View a full range of our ebooks

View full library


Our Location

The PHA Group
117 Wardour Street,
Hammer House,

0207 0251 350
PHA Digital Studio
Fourth Floor,
47 Dean St,

0207 0251 350
PHA Finance Department
117 Wardour Street,
Hammer House,

0207 0251 350

A view from Conservative Party Conference

A view from Conservative Party Conference

As 12,000 tired and slightly worse for wear delegates begin to recover from a busy 4 days at Conservative Party Conference, Number 10 will be breathing a quiet sigh of relief. With no gaffes, and few MPs causing trouble (Osborne, Gove et al stayed away), Theresa May sailed through her first party conference as leader with flying colours. More importantly though, we got our first real insight into what ‘Mayism’ might mean for the country.

Overall, the delegates felt optimistic and united, with Theresa May and her new Ministers receiving a strong reception throughout. However, the mood was also serious – there was a sense that this Government would be a safe pair of hands, that all policy would be fully considered, and that there would be a lack of gimmicks. It was clear that many felt that Theresa May’s premiership (and the Labour Party’s collapse) was a great opportunity to reach out and expand beyond the Party’s traditional base. Perhaps this was most noticeable at the packed DUP’s reception, which had a lengthy queue and Conservative Party members greeted DUP MPs like old friends (although that may have been because of the free champagne on offer…).

Unsurprisingly, Brexit dominated the entire four days. There were countless fringe events discussing everything from Britain’s role in the world, to what it means for the energy market, and how to ensure that young people aren’t left behind. However, there wasn’t the triumphant grandstanding that might have been expected – instead, the delegates seemed to understand that however they personally voted, it is now time to pull together and get on with the ob.

The Prime Minister set the agenda by making her Brexit announcements at the start of the conference; giving party members something to rally around. For the first time, we learnt that Article 50 will be triggered by March next year and that the Queen’s Speech will contain the Great Repeal Act, which will adopt all current EU law into British law. Despite this, there was still a lack of detail besides and ‘Brexit means Brexit’ and how things are going to work practically. There was a palpable sense of confusion from businesses, and all were keen to engage and get their points across. Tellingly, it felt like most delegates were gearing themselves up for a ‘hard’ Brexit.

The biggest change at this year’s conference was the Conservative Party’s lurch to the left, and an obvious U-turn on the austerity agenda. This was evident throughout the conference (e.g. Housing Minister Gavin Barwell proved his commitment to delivering 1 million new homes by 2020 by attending no fewer than 18 fringe events), however, it was Theresa May’s closing speech that really emphasised how her Government will differ from Cameron’s. Her speech proposed policies that included price controls, dropping the target for a surplus by 2020, taking action against house builders to increase the housing stock, and an even stronger stance on immigration than she had taken as Home Secretary.


Perhaps the most controversial statement from May was that “Government can and should be a force for good; the state exists to provide what individual people, communities and markets cannot; we should employ the power of government for the good of the people”. Although likely to go down well with the public, it could also be the first sign of trouble ahead. These comments were widely criticised by business groups, including the CBI and IOD, and will put many pro-market Conservative MPs who are overtly pro-business in a difficult position. It is clear that businesses can expect a tougher ride under May than they are used to, and will have to fight hard to protect their interests.

Overall the conference revealed that May and her team will be a safe pair of hands. She isn’t driven by ideology or cronyism – but a desire to help those who have fallen on hard times. She is also determined to deliver the Brexit that she thinks the country voted for (even if that means making compromises over issues such as passports, to ensure that we get full control of our immigration system).

For the public, it is likely that she will offer a strong centre-ground alternative to Labour. However, it is unlikely that she will fulfil the hopes of many within the Tory membership of becoming a second Margaret Thatcher, and there will inevitably be trouble ahead.

What will Prime Minister Theresa May mean for Britain and the Conservatives?

Theresa May

Theresa May. Image courtesy of the Home Office

On Wednesday 13th July, Theresa May will become Britain’s second female Prime Minister. After an intense yet short campaign, energy minister and Brexit campaigner Andrea Leadsom, Home Secretary Theresa May’s last opponent in the Conservative leadership contest, has withdrawn her candidacy after controversial comments on motherhood highlighted her inexperience. Following Leadom’s withdrawal, David Cameron announced that he would tender his resignation to the Queen tomorrow, and Theresa May would become PM straight after.

Theresa May, in contrast to Leadsom, was billed as the experienced candidate in the leadership contest.  An MP for almost twenty years, she became the Party’s first female chairman in 2002. In 2010 she became Home Secretary, making her one of the longest serving Home Secretaries in British history and the most senior female in the Conservative Party, singling her out as a potential future leader.

As a politician, May has been careful to distance herself from the old Etonian men’s club that has surrounded the likes of Cameron, Osborne and Johnson. In short, she has sought to make herself an alternative to the traditional political elite. She has been a cautious campaigner, not favouring loud statements which characterised her campaigning (or lack thereof) for the Remain campaign.

She is known to be one of the most hardworking cabinet ministers, and there have been doubts over her ability to delegate work; something which is difficult as Home Secretary but cannot be sustained as Prime Minister. She has also been accused of hiding behind her special advisors which came to the forefront during her very public head to head with Michael Gove in 2014. She has, however, enjoyed surges in popularity, particularly following the deportation of radical cleric Abu Qatada, something which previous Home Secretaries had been unable to achieve. She has been known for taking a tough line on immigration, something which can be expected to continue in the wake of Brexit.

She is known for being “bloody difficult”, with a reputation for being a fierce negotiator, however, perhaps this is just what Britain needs when heading into Brexit talks. Indeed her background in finance (underplayed in the leadership contest) will perhaps help her combat the economic worries that will arise with Brexit negotiations.

As Prime Minister, Theresa May will also be able to reunite the Conservative Party. After a bitter split between the Leave and Remain camps, the Tories appears to be desperate to avoid the current instability that is engulfing the Labour Party. Despite having campaigned for the losing Remain camp, May enjoyed strong cross-party support, gaining 199 votes in last wee

Andrea Leadsom

Andrea Leadsom. Photo courtesy of Policy Exchange on Flickr.

k’s MP ballot, compared to Angela Leadsom’s 84. In her withdrawal speech, Leadsom emphasised Britain’s need for a strong and stable government, something which infighting amongst the party during a prolonged leadership campaign would prevent.

Furthermore, the speed of her selection as Party Leader means that Cameron will not be a lame-duck Prime Minister until September. This is a positive move, particularly for business, as drawing out the process would only increase uncertainty surrounding Britain’s EU exit and delay the recovery Britain needs to make following such a divisive vote.

Most significantly Theresa May has stressed her objective to re-establish trust in politics. The Brexit result was a real kick for the political establishment. The people of Britain voted against a political elite that they felt had failed them and did not represent them, with Tony Blair suggesting that the leave vote was a protest against the establishment. May appears to have heard this and understood the need to respond. Talking in Birmingham, May pledged to place the Conservative Party “at the service of ordinary working people”. In a throwback to Ed Miliband, she promised to be tough on big business, something which voters were keen to see in the last general election. She promised workers and consumers roles on company boards and strong rules protecting pay. May assured the disillusioned that firm change would come to British politics.

Finally, Theresa May has ruled out any chance of Britain remaining in the EU, putting an end to speculation by political commentators that Brexit may not happen, as the referendum was not legally binding. May has put an end to these rumours declaring that “Brexit means Brexit” and that she would not ignore the vote of the British public. Yet uncertainty surrounds what Brexit will actually mean, particularly for those EU migrants who May has claimed might not be guaranteed a right to stay, and exactly when Article 50 will be triggered, which May has said will not be before the end of 2016.

However, this will not end the period of political uncertainty in Britain, particularly in relation to calls for a snap general election. Following Leadsom’s withdrawal, Tim Farron tweeted his belief that the Conservative Party no longer has a mandate. This is particularly significant given Theresa May’s past criticisms of Gordon Brown for not calling an immediate general election after he succeeded Tony Blair, when she criticised him for the lack of a democratic mandate. However, during her leadership campaign, she said she would not call a general election, providing further stability for the country.

Only one thing is certain: despite being the ‘stability’ candidate Mrs May will certainly be thrown straight in at the deep end and will be put to the test with Brexit renegotiation and will have to act quickly to heal the rifts in the Conservative Party.

By Olivia Gass

Public Affairs Top 10: Political Gaffes

Written by Peter Jackson Eastwood & Emily Burditt

In honour of the end of Boris Johnson’s tenure as London Mayor – we are celebrating the capital’s favourite accident-prone politician with our top 10 political gaffes. Get behind the sofa folks…

  1. Ken Livingstone – EVERYTHING:

Referendum pandemonium. Cameron’s leadership and taxes under intense scrutiny. The Conservative Party bursting at the seams. Opportunity not just knocking on the door for Labour to really make a statement, but demolishing said door with a wrecking ball.

Step forward Ken Livingstone. He certainly made a statement, he made several in fact. And then he hid in a disabled toilet while the press shouted questions about Hitler through the door. Either Ken is the worst politician of all time, or the greatest Tory sleeper agent in history.


  1. David Cameron forgetting which football team he supports:

As we all know, Dave’s best characteristic is that he is a true man of the people. He loves a pint, he loves mucking in with the rest of us and he is always regaling his mate Jezza with classic banter in PMQ’s (Do up your tie Jez you bloody rascal!).

But shockingly, startlingly and appallingly, geezer Dave was caught out when talking about the footy (say it ain’t so?!). He implored a crowd to get behind his beloved West Ham, apparently completely oblivious to the fact that he is actually an Aston Villa fan. Not to worry Davey, we’ve all slipped up down the watering hole at some point – it’s just a shame this was during a televised speech in the middle of the day. Stick to politics.


  1. Dick Cheney accidentally shooting a man

Americans like guns. The right to bear arms (no family guy jokes please) is an integral element of their constitution and is often a crucial factor in presidential races. George Bush and his administration really liked guns (and explosives, and fighter planes, and tanks, and invasions, and wars, but let’s not get off track).

Given all of these facts, it’s really no surprise to know that former vice president Cheney shot a man…by accident. In events eerily similar to the invasion of Iraq, Cheney was trying to shoot a quail, but succeeded only in spraying lead into a 78-year-old Texas attorney’s face, neck and upper torso. The 78-year-old suffered a heart attack, but thankfully pulled through. For better or for worse, there is no footage of the incident.


  1. Boris Johnson: Anywhere Boris has ever been with a camera present:

Even if you are of the opinion that our glorious capital will not miss Boris’s policies, heavens above will we miss the gaffes, and he has had hundreds during his time as London Mayor (or ‘Operation Juddering Climax’). It’s almost impossible to narrow them down, but here are a couple of gems:

  • Boris providing a metaphor for his own mayor-ship of London by kitting himself out in full British attire, beginning his zip-wire journey in a wave of glory and excitement before getting stuck, achieving nothing but looking like a lovable plonker the whole while.boris zipwire
  • Boris picking the ball up deep, showing a lovely step and burst of acceleration to move towards the try-line and then utterly annihilating a tiny child who dared to get in his way. Bravo. And Boris has history with rugby tackles too… boris charging


  1. Simon Danczuk: 1966 – present.

Newton’s third law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Here are two events that took place in 1966. Read into them what you will, but please retain the notion of ‘opposites’ as you do:

  • In the proudest moment in our nation’s sporting history, England defeated West Germany 4-2 and Bobby Moore held aloft the football World Cup (legend has it David Cameron was supporting France for this particular match).
  • Simon Danczuk, he of sexting a 17-year-old girl and generally doing his damnedest to embarrass the labour party fame, was born.


  1. Nick Clegg slagging off his shadow cabinet to Danny Alexander and being overheard by a journo

 A national newspaper editor recently described Nick Clegg as ‘one of the best communicators I have met in politics’. High praise indeed, and Clegg has always had a talent for conveying a message (then again – he has been blessed with some outstanding aides over the years). In this instance, the clarity of Clegg’s message didn’t do him much good.

As he slaughtered his frontbench team in conversation with Danny Alexander on a flight to London from Inverness, he was blissfully unaware of the journalist sat in the row in front of him. Steve Webb received a particularly vicious review: “He’s a problem, I can’t stand the man…useless.”

The power behind the throne...

PHA’s very own Tim Snowball

  1. Ed Milliband stars in “The Sor-Ed in the Stone”:

Ed Miliband seems like a thoroughly likeable chap but when it comes to dealing with the media he will never be as cool and composed as many of his counterparts. More Mr Bean than James Bond when on camera, it felt almost cruel watching the media tear strips off of him week after week.

That said, the Ed Stone really was unforgivable. Less Moses, more Oh God No-(ses). We could say that Ed’s campaign to become prime minister never recovered, but did it ever really get going? It was just one Milli-bad stunt after another.


  1. Neil Kinnock falling into the sea with his wife:

 I have to admit that I do like the concept behind this. It’s a golden picture opportunity. A politician and his wife, laughing and smiling as they walk across Brighton beach – they’re just like the rest of us!

Sadly, the execution is found wanting. Firstly, it’s bloody Brighton beach which means stones and volatile weather. Secondly, walking on the beach is not the same thing as walking backwards towards an oncoming wave. Sorry Neil, but you got exactly what you deserved. kinnock


  1. Nigel Farage resigning and un-resigning: 

Mr Farage – that poncy chap that everyone’s favourite footy hooligan Big Dave was talking about the other day – loves to talk about England and English values. And what does that invoke? St George? Knights? Honour and chivalry? Such laudable sentiments, I can almost feel my heart rising and Jerusalem ringing in my ears.

Perhaps this deeply-imbued spirit is what inspired Nigel to tender his resignation as UKIP leader after the election. This was the ultimate self-sacrifice, for the good of the party. Dear, brave Nigel! That is until he un-resigned three days later and carried on his merry way as UKIP’s commander-in-chief. Bizarre, embarrassing and a bit rubbish. farage



  1. When Gordon Brown revealed what he really thought of the electorate:

Ah, yet another Labour prime ministerial own goal – it’s almost as if they are actively doing everything in their power to ensure that they are never elected.

So, let’s break this one down – you have an image problem. It is also election time. Despite a reputation as a fiercely competent and experienced politician, you inspire little love from the British people. It’s time for a brand Brown revamp. You need to show your kinder, gentler side and gradually, maybe you can bring the public on side.

Sounds easy, right? Of course it does. Unless you’re Gordon Brown, in which case you call a little old lady a bigot and, just for good measure, make sure that someone records you doing it. There are PR own goals, and then there are PR own goals and as Dave would say: “That’s a three pointer!” gillian duffy


The progressive dilemma: Is there a route back to power?

Dan Jarvis, Chukka Umunna, Yvette Cooper, Rachel Reeves, Tristram Hunt, Norman Lamb, Tim Farron, Stella Creasy

Dan Jarvis, Chukka Umunna, Yvette Cooper, Rachel Reeves, Tristram Hunt, Norman Lamb, Tim Farron, Stella Creasy

Progressive politics, that is the centre-left in British politics, is currently at its lowest ebb for several decades. For many, the outlook feels uncertain, if not bleak.

It is wrong however to look to Corbyn’s surprise rise last year as a singular moment of defeat. The truth is progressive politics has been in decline for some time.

First, Cameron’s victory over Brown in 2010, following the crash of 2008, brought a formal end to the New Labour era. Failing to win that election outright, the Conservative’s real victory, however, has been in its sustained and devastating assault on Labour’s claim to economic competence, something fundamental to Blair and Brown’s success. Under fire, Labour’s progressives have too readily accepted this negative re-telling of their legacy.

Second, the SNP’s victory over progressives in Scotland, first gaining control of the Scottish Parliament in 2007 and then all but wiping out the other parties north of the border at the 2015 General Election. If there had ever been a warning sign for progressives that there was trouble afoot, the appetite for change (disguised as nationalism) that lay behind the rise of the SNP was it. It could be argued that Salmond/Sturgeon have already pulled off the shift to the left in Scottish politics that Corbyn now seeks to achieve for Labour.

Third, the near destruction of the Liberal Democrats (the other progressive party) last year. In practice, their support and local government powerbase had been in terminal decline every year since the party entered coalition and were unable to deliver the “change” they had promised. But the 2015 General Election wrenched the party of the “liberal centre” from a position of real power, and left them to a harsh fight for their very survival.

Fourth, Corbyn’s rise to the leadership of the Labour Party and determination to reclaim the party for socialism. Many progressive Labour MPs remain in parliament, but they are by and large now excluded from the front bench, increasingly alienated by the direction of policy travel and effectively powerless in the context of Corbyn’s strong grassroots mandate and support.

Moving forward, the defenestrated progressives on the backbenches of the Labour Party and in the Liberal Democrat rump now face remarkably similar and equally fundamental existential challenges.

To the individuals concerned, their fall from grace has come as a real shock and there seems to be a real struggle in both parties to identify a clear route back to power.

Asides from division – between two parties, due to minor policy differences, as a result of personal rivalries, and due to the political necessity of party loyalty in our electoral system that is preventing otherwise natural breakaway or mergers, the key reason behind this is one of substance.

Fundamentally, just as Blair embraced the market economic defined legacy of Thatcher, Cameron has arguably embraced the loosely defined social and public service reform agenda of New Labour, in effect stealing the progressive’s clothes and raison d’être.

Driven by a mixture of pragmatism, a genuine shift away from social conservatism, the real and lasting impact of coalition with a genuinely progressive party, and the existence of some powerful voices for radical reform, particularly to education and welfare, the Conservatives have to a large extent been able to offer the public evolutionary continuity rather than radical change from the Blair/Brown era.

This is further complicated by progressive recognition of the broad necessity of Conservative fiscal policy – now the key dividing line on the left. Progressives, both Labour and Liberal Democrat, have been inclined to accept the need for balanced budgets and therefore continued cuts to public expenditure (albeit with significant differences of opinion about where the cuts should fall, the role of government capital investment, and the need for some tax increases to spread the burden more fairly). For those on the resurgent left (Corbyn et al and the SNP) this simply equates to being “Tory lite”.

What was clearly lacking in the Labour leadership contest, and remains elusive, is a clear progressive alternative platform for government. And with limited scope for a coup within the Labour Party and with more than four years until the next General Election, developing one must become focal if they are to ever stand a chance of regaining the initiative and returning to power.

There is plenty of scope for new thinking. On multinational taxation, on infrastructure investment, on housing and on the environment the Tories are weak and open to challenge. There is also a clear need for a new public service reform agenda centred on the integration of services to meet the ever complex needs of individuals.

In the short term, the European referendum should provide a rousing and unifying cause for progressives to work for, allowing the building of relationships and establishment of new voices.

Ultimately whether British progressives unite in common cause SDP style, or continue to develop distinct social democratic and liberal paths in parallel, will largely be determined by whether Lib Dem electoral fortunes improve independently and how long Corbyn remains in power.

In the 1990s the Lib Dem and Labour electoral fortunes were linked, and in the future political landscape progressive interests may need to align more deeply to pave a new path back to power. But the key to this is new thinking and progressives must take the opportunity of their new found freedom to get on with it.

Foreign investment requires foreign languages

As David Cameron currently attempts to entice the Chinese Premier, Li Keqiang, to invest huge amounts of money (anything up to £18bn!) into some of the largest projects in the UK’s pipeline, the importance of international trade, and consequently multilingualism, in the global market continues to be apparent.

While goods and services are becoming increasingly transnational, fewer than ten percent of British students choose to do any sort of language learning post-GCSE, failing to see the benefits of continuing their studies. In contrast, the rest of the world are fast leaving us behind with a recent European languages league table finding that Britons are, perhaps unsurprisingly, the worst in Europe at speaking more than one language.

The common misconception, which the majority of us are guilty of believing, is that the rest of the world speaks English so there is no need for our future generations to learn other languages. You wouldn’t be wrong in thinking that English is currently the world’s number one business language. However, with 94 percent of the world not speaking English as their first language and over 873 million native Mandarin speakers, the importance of other languages within the business domain shouldn’t be disregarded as foreign populations, economies, and investments continue to grow.

Photo: Crown Copyright
Photographer: Paul Shaw

Although Mr Cameron and Mr Keqiang will undoubtedly have a huge group of translators and interpreters surrounding them to ensure that their every need and desire is understood by the other, this kind of entourage is not sustainable for smaller, lesser-known businesses trading in a globalised world.

Being unable to communicate with a foreign company in their mother tongue puts a company on the back foot when it comes to clinching a deal. They are at the mercy of the multilingual company and their interpreter or translator. Instead of relying on their use of English, which gives leeway for miscommunication, we should be thinking about taking the initiative and encouraging the study of foreign languages.

I realise that I’m writing this from a completely biased perspective having recently completed a degree in French and Spanish, but after studying languages for over ten years I would find it difficult to list many negatives of being able to communicate in more than one language. Foreign language learning is not just about grammar or vocabulary, there’s a cultural understanding as well, making those who know foreign languages an asset to any business wishing to expand in the competitive global market.

Sport is for life, not just for summer

Sport is for life, not just for summer - David cameron

It has been reported that participation in sport across the UK has fallen by 200,000 since October 2012.

15.3 million of us apparently play sport at least once a week but, according to Sport England, this is down from the 15.5 million who participated in sport some eight months ago. A 200,000 difference might not seem a significant enough figure for people to lose sleep over, but the main issue of concern is how the promise of a long-lasting Olympic legacy has generated no more than a small surge of interest, which has been quickly lost.

We’re quick to blame the weather for preventing us from completing menial everyday tasks: hanging the washing out, walking the dog, walking to the gym. But I’m not sure that the argument that this poor weather is one of the primary reasons for this recent drop in participation is a sound one.

Explaining away these figures by blaming the weather is not the correct attitude if we’re looking to successfully go on to address the problem. It’s also a slightly ironic argument, since the great British weather is not only out of our control but it’s a factor which has always been present. Nothing has changed. Should we be pleased with the fact that we still have relatively high participation figures despite the poor winter, or concerned by the indication that the government have missed their primary legacy target by 50%?

As the sun rose on the morning after the Olympic closing ceremony, children across the country were tying the laces of their new sports trainers and nagging their parents to take them to the local park, pool, or shooting range. Eight months later and it seems that was just a phase; a phase that lasted as long as the GB football team did at the Olympics.

But sport should be for life, not just for summer.

Between them, David Cameron and Seb Coe promised the country that the ‘Olympic Legacy’ would live on and that Britain would be defined by its value of sport at all levels. This recent drop in participation, however, leaves us wondering how exactly this proposed strategy of getting more children involved in sport has been implemented, and how it will continue to be implemented. To add to the problem, the government now faces the daunting task of trying to get participation levels back to where they were in October last year before they can even begin to increase them.

There are those who claim that sport is expensive to take part in. Take football for instance; pitches are not cheap to book and referees are expensive to hire. Many people simply do not have the disposable income to spend on playing sport. But you cannot expect the government to provide endless facilities, nor can people blame the government for their own lack of willpower to get out and exercise. Organised sport and physical activity are two very different things, and, while participation in organised sport can indeed be affected by financial factors, going for a run or having a kick about in the local park are free activities that should be part of everyone’s daily life.

I have never met anyone who has actually contributed to the surveys that provide these condemning stats, nor do I know how they are carried out, but surely the figure of a 200,000 drop must include those (not) taking part in everyday physical activity, and not just organised sport. This is where the responsibility of parents comes in to play. Every parent is accountable for the physical activity of their children up to a certain age, and they are also responsible for communicating to their children the importance of sport and maintaining a healthy lifestyle at the same time.

Having said all of this, 15.3 million people participating in sport across the UK is by no means a poor amount, and the total is up by 1.4 million since Britain won their bid to host the Olympics in 2005. Plus the gender gap has apparently been narrowed significantly, which can only be a good thing.

But it remains disappointing to see a decrease in participation since last year when apparently interest is high and facilities are thriving after a £150 million cash injection. There should be a positive correlation between interest, facilities and participation, but at the moment the latter is a problem – the cause of which is hard to put a finger on.

Wimbledon will inevitably bring a rejuvenation of tennis interest to the country over the next month, but only time will tell whether the effect of professional sport is enough to get Britain’s armchair fans outside and taking part themselves.