at DeepMind; Professor Irene Tracey, Vice Chancellor of the University of Oxford

For the past four years, I have sat down with my friend Roger Highfield, who is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group and is also working, in a personal capacity, as my collaborator on the Braemar Summit, to discuss themes.

The first year, 2021, was straightforward. It was the year that the world looked to science to save it from an epidemic. In some places Covid deniers were offering lemon and ginger as a solution. Meanwhile, a group of scientists in Oxford were working on a vaccine. Roger and I discussed how the collaboration of scientists, academics, policy makers and investors had cracked a global issue and wondered if there was a way of continuing this intellectual exchange outside the laboratory. We continued the discussion in September 2021 as the Oxford scientists, including Dame Sarah Gilbert, stepped off the coach in Braemar and headed towards the Fife Arms to the sound of pipers. The Braemar Summit was born. The theme that year was the New Enlightenment.

Each year, we have tried to match the theme to the direction of science and global politics. In 2023 we called it the Great Acceleration, to take account of the super computers and the impact of AI. In 2024 we went for a warmer theme, Science for Good.

Despite wars, superstition, misinformation and incivility in the public sphere, we were witnessing beacons of science. We quoted Marie Curie; “Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.”

In medicine for instance, there have been landmark breakthroughs in treating some of the worst diseases and conditions, through drugs, or genetic interventions.

There is evidence that a bold and determined course on tackling climate change, including investment, will benefit the economy as well as human existence. And robotics, which has advanced enormously, is now looking for design. Hardware will be a new source of delight. So creativity, the collaboration between art and science has been another theme for this year.

We were in Braemar in spirit rather than in actual location, holding the summit this year in the second week of September at the studio of the inventor and designer Thomas Heatherwick, in King’s Cross, with a dinner at the Francis Crick Institute. Also in the spirit, we found an international concert pianist, Stefania Passamonte, to play Chopin and Liszt on a grand piano in the great hall of the Crick, with hologram screens on either side of her.

Performance by the Royal College of Music string quartet

We were in the heart of the Knowledge Quarter and were delighted to welcome collaboration with DeepMind, based down the road, and our friends from Aria, Advanced Research and Invention Agency, housed within The British Library. Thomas Heatherwick spoke eloquently about his mission to humanise public space and humanity was at the heart of subsequent discussions.

We began with Professor Sir John Bell, on the title of science and ambition. As the new President of The Ellison Institute of Technology (EIT) in Oxford, which aims to tackle health, food security, clean energy government policy Sir John has set himself a task.

Science and Ambition: Professor Sir John Bell, immunologist and geneticist

In the same altitude, we continued with a discussion entitled, The Age of the Cure followed by The Future of the NHS from Richard Meddings, Chair of NHS England. The sessions and speakers on stage were exhilarating but it was perhaps the conversations in between, over coffee or dinner which were most memorable. Many guests who come to Braemar mention the intellectual stimulation but also the geniality. It is an open-minded, good-natured event where you can discuss anything. Computer scientists debate with philosophers, economists and business leaders listen to dreamers. Even physicists talk to biologists. It is not transactional; it is genuinely conversational. It is the joy of serendipity.

Sarah Sands, Partner, Hawthorn Advisors and Braemar Co-creator

For further information on the Braemar Summit please visit www.braemarsummit.com.

Posted in Uncategorised

The day after the night before

Rishi Sunak called the election in the pouring rain and it looks like Keir Starmer will walk up Downing Street in similar sodden conditions later this afternoon. But make no mistake, the political weather has been transformed. 

Labour’s victory is nothing short of staggering, securing a majority of more than 170 while redrawing the political map across the UK. Addressing jubilant supporters this morning, the man who will become Britain’s fourth Prime Minister in two years spoke of “the sunlight of hope… shining once again.” He shall meet the King later today before heading to No 10 from where he will address the nation and, crucially, start putting together his government. 

After 14 years in power, the Conservatives have crumbled to just 119 MPs, suffering around 250 losses including such senior figures as Liz Truss, Grant Shapps and Jacob Rees-Mogg. Rishi Sunak managed to hold his Yorkshire seat, but he says he takes responsibility for his party’s calamitous defeat. He will almost certainly announce his resignation as leader of the Tory party later today, but he may in fact stay in the role for weeks or even months as senior Conservatives plot the process and timings by which they will search for a new leader. They may not have suffered the wipeout some polls predicted (there was talk yesterday of the party falling to fewer than 70 MPs) but it’s not much of a silver lining. The battle for the future of the Conservative party – and of the political right in Britain – is just beginning. 

A dramatic night at the polls also saw a surge in Liberal Democrat MPs, with Sir Ed Davey picking up at least 63 new colleagues. They will become a substantial political presence in Westminster once again, comfortably the third largest party. The SNP has lost nearly 40 MPs and Nigel Farage will take up a seat in Parliament, flanked by three other Reform UK MPs. There will also be a larger than usual number of independent MPs, including Jeremy Corbyn who managed to hold off the Labour tide in Islington North. 

But the story of the night – and the story of the months ahead – is all about Labour. Starmer has taken his party from the depths of defeat in 2019 to the giddy heights of total victory in just five years. It’s true that he benefited hugely from the collapse in support for the Conservatives, and from the fracturing of the Tory vote, but his achievement should be recognised for what it is; a political tsunami. 

Cabinet positions may become clear towards the end of the day while a host of ministerial appointments will take place over the weekend. The new Parliament – full of new faces – will meet for the first time on Tuesday, with the formal State Opening set for July 17, when the new government’s legislative agenda for the year ahead will be outlined. 

The Labour campaign has been criticised by many for being light on detail, but as of today, there’s nowhere to hide. This is now Starmer’s Britain; let’s see what he makes of it.

Posted in Uncategorised

They think it’s all over

With just over a week until the country votes, it’s worth reflecting on what – if anything – we’ve learned from the past few weeks of campaigning. The polls have hardly altered since the Prime Minister called the election, despite confident predictions that they would narrow as the campaign wore on. This forecast, a staple among commentators and not unvoiced even at Hawthorn, was based on the normally safe assumption that the electorate starts to pay attention and the parties run effective, smart campaigns. With regards to the former, it’s now clear the electorate made up its mind long ago and as for the latter, the campaigns have been notable only for the absurdities dogging the Conservatives and the timidity (or rigid discipline) of Labour’s efforts.

Future generations of politicians can look back on this period and conclude that you shouldn’t launch a campaign in the pouring rain; that Prime Ministers shouldn’t skip out early from international commemorations; that candidates shouldn’t bet on elections; that struggling campaigns shouldn’t hold photo calls in front of the Titanic; and that it’s tough to pose as tax-cutters-in-waiting having spent years hiking the levies to record highs. They might also conclude from close observations of the Labour campaign that, while saying as little as possible is a smart way for an opposition to get over the line against an unpopular incumbent, it surely stores up trouble for life in government.

Labour’s central (and winning) argument is that it’s time for change. From what to what? From chaos to… less chaos? To be fair, from Corbyn to not Corbyn is also a large part of Labour’s pitch. Nowhere has this transformation in attitude and approach been more apparent than in Labour’s new relationship with business. The party is now, we’re told, the natural home of wealth creators; the party of business. Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves and others have been singing this tune for months, just slightly louder in recent weeks. The business community has largely welcomed the reassurance from a party almost certain to form the next government, but the lack of detail hangs over this courtship.

Addressing business leaders at a Bloomberg event earlier this week, Shadow Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds opened his pitch to the room by saying “I can think of no reason why the Conservatives deserve another five years in office.” Many in the room would have agreed with the sentiment, but he was remarkably light on detail when it came to questions about how exactly a Labour government would run the economy and manage relationships with employers. The spectre of tax rises does not disappear just because Labour says they have “no plans” to raise them.

His opponent in that debate was Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch, one of several Tory MPs already being talked about as a potential Leader of the Opposition. In last week’s Headliner we looked at what life might be like for the Conservatives post-defeat, and this week we can report that the latest internal Tory party polling shows fewer than 100 of their MPs being returned. While Labour can hit the ground running with their “missions” and “first steps” well trailed, the Conservatives will spend months trying to figure out who they are, who they’re for, who should lead them and, crucially, what should be done about Nigel Farage?

It seems certain that next week’s vote will bring down the curtain on 14 years of Conservative government, but there the certainty ends. What exactly will a Labour government look like? We’re about to find out.


If you’d like to speak to Hawthorn about our Political Advisory offering please email Mark Burr at m.burr@hawthornadvisors.com.

Posted in Uncategorised

War party

As Defence Secretary, Grant Shapps could be expected to know a thing or two about military realities. Perhaps this is why he appeared to concede defeat in the General Election, describing a Tory victory as “unlikely.” As rallying cries go, it wasn’t exactly “we shall fight them on the beaches” from General Shapps.

The Conservative campaign is now saying publicly what they’ve long known privately; that Labour is on course to win – and win big. Defeat is one thing, but to have a once mighty army reduced to just a handful of troops while a victorious enemy parades through conquered territory would be the ultimate humiliation. Indeed, the Conservatives may have so few MPs left that His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition might resemble more a scrapy band of resistance fighters.

But who would lead such an outfit? Mr Doom and Gloom himself, Grant Shapps, is apparently positioning himself as an “energetic unifier” but the polls suggest he’ll be a casualty of Labour’s ground war. Robert Jenrick, one of the less subtle MPs on maneuvers, is facing a similar battle in his seat – as is the toast of the Navy’s officer class, Penny Mordaunt. That leaves James Cleverly, Tom Tugendhat, Kemi Badenoch, and Priti Patel free to plan their next moves, relatively safe in the knowledge that their voter base should hold off Labour’s advance. But a huge amount remains uncertain, and unknowable.

Tory MPs jostling for the leadership don’t even know which of their current colleagues will still be standing after July 4th, and the party membership – that body of activists that backed Boris Johnson and Liz Truss – is an unpredictable lot. Will they seek a right-wing figure, someone who could do business with Nigel Farage? Or might they succumb to one of their occasional bursts of pragmatism, as was on display when they picked the fresh-faced ‘change’ candidate of David Cameron? In other words, might we see a hitherto unacknowledged or underappreciated candidate rise from the ashes? And will they lead a band of 150 MPs, or 80?

The nature of the opposition matters, as does its calibre and effectiveness. If Keir Starmer stands up as Prime Minister with a majority north of 200, he will have achieved a kind of parliamentary imperium. Against such odds, the vital work of challenge and scrutiny will be difficult and thankless. At the same time, any new Tory leader will have to start out on a long road to recovery, devoid of hundreds of councilors, wary of Farge, battered by defeat and exhausted after 14 years of government – with the latter years characterised by civil war and strife.

The travails of the Tory party would be merely an entertaining sideshow as far as Labour is concerned. There’s no reason to disbelieve Starmer when he says he wants to change the country, and if the polls are correct, he’ll have not just the mandate but the muscle to do so.

One of the most senior political journalists in the country tells us that “the Tories really are facing an absolute catastrophe,” adding, for good measure “they’re f**ked.” If that turns out to be true, one of the few Conservatives left standing will have to pick up the fallen banners, gather the surviving troops and march them into one of the most frustrating, thankless, and dispiriting voids of British politics: the Opposition trenches.


If you’d like to speak to Hawthorn about our Political Advisory offering, please email Mark Burr at m.burr@hawthornadvisors.com.

Posted in Uncategorised

Manifestly unconvincing

The Conservatives have unveiled a “Jeremy Corbyn style” manifesto, according to the Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer.  That’s a sentence that sums up the unusual state of British politics, just three weeks out from polling day.

Starmer didn’t make the comparison as a compliment, despite having campaigned for his predecessor’s agenda just a few short years ago. Instead, he knows all too well that the public considered Corbyn’s pledges unbelievable, in the literal sense, and he’s keen to paint the latest Tory promises with the same brush.

Rishi Sunak maintains that yesterday’s commitments on future tax cuts are fully costed and eminently achievable, but it isn’t just a question of credibility. When a party that’s been in power for 14 years unveils a catalogue of great new ideas, the public is entitled to question why they haven’t done any of them already. Immigration controls? The figures are at a record high. Tax cuts? The burden is at a record high. House building? NHS reform? Higher defence spending? The same natural reaction greets all such pledges; you’ve had your chance.

For the Conservatives, there’s another problem in the mix. The measures contained in the manifesto are individually popular but there’s no evidence of them resuscitating the party’s dire poll rating. Why? Because the party is unpopular, as is its leader. This is where Starmer’s Corbyn comparison makes sense. His predecessor’s policies were popular. Remember the promise of free broadband for everyone? But when taken together and considered alongside the man making the promises and the party poised to deliver them, the voters recoiled.

Manifestos can be funny things. Michael Foot’s 1983 Labour manifesto was dubbed “the longest suicide note in history” – while in 2010 the Conservatives launched “an invitation to join the government of Great Britain” – but the RSVPs were sufficiently lukewarm to result in a hung parliament and a coalition government. Theresa May’s 2017 manifesto for the Conservatives was too clever by half, or too honest, and derailed her campaign once voters got spooked by the reality of her social care plan. As for the Boris Johnson manifesto of 2019, it was blown up by Covid then dumped by his successors in No 10.

So why bother with them at all? Do they change minds? Do parties regret being held to account? Why do they campaign in poetry if they know they’ll have to govern in prose?

The truth is that these set-piece campaign moments do at least allow parties to command attention for a day (one senior Tory campaign source tells us that they need the manifesto to help “move on” from Rishi Sunak’s disastrous D-Day debacle) and we should concede that it’s probably sensible for politicians to set out in detail what they’d do in office.

Labour will reveal their manifesto tomorrow, building on the various “missions” and “steps” they’ve already announced. The document is unlikely to contain many fireworks and will probably be more about offering detail on the pledges they’ve already made. Labour’s approach to the election has been described as a Ming vase strategy; tread carefully, don’t break it. One party insider tells us that “people are taking ‘change’ as the instruction and inspiration” adding that “the ‘don’t knows’ are breaking for Labour.” In this context, they don’t want a manifesto that spooks the very voters they’re trying to lure with promises of competence and stability.

In truth, what’s left out of the Labour manifesto will be just as interesting as what makes it in. There is a growing expectation that a Starmer government would set about raising a variety of taxes – including Capital Gains Tax – once in office, and that isn’t a policy you’d expect to see written down.

It would be too cynical to describe party manifestos as merely decorative, but it would be a stretch to consider them a binding contract.


If you’d like to speak to Hawthorn about our Political Advisory offering, please email Mark Burr at m.burr@hawthornadvisors.com.

Posted in Uncategorised

How to stop a problem turning into a crisis

When it comes to crisis communications, every situation is different. There are, however, certain skills and approaches that expert advisors can pick up and hone over the years, in order to guide a business and its leadership to the safest possible territory. Christian May talks to Hawthorn partner Jon Wynne-Jones about the art of crisis communications.

By definition, a crisis is unexpected if not entirely unforeseen. Is it possible to be totally prepared?
The companies who fare best in a crisis, or are able to skillfully prevent an issue developing into a crisis, are those who have taken time to review  and understand all their potential reputational threats. Nothing beats preparation, and when you’re faced with a serious problem it’s often too late to start from scratch. The protocols and procedures for an initial response should already have been agreed and understood, so leaders can act with forethought rather than trying to make snap decisions when facing a myriad of competing demands. As one example, we prepared an Issues Book for adidas ahead of the 2018 World Cup with a section on the unlikely scenario of the match ball bursting. Rather unbelievably, it happened in the first match, and we were able to respond within minutes, preventing the issue from unravelling on social media.

What’s the threshold for a crisis? How does it differ from a challenge, issue, problem, mistake or a bad day at the office?
A crisis is often the result of an issue or mistake being mismanaged. The significant difference between them is the level of negative attention a crisis creates for the organisation, and ultimately the impact it has on the reputation and the bottom line. Veteran Labour spin doctor Alastair Campbell used to measure crises by the length of time the story would last on the front pages, but whereas political crises can end with a resignation, a company can find that they take months to recover from. Recent examples that highlight the contrast between an issue and a crisis would be the debacle over the Co-Op Live arena cancellations and the Post Office scandal, which were – – respectively a short-lived embarrassment and an all engulfing, era-defining nadir.

What are some of the main mistakes that a business could make in the initial response to a crisis?
There is a fine balancing act to be managed in responding to a crisis. On the one hand, there is immediate pressure to comment, to provide clarity on the situation, but any engagement risks fueling the fire unless it is part of a comprehensive crisis comms plan. This tension can too often lead to businesses providing a statement before all the facts have been established or providing reassurances that prove to be unrealistic. In a worst-case scenario, this can see a business making a denial that later proves to be untrue. These types of errors can result in trust being shattered, sometimes permanently.

In the other extreme, some organisations refrain from commenting when it is clear that they are at fault, and the longer they remain silent, the more the outrage grows as they lose control of the narrative. For businesses with a large customer base or consumer-facing brand, effective communication is particularly vital in order to reassure, explain, and retain trust.

Can you give us an example of a business that has responded to a crisis well?
It depends on the nature of the crisis and the measure of success. Each crisis is different, for different reasons. Some may last a matter of days or weeks while others threaten much longer term ramifications. Anyone who really studies crisis communications is familiar with the Tylenol crisis at pharmaceutical giant Johnson and Johnson. Tylenol was American’s market-leading painkiller, but in 1982 someone tampered with a batch during production and the poisoning caused seven deaths in the Chicago area. It was horrific, but the response of Johnson and Johnson’s Chairman James Burke would become a model in effective crisis communications. An immediate policy of total openness combined with a national product recall and long-running media campaign was seen by some as a risky overreaction, but the company ultimately won plaudits for its constant and unvarnished communication. Burke basically said: “Do not take this product until I tell you it is safe to do.” And the public trusted him. The company’s market share and performance recovered within around 12 months, when it could so easily have collapsed if the crisis wasn’t handled and managed with such authority and clarity.

And less well?
RedBird’s recent attempt to acquire the Telegraph with the UAE-based IMI emphasised the importance of communications, and how mismanaged corporate affairs can snowball into geopolitical complications. As the groundswell of opposition to the proposed takeover gained an increasingly broad coalition, the ferocity of the criticism directed towards the Gulf state led to strained diplomatic relations. In believing that they could do a deal directly with the Barclays, they ignored the need to build an alliance of advocates to support the benefits of the move and completely underestimated the level of hostility that a UAE-backed acquisition would provoke amongst Telegraph and Spectator staff. Their complacency meant that they were never in control of a story that spiraled out of their control and has run prominently for much of this year.

Depending on the nature of the crisis, presumably there could be a different emphasis on internal and external communications?
While there tends to be a greater focus on external communications during a crisis, internal communications is hugely important, not only for keeping staff informed and motivated, but also for preventing the issue being exacerbated by the negative reaction of employees. For example, during the investigation into allegations of misconduct by DJ Tim Westwood, staff at broadcasting giant Global revealed that they had been told not to report the claims and some of the presenters went public on social media in voicing their disquiet, compounding the crisis. Internal communications should be aligned with what is expressed externally as anything that is inconsistent risks making the organisation look disingenuous. All audiences need to be considered; whether that’s suppliers and customers or stakeholders, staff and the media.

How has the impact of a crisis changed over recent years? Has it become harder to contain or respond to?
The inexorable growth of social media and 24-hour news have changed the immediacy of a crisis, and increased the pressure to respond quicker. With the level of scrutiny now more forensic than ever, one misstep has the potential to cause significant damage: an unguarded comment to a reporter or an ill-judged tweet can deepen a crisis. The power of lobby groups and influencers online can inflame and distort an issue, leaving an organisation at risk of losing control. If a crisis used to be measured by the level of coverage in the papers, the amount of engagement the issue receives online is now a determining factor. However, engaging with critics online is rarely advisable or beneficial because the conversations tend to be so febrile and partisan.

Although social media and 24-hour news may have changed the impact and spread of a crisis, the rules behind managing them remain largely the same. The best way to control widespread attacks is to demonstrate contrition where appropriate, control of the situation with clear communications and an honest commitment to addressing it.

Quite often a company’s systems and protocols are revealed by a crisis; either found to be up to scratch or found wanting. How should businesses put their crisis playbook into the best possible shape?
The best way to test their crisis playbook is through practice. Crisis simulation sessions, which involve realistic scenarios played out online and mock interviews of the leadership team, gauge how clearly the organisation has defined their processes and whether the messaging sounds authentic and persuasive. Playbooks need to be constantly reviewed and updated to ensure they remain relevant. There might be occasions when a crisis has emerged that hasn’t been foreseen, but the central principles of how to handle the response remain the same.

In a lot of cases, there ends up being a tension between the advice of lawyers and the advice of communications professionals. How should this dynamic be managed?
An organisation’s lawyers are understandably, and rightly, circumspect in the wake of a crisis, as they are wary about any comments, internally or externally, that could undermine their position. This can cause a tension with the comms advisors who have similar concerns that by saying nothing, a business can worsen the crisis by creating the wrong impression. Silence can seem arrogant and aloof, not in control of a situation or in denial as well as ceding the narrative to the media and critics. Best practice sees the legal and PR teams working collaboratively, sacrificing any self-interests to put the client first. The legal ramifications need to take precedence, but when the teams work efficiently together, the organisation is allowed to provide comment when relevant, with the content having been agreed with the lawyers. On occasions when it is mystifying that an organisation has not commented on a crisis, it will often be due to restraints from the legal team, in which case other forms of communication need to be considered. When Thomas Cook was accused of negligence following the deaths of two children at one of their package hotels, their months of silence became unbearable and ultimately contributed to a catastrophic reputational hit.

It probably isn’t desirable but is it possible to have a good crisis?
While nobody welcomes a crisis, handled well they present an opportunity for a company to demonstrate its values. Those companies who express genuine remorse where they’ve made a mistake, clearly take care of their customers and articulate how they have addressed the issue, can find their brand enhanced with people clearer about their identity. One of the best managed crises of recent years remains when KFC ran out of chicken, which could have been a deeply embarrassing episode. Instead, by responding quickly and intelligently on social media, they gained widespread acclaim for how they engaged with their customers. demonstrating the values of a company that understands its customers. The way they used humour, rearranging the letters to spell FCK on a chicken bucket, and kept their customers informed through each stage of correcting the issue, was a perfect example of how a failure can be transformed into a win.

Described as “unmatched in shaping the news agenda” by the British Press Awards, Jon Wynne-Jones oversees our work supporting clients facing issues and crises, with extensive experience of helping global companies and federations to navigate reputational challenges.

Posted in Uncategorised

No body blows in leaders’ head to head

The thing to remember about last night’s TV debate is that the two leaders were pitching squarely at an audience who were probably paying attention to the campaign for the first time. That’s their hope, anyway.

Political obsessives (which includes almost all journalists and most people on Twitter) may have followed the twists and turns of every Multilevel Regression and Poststratification opinion poll since the election was called, but most people haven’t. TV debates, still a novelty in this country, represent a fresh chance for the parties to hammer their key messages, deluge social media with clips, make an impression and dominate the headlines and airwaves. So, if it seemed to you as if Starmer and Sunak were robotic in their repetition of simplistic messages (change with Labour or a bold plan with the Conservatives), it’s because they fully intended to. A political slogan isn’t doing its job until the public becomes fed up with hearing it, and the 4.8 million people who watched the debate were probably close to this point by the end of it.

In that context, it’s no surprise we didn’t get a gladiatorial clash of intellects and philosophies. The format didn’t help, either, with ITV’s Julie Etchingham determined to cover as much ground as possible. Thus, mere moments were spent eliciting soundbites on such weighty topics as the future of the economy, global security, climate change, and immigration.

As for the leaders’ performances, there was a marked difference between the two.

Starmer had turned up expecting a rules-based regency duel, only to find Sunak putting on some knuckle dusters. The PM might have delivered his opening statement as if he were reading it off the back of a cereal box, but as soon as the questions started, he showed some fighting spirit. Another way to put it would be “rude and abrasive” – constantly interrupting Starmer and disregarding the agreed rules regarding who speaks when and for how long. The Labour leader routinely muttered “desperate” in the face of Sunak’s barrage of jibes, perhaps forgetting that the Tory leader was indeed in a desperate situation. Polls this week have shown he’s on course to lead his party into oblivion.

Tories needing a boost could cling to the notion that their guy did better than expected. One Tory advisor who watched the debate at party HQ told Hawthorn it was “the best evening of the campaign so far” and said there was plenty of cheering and table banging among staffers. Of course, if the PM couldn’t raise a cheer from his staff, he would be in trouble.

Snap polling of the viewing public by YouGov found that Sunak ‘won’ – by a single percentage point, but as a Labour source told us: “the debate polling has aged better overnight with Starmer leading on substance and all aspects including NHS, economy, immigration, the economy and cost of living as well as overall with a much wider poll.”

As for the different styles the two leaders took, Labour insiders are confident that Starmer’s calmer, more measured tone will ultimately prevail over Sunak’s “what have I got to lose?” aggression.

The Tories can chalk up ‘not crashing and burning’ as a modest victory, but turning their campaign around will take more than that. Indeed, there are signs that the PM’s performance is unravelling. He made much of “Treasury analysis” claiming that Labour’s spending plans will amount to a £2,000 tax bill for every family in the UK, but this morning the Treasury’s top civil servant has said the claims shouldn’t have been used and certainly shouldn’t have been attributed to independent officials.

Labour will be pleased that the debate seems to have allowed Starmer to reassert his more statesman-like qualities, while the Tories have yet to even digest the impact of Nigel Farage’s return to frontline politics, the consequences of which are likely to silence any further cheers from inside Conservative Campaign Headquarters.


If you’d like to speak to Hawthorn about our Political Advisory offering, please email Mark Burr at m.burr@hawthornadvisors.com.

Posted in Uncategorised

Hawthorn joins UK trade mission in the Middle East

Recently, Hawthorn Advisors joined a UK trade mission to Riyadh to mark a flourishing relationship. Among the fin tech, ed tech, med tech, media tech, everything tech, entrepreneurs, were leaders of the great cultural institutions; our museums, opera houses, concert halls.

Political leaders are begging our cultural sector to be “a bit more French” in promoting ourselves. Our architects and designers already know the opportunities in a kingdom unfurling the wonders of its history and cultural identity, too long hidden from the rest of the world. Tourism will follow.

Standing in the sandstone evening sunlight of Diriyah, our delegation mused on how we might be a bit showier about our own cultural excellence. One suggested a national day. We really liked the logo of Great next to the Union flag. One of the guests had masterminded the opening ceremony of the London Olympics, and suggested playfulness was a national quality which was under rated.

Which other country would simulate the Queen sky diving in a James Bond sketch? 

We might also celebrate a tradition of craft, which King Charles champions tirelessly. It was this that Walpole, the official sector body for UK luxury, was cheerleading in Riyadh.

Interviewed on stage was the chair of Walpole, Michael Ward, who is the Managing Director of Harrods. He has described luxury retailing as a state of mind, an aura of uncompromising quality, innovative, lasting. Since Michael has been in the job for 20 years, he seems to have become a luxury item himself.

One of his first acts was to move Harrods away from being defined by its seasonal sales. Flogging a mass of stuff brought in for the purpose, is not luxury.

Helen Brocklebank, CEO of Walpole, welcomes membership on the following criteria: “You should be outstanding in your own particular field and exemplify the highest standards in terms of quality, style, design, craftsmanship, creativity, service, innovation and sustainability.”

Where once luxury might be equated simply with wealth, it is now imbued with values of excellence and sustainability. It is rarer. And the expense is not arbitrary. If a bag is made from natural materials and designed with skill and if the environment and community which produces this bag is valued, it takes time, and you are paying for that. Luxury is patient.

The backlash against fast fashion, which debased creativity and trashed the environment has led to a greater respect for luxury brands. The big challenge for luxury is how far its customers will embrace recycling materials. A friend of mine who designs high end fabrics says she has been initially disheartened by her attempts to entice the American market to accept more sustainable or recycled materials. For some customers, new linen or cashmere is non-negotiable.

Luxury brands have, unsurprisingly, being less hit by the cost of living than other brands, and have a chance to plough profits into innovative, sustainable materials, supply chains and skills.

A resurgence of skills and craftsmanship would be a wonderful thing for the UK and its place in the world.

I have been reading The Radical Potter, by Tristram Hunt, the director of the V and A museum, which was created in order inspire a nation of craft and design.

The full title of the book is The Radical Potter: Josiah Wedgwood and the Transformation of Britain.

It is not an empty claim. When Wedgwood created the famous Frog Service, for Catherine the Great, crowds came to view it.  The happy client, in turn, praised Britain as “that island of wisdom, courage and virtue.”

Posted in Uncategorised

Labour’s banking on a stability dividend

For Labour, this election campaign marks the culmination of a process that’s been underway since Keir Starmer became leader; to reassure the business community by burying his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn’s far-left agenda. Earning the trust of the business community has been a central part of this plan, and it has worked. We can tell it’s worked because nobody laughed when Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves declared yesterday that the Labour party “is now the natural party of business” and that she plans to run the “most pro growth, pro business Treasury in the history of our country.”

What does this mean in practice?

According to Reeves, it means going for growth with all the enthusiasm of Liz Truss but without the unfunded market-spooking radicalism. In her speech at Rolls Royce in Derby, Reeves reiterated her pledge to abide by robust fiscal rules as well as her commitment to getting debt falling by the end of the parliament. She also recommitted to a new “Business Tax Roadmap”, first announced at the Labour Business conference in February, to be published within six months of an election win, providing certainty over taxation for the life of the parliament – including a pledge to cap Corporation Tax at its current rate. Labour has also rowed back on some of the more controversial elements of a new “workers’ rights” package, promising that nothing will be imposed without a thorough consultation and input from employers. Labour’s plan to replace the unpopular Apprenticeship Levy with a new approach to skills training will have also caught the attention of bosses.

But woven through these specific pledges runs a more nebulous idea: partnership. Reeves dismissed the “free market dogma of the past” in favour of “a new spirit of partnership” with British business. “Our plans for growth,” she said, “are built on partnership with business.”

The party has made much of its newly minted links with business leaders, not least in financial services and in the formation of an industrial strategy, but one of the most eye-catching expressions of what a partnership could look like comes in the form of Labour’s planned National Wealth Fund.

The policy is being worked on as we speak by The Green Finance Institute and members of this early-stage commission include Legal and General, Aviva, NatWest, USS and other pension funds plus some green campaign groups. The plan is to kickstart the fund with around £7bn of public money before, as Reeves puts it, “crowding in tens of billions from the private sector.” The subsequent investments will be targeted at national infrastructure projects, with an emphasis on the green transition and low carbon energy generation. While we await details of how exactly this will work, it’s worth noting that the terminology is misleading. A “Wealth Fund” puts one in mind of countries like Norway, whose Sovereign Wealth Fund is valued at north of £1 trillion and includes stakes in over 9,000 companies globally. Labour’s plan appears to be more of a Development Fund, financing shared public-private infrastructure schemes.

The legal, regulatory, governance, risk and compliance elements of such a scheme are myriad and complex, and while they don’t amount to a reason not to try it, they should certainly serve to dampen the spirits of anyone who envisages a rapidly established, well capitalised and agile investment vehicle.

The likelihood is that a Fund such as this, however muscular, will not on its own be able to deliver anything like the kind of economic growth on which Starmer and Reeves are so clearly basing their future plans. With further surprise tax rises ruled out and a pledge not to borrow to fund day-to-day expenditure, only rapid and sustained GDP growth will allow Labour to deliver on its ambitions.

And here we come full circle. Back in 2010 a young David Cameron and his then Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, talked of “sharing the proceeds of growth.” Future reductions in the tax burden and uplifts in public spending would only come, they said, from growing the economy. This is almost word for word Labour’s policy today.

Until the full manifesto is published, the central offering from Starmer and Reeves – to the country as much as to the business community in particular – is that “stability and certainty” will be restored to British policy making. As Reeves said yesterday in one of the less catchy soundbites of the campaign, “stability is change.” It may well be the case that a sense of competence and a less volatile political environment yields an uptick in business sentiment and investor activity, but on its own it’s unlikely to improve the intransigent rates of sluggish GDP growth that have characterised so many developed economies in recent years.

Labour is banking on a stability dividend, and there’s no shortage of businesses or individuals ready to cash one in after years of political and economic shocks, but a large part of Labour’s promised stability actually takes the form of continuity; on spending plans, headline tax rates and fiscal rules. These are political calculations designed in large part to reassure an electorate and head off political attacks, but they leave Labour with a set of policies that risk falling short of their own rhetoric.


If you’d like to speak to Hawthorn about our Political Advisory offering, please email Mark Burr at m.burr@hawthornadvisors.com.

Posted in Uncategorised

Labour’s banking on a stability dividend

For Labour, this election campaign marks the culmination of a process that’s been underway since Keir Starmer became leader; to reassure the business community by burying his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn’s far-left agenda. Earning the trust of the business community has been a central part of this plan, and it has worked. We can tell it’s worked because nobody laughed when Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves declared yesterday that the Labour party “is now the natural party of business” and that she plans to run the “most pro growth, pro business Treasury in the history of our country.”

What does this mean in practice?

According to Reeves, it means going for growth with all the enthusiasm of Liz Truss but without the unfunded market-spooking radicalism. In her speech at Rolls Royce in Derby, Reeves reiterated her pledge to abide by robust fiscal rules as well as her commitment to getting debt falling by the end of the parliament. She also recommitted to a new “Business Tax Roadmap”, first announced at the Labour Business conference in February, to be published within six months of an election win, providing certainty over taxation for the life of the parliament – including a pledge to cap Corporation Tax at its current rate. Labour has also rowed back on some of the more controversial elements of a new “workers’ rights” package, promising that nothing will be imposed without a thorough consultation and input from employers. Labour’s plan to replace the unpopular Apprenticeship Levy with a new approach to skills training will have also caught the attention of bosses.

But woven through these specific pledges runs a more nebulous idea: partnership. Reeves dismissed the “free market dogma of the past” in favour of “a new spirit of partnership” with British business. “Our plans for growth,” she said, “are built on partnership with business.”

The party has made much of its newly minted links with business leaders, not least in financial services and in the formation of an industrial strategy, but one of the most eye-catching expressions of what a partnership could look like comes in the form of Labour’s planned National Wealth Fund.

The policy is being worked on as we speak by The Green Finance Institute and members of this early-stage commission include Legal and General, Aviva, NatWest, USS and other pension funds plus some green campaign groups. The plan is to kickstart the fund with around £7bn of public money before, as Reeves puts it, “crowding in tens of billions from the private sector.” The subsequent investments will be targeted at national infrastructure projects, with an emphasis on the green transition and low carbon energy generation. While we await details of how exactly this will work, it’s worth noting that the terminology is misleading. A “Wealth Fund” puts one in mind of countries like Norway, whose Sovereign Wealth Fund is valued at north of £1 trillion and includes stakes in over 9,000 companies globally. Labour’s plan appears to be more of a Development Fund, financing shared public-private infrastructure schemes.

The legal, regulatory, governance, risk and compliance elements of such a scheme are myriad and complex, and while they don’t amount to a reason not to try it, they should certainly serve to dampen the spirits of anyone who envisages a rapidly established, well capitalised and agile investment vehicle.

The likelihood is that a Fund such as this, however muscular, will not on its own be able to deliver anything like the kind of economic growth on which Starmer and Reeves are so clearly basing their future plans. With further surprise tax rises ruled out and a pledge not to borrow to fund day-to-day expenditure, only rapid and sustained GDP growth will allow Labour to deliver on its ambitions.

And here we come full circle. Back in 2010 a young David Cameron and his then Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, talked of “sharing the proceeds of growth.” Future reductions in the tax burden and uplifts in public spending would only come, they said, from growing the economy. This is almost word for word Labour’s policy today.

Until the full manifesto is published, the central offering from Starmer and Reeves – to the country as much as to the business community in particular – is that “stability and certainty” will be restored to British policy making. As Reeves said yesterday in one of the less catchy soundbites of the campaign, “stability is change.” It may well be the case that a sense of competence and a less volatile political environment yields an uptick in business sentiment and investor activity, but on its own it’s unlikely to improve the intransigent rates of sluggish GDP growth that have characterised so many developed economies in recent years.

Labour is banking on a stability dividend, and there’s no shortage of businesses or individuals ready to cash one in after years of political and economic shocks, but a large part of Labour’s promised stability actually takes the form of continuity; on spending plans, headline tax rates and fiscal rules. These are political calculations designed in large part to reassure an electorate and head off political attacks, but they leave Labour with a set of policies that risk falling short of their own rhetoric.


If you’d like to speak to Hawthorn about our Political Advisory offering, please email Mark Burr at m.burr@hawthornadvisors.com.

Posted in Uncategorised

Hawthorn hosts AI briefing for City leaders

The financial and professional services industry has been using various forms of AI and automation for decades, but just like the rest of us they’ve also been swept up in the huge advances in machine learning and generative AI that have exploded in recent years, even recent months. Goldman Sachs forecast that $200bn will be commercially invested in AI by 2025, up from around $130bn last year. Gartner, meanwhile, claims it will be $300bn by 2027. Bloomberg Intelligence forecast this week that the figure will be $1.3trillion by 2032 and Skyquest analytics say the figure will reach $170bn of AI investment in financial and professional services alone by 2031. Whether these forecasts will prove accurate or not the level of expectation today tells us how seriously the sector is being taken. But to what end? Why? And what does this investment actually look like?

On Wednesday morning Hawthorn Advisors gathered an expert panel to discuss this and to explore how AI is changing the financial services industry – and how it might continue to change as the various forms of AI get smarter, more accessible and more bespoke. 

City Minister Bim Afolami joined Lisa Quest of consultancy Oliver Wyman, Megan Bulford of the CBI’s financial services policy team and Dr Lewis Liu, CEO and co-founder of Eigen Technologies which uses advanced AI to turn mountains of documents into dynamic, meaningful data for banks, insurance companies and the healthcare industry. Between them the discussion took in a huge range of topics from AI’s limitations to the global regulatory landscape, legal risks, transformative potential and impact on jobs and the wider economy. 

One of the main themes sparking discussion between the panellists and among the invited audience was whether businesses (and the UK more broadly) have access to the sufficient level of skills to exploit the advantages AI can bring to a business. “AI knowhow cannot be confined to the tech team,” was how one panellist put it, while others noted that upskilling and training has to be part of all our lives in the years ahead. The emerging regulatory environment also proved to be a hot topic, with a consensus emerging that the UK stands to benefit from its light-touch approach, perhaps in contrast to the stringent regime imposed across the EU. 

When it comes to the application of AI in the financial services industry, panellists explored the many business functions already being replaced or enhanced by AI technology, not least in risk management and in mobilising a company’s institutional memory through the AI-powered analysis of existing data, documents and precedent. This speaks to the immense productivity gains that AI enables, and panellists felt that the economic benefits of this transformation will be felt nationally – not least given the prevalence (or dominance) of the financial and professional services sector within the UK economy. There was a general sense of optimism and excitement as the use cases and practical benefits of AI continue to reveal themselves, but several cautious notes were sounded by our expert speakers. These tended to relate to questions of risk and barriers to adoption – be they cultural, technological or financial. Some panellists expressed serious concern that regulators, be they global or local, will continue to be outmanoeuvred by large AI firms – not least in areas such as copyright protection, which remains a live issue before the courts in many jurisdictions.

In a sector where the technology is moving so fast, but with no genuinely settled regulatory framework in place, many firms will find themselves trapped between a fear of missing out and a cautious wait-and-see approach. What’s abundantly clear is that any discussion on AI, particularly one involving such informed experts, inevitably touches on grand philosophical questions as much as it does on the mechanics of large language models. Lewis Liu, who holds a rare joint honours from Harvard in fine art and physics, was particularly strong on the social, cultural and political debates sparked by AI’s rapid development. 

Hawthorn’s guests in the audience, drawn from across the banking, fintech, legal and investor community, benefited from an extremely wide-ranging, stimulating and lively debate, as evidenced by the range of questions posed from the floor. There is a huge appetite for informed, open discussion on this topic, whether from those who are far advanced in their AI deployment or those still searching for the right path to take. 

Posted in Uncategorised

The Hawthorn Headliner – General Election briefing

At 5pm on 22nd May 2024, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced his intention to call a General Election for 4th July. His decision confounded the expectations of the many pundits and politicians who had predicted an autumn election.

There will be a rush of activity over the coming weeks, with the race starting immediately. Read below for Hawthorn Advisors’ analysis on what to expect and what this means for businesses.

Analysis

In the end, Rishi Sunak took almost everyone by surprise. Just days ago, he laughed when he told the presenters of ITV’s Loose Women that their “summer was safe” – when pushed on a date for the General Election. Looking back on that exchange, he clearly meant “from July 5th onwards…”

The surprise announcement set Westminster abuzz, not least because political journalists live for elections. But what of the reaction elsewhere? Tory MPs, many of whom were banking on an October or November poll, now face the prospect of having their careers and livelihoods cut short by several months, to put it bluntly. The mood among some is said to be mutinous. “This is madness,” says one. Others may be more resigned, while some seem more up for the fight. “Bring it on,” said Rupert Harrison, one of a new breed of Conservative candidates facing an uphill fight in a new parliamentary constituency in Oxfordshire.

As election announcements go, it was inauspicious. Sunak stood at the lectern outside Number 10 and the rain fell. He was almost drowned out by that great New Labour anthem – Things Can Only Get Better, blasted at the gates of Downing Street by one of the resident protestors. And the bible of Conservative politics, The Spectator, had just sent its latest edition to print with a stark leading article concluding: “calling a summer election would be madness for the Tories.” MPs can read it in the coming days as they gear up for the fight of their lives.

As for the speech, Sunak started with what sounded like a long list of excuses, just to remind us: we’ve been through a pandemic, war in Europe, and energy shocks. The subtext was clear—”this mess isn’t my fault.” While his case for the defence was trotted out without any energy or enthusiasm into the microphone: our economy is turning a corner, the world is dangerous, Labour doesn’t have a plan, don’t risk your vote on them.

The Labour leader won’t need to feign his enthusiasm for an election, starting as he is a whopping 20 points ahead in the polls. Those polls may narrow, and the coming six weeks will serve up all the usual daily twists and dramas of election campaigns, but even something in Sunak’s tone of voice – never the most natural – suggested the PM knows the mountain is high and the odds of success are painfully small. It’s a sense you can get in person from cabinet ministers. They will tell you how hard they intend to fight. They are less keen to say that they think they can win. The image of a drenched Prime Minister sloping back into Number 10 may well resonate with voters watching the evening news.

Doubtless, the weather will improve, and doubtless, the long evenings ahead informed the decision to go to the country early, in contrast to the prospects of campaigning for votes in the cold and dark days of Autumn. But the Conservatives will need more than a break in the weather to put a spring in their step. The last time an election was held in July was 1945. The country was emerging from hardship and war, and the country returned a Labour government by a landslide.

What happens now?

There is a 25-day gap between Parliament being dissolved and the date of the election. This is formally the election period, when MPs standing in the election become candidates once again, and government business concludes. For an election to be held on 4th July, Parliament must dissolve on 30 May. For this to happen, the short May recess will be cancelled so that Parliament can wrap up its remaining business.

Before Parliament is dissolved, there will be a legislative ‘wash-up’ period, during which the fate of the remaining Bills that have not yet achieved Royal Assent will be decided. In a departure from the usual process, Bills are expedited through all their remaining stages in a matter of hours. It’s a rare moment when the Opposition has extreme power to agree on what legislation gets nodded through and what gets struck down.

There are 16 Government Bills, 2 Hybrid Bills (a mix of public and private bills), and 10 Commons Private Members’ Bills that have not yet received Royal Assent. The most contentious of which may not be passed, or Labour may negotiate changes to Bills over areas they disagree with. Those with popular crossbench support, such as the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, may yet survive, which Sunak nodded to in his speech.

What can businesses expect?

With just six weeks until polling day, the parties will enter a dash to finalise their manifestos and prepare for the campaign. Regardless of whether a Labour majority is the forgone conclusion that most pollsters predict, Parliament’s makeup will look vastly different in two months’ time. For businesses, now is the time to focus on what a new government of either colour might mean for your industry, and to consider the figures who will be influential in the future of your sector.

We will be posting regular updates during the campaign on policy and politics and how that might affect your business. If you’d like to speak to us about Hawthorn’s Political Advisory offering, please email Mark Burr at m.burr@hawthornadvisors.com.

Posted in Uncategorised

Economic reality risks ruining the party games

Inflation down (3.2 per cent), wage growth up (6 per cent) and economic growth restored (0.6 per cent GDP growth over Q1) – so are champagne corks popping in Downing Street? Put the bubbly back on ice. Firstly, “we’re no longer in recession” isn’t the rallying cry some people think it is, and the rapid pace of wage growth – while undoubtedly good news for workers – is actually ringing alarm bells in some quarters given the impact it might have on inflation and, therefore, interest rates. The UK unemployment rate is also ticking steadily up, with the hundreds of thousands of long-term sick now almost certain to become Labour’s problem. The government’s message is understandable; stick with us, the plan is working, don’t risk it by letting Labour back in. The problem is, this approach is akin to standing in the middle of a biblical flood and telling everyone that you think the sun is beginning to burn through the cloud. They might be pleased to see it, but they have more immediate concerns. 

In 1997 the opinion polls were clear that John Major was facing electoral defeat, with Tony Blair’s New Labour poised for power. The fact that Major could point to an economic rising tide made no difference to his fortunes and he ultimately bequeathed one of the best economic legacies to his successor. The data might have painted a decent picture but the public were in no mood to reward the Tories. They’d been in power for too long, they were riddled with internal divisions, their Prime Minister (despite electoral success in 1992) was gravely weakened, the party’s reputation for economic competence had been undermined by events and the mood of the country had shifted. Is history about to repeat itself? 

It’s even possible that a narrative of economic revival benefits the opposition more than the government, adding to a sense of renewal and a change of direction rather than shoring up the incumbents. But other than some modest GDP growth and a more temperate inflationary environment, what kind of economy would a Labour government inherit?

That the Conservatives have made some economic missteps is not in doubt, but none have been as consequential as the cost of the pandemic. We don’t like to talk about it these days, but the government’s pandemic response came with a price tag approaching £400bn. In 2020/21 the state spent £200bn more than it had budget for. This is to say nothing of the cost to the Treasury from the wider economic collapse, the loss of growth and the deep economic scarring, and it doesn’t take into account the many tens of billions then spent in response to the global energy price shock. This is real money and the consequences of such unprecedented expenditure will be felt for decades, most immediately in the form of higher taxes – regardless of who wins the election. 

So, while the Tories can forget about voters rewarding them for a modest uptick in public finances, so too can Labour dismiss the idea that they’ll be able to turn on the spending taps the moment they take office. After the 2010 general election the outgoing Chief Secretary to the Treasury left a note for his Conservative successor; “sorry there’s no money left.” The current occupant of that office might very well end up reaching for the same sentiment.

Given that Labour has ruled out any hikes to income tax, the smart money says they’ll be looking at raising revenue through relatively less politically sensitive reforms in areas such as wealth, property, inheritance, dividends and capital gains. All governments sneak in stealth taxes. Gordon Brown was famous for it and the current government has allowed fiscal drag to do the heavy lifting. If Labour do target wealth, capital and dividends for tax increases will they do it without fanfare or instead seek to benefit from the political dividing line that such moves would open up? 

As the election approaches the Conservatives will continue to treat the economic recovery like a Ming vase – “don’t let anyone else touch it” – but we also know they’d like to make a big retail offer on tax cuts, whether ahead of the election or as a future aspiration. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt dipped his toe in these waters with hints about a potential abolition of National Insurance at some point in the future, but the idea has allowed Labour to warn about the “black hole” such a move would produce in the public finances. In short, we’re starting to see the coming economic debate take shape, but we should all keep a close eye on the details and take any pre-election promise with a pinch of salt. The parties may feel liberated by the rush of political battle but they will be constrained by economic reality.


If you’d like to speak to Hawthorn about our Political Advisory offering, please email Mark Burr at m.burr@hawthornadvisors.com.

Posted in Uncategorised

All politics is local

You might not plan on staying up through the small hours of Friday morning to watch the local election results trickle in, but Thursday’s set of polls are nevertheless set to be revealing and consequential. Over a hundred local authorities in England are electing councillors while ten Mayoralties are up for grabs, including in the capital where residents will also be voting for members of the London Assembly.

Once the votes are counted there will be plenty to pore over, right down to individual council wards as party strategists seek to identify their strongholds, their opponents’ weak spots and the gaping holes in their own defences. Taken together, Thursday’s elections will offer a substantial if incomplete glimpse into the state of the nation. While it may feel as if the political narrative is well established (Rishi on the ropes, Starmer on the up) the results of this week’s ballots will refine and sharpen that narrative and may even change it – not least when it comes to the mood within the Tory party.

And while for many people the votes will be about local planning issues and bin collections, the results will also matter for businesses with an eye on the future political and economic direction of the country. So, what should we be looking out for, and what might be we discussing as the dust settles over the weekend?

What would be a good night for Labour?

The first thing to look for will be the size of the anticipated Labour gains. Political parties that are about to move from opposition to government invariably make large council gains in the local elections closest to the general election. This was true in 1979, 1997 and 2010 – three elections that saw a transfer of power at Westminster. If Labour’s share of the vote hits north of 45 per cent, it will point to a sizeable majority at the general election. As for the Tories, they’re already rolling the pitch with talk of “a tough night ahead” but even while they anticipate a drubbing in council elections, they’re holding out for two key mayoral wins; retaining the leadership of the West Midlands and Tees Valley. In the former, Andy Street has become more of a CEO of the West Midlands, while in the Northeast Ben Houchen has become a poster boy for so-called Red Wall conservatism and tangible levelling-up gains. To lose one of them would be unfortunate; to lose both would be careless. One Tory source tells us they’re “hopeful we can hang on to Houchen and Street” – suggesting that good news is likely to be thin on the ground come Friday morning, while a Labour source says both contests are on a knife edge and “MPs and candidates have been mandated to hit the phones and call voters in these areas to press for the win.”

A tale of two cities

The other big vote is of course for the Mayor of London. The polls suggest Sadiq Khan is on course to win a third term, but the Conservative Candidate Susan Hall insists she’s in with a chance, and while the conventional wisdom is that she won’t make it over the line, she does have her supporters. Nevertheless, there are plenty of Conservatives who think their chances would have been increased with a different candidate. One plugged-in former Tory advisor admits there are plenty of people in the party – and in Number Ten – who “can’t quite believe they allowed themselves to end up with Hall as their choice”, confident that Khan could have been defeated by a stronger Conservative candidate, perhaps in the style of Andy Street. That said, Hall is extremely popular among London-based members of the Conservative party and she has a large activist base. She also has a clear message for the large block of outer-London voters when it comes to the Mayor’s controversial ULEZ expansion (she’d reverse it) so don’t be surprised if she puts in a good showing. The change to the voting system (it’s now a clear first-past-the-post system) also gives her a boost.

It’s not just Red vs. Blue

And what of the other parties? If the Liberal Democrats are to take advantage of Conservative woes in the southern heartlands at the general election, then they will need to show progress in Rochford, Eastleigh and outer London boroughs such as Sutton and Merton if they are to convince voters to switch. Tory strategists are likely to be more concerned about bleeding votes to the right, with Reform polling at around 12% and already costing them thousands of votes at recent by-elections – a trend Sunak can’t afford to see repeated at the election. Labour strategists will also be keeping one eye on Bristol City Council, where the Greens are already the largest party (by one) and are hoping to pose a serious challenge in the new Bristol Central seat at the general election.

When the dust settles

In the wake of widespread Tory losses – especially if those losses include their crown jewel mayors in the West Midlands and Tees Valley – then the weekend papers will be even more full than usual of plots and briefings against Rishi Sunak. One Conservative adviser we spoke to concedes that “if it’s really bad on Thursday there will be lots of questions and it’ll be difficult for Number 10,” but adds that “the cabinet is full square behind Rishi and there’s just no appetite for a leadership election.” That final point might not be shared with Tory backbenchers, many of whom face losing their seat in a general election and may feel they have nothing to lose by rolling the dice on a new leader.

While the Tories will doubtless indulge in another round of infighting, however far it gets them, Labour’s messaging over the weekend will almost certainly be based on momentum, breakthroughs, the regaining of trust among voters and their readiness to fight a general election. The contrast with the Tories will be stark, something that won’t be lost on the public. Thursday’s votes constitute the last ‘live’ test of public opinion before the general election. The results and the picture they paint will feed into strategy and messaging for the months ahead, and the national campaign will be underway.


If you’d like to speak to Hawthorn about our Political Advisory offering, please email Mark Burr at m.burr@hawthornadvisors.com.

Posted in Uncategorised