Curtin&Co was last night named “Rising Star Consultancy” at the prestigious Public Affairs News Awards. The award recognises the highest achieving public affairs agency which is less than two years old.
Presenting the award, Laura Kuenssberg (Chief Political Correspondent for the BBC) highlighted Curtin&Co’s rapid growth, project wins and excellent client references.
Chief Executive Tom Curtin said:
“It is a real honour to win this award and receive recognition from our peers. We strive to bring real value to our clients by providing effective communication with both local communities and politicians and this award shows that we are moving in the right direction.
We are also very grateful to our clients who provided such excellent references for us to really set our entry apart.”
Thursday 28 October 2010
Monday 25 October 2010
Super-council for London
Following the CSR, radical plans have been announced for a new ‘super council’ in London. Under the plans the London Boroughs of Westminster, Hammersmith & Fulham, and Kensington & Chelsea would merge, saving up to £ 100m.
Some in a Labour camp see this as a sneaky move by the Conservatives to keep control of the London councils. While all the three boroughs currently have a Conservative majority, Hammersmith & Fulham was controlled by Labour until 2006 and there’s a good chance this could return to Labour in the next batch of elections. However if plans go ahead, Labour would still find themselves the minority party.
The Chief Executives of the three councils are currently examining the proposals and will report back in the new year. With £81bn of cuts being set out in the CSR and councils being hit with a 26% reduction in central government grants, maybe a merger is the only solution? It will be interesting to see if more councils follow suit.
Some in a Labour camp see this as a sneaky move by the Conservatives to keep control of the London councils. While all the three boroughs currently have a Conservative majority, Hammersmith & Fulham was controlled by Labour until 2006 and there’s a good chance this could return to Labour in the next batch of elections. However if plans go ahead, Labour would still find themselves the minority party.
The Chief Executives of the three councils are currently examining the proposals and will report back in the new year. With £81bn of cuts being set out in the CSR and councils being hit with a 26% reduction in central government grants, maybe a merger is the only solution? It will be interesting to see if more councils follow suit.
Friday 22 October 2010
Green light for housing incentives
The Conservatives have stuck with their commitment to incentivise local auhtorities to build more homes, confirming thei pledge to match council tax for the first six years on all new homes built.
A huge piece of news for the industry after the policy had looked in doubt last month as talks continued between the DCLG and HM Treasury - and a welcome piece of good news after this weeks CSR!
A huge piece of news for the industry after the policy had looked in doubt last month as talks continued between the DCLG and HM Treasury - and a welcome piece of good news after this weeks CSR!
Thursday 21 October 2010
Comprehensive Spending Review Reaction
The day of reckoning – postponed
So, after six months of speculation, rows and leaks the country’s necessary but bitter medicine has been prescribed and dispensed.
There were few surprises, a number of worrying political flourishes which reminded me of the former Chancellor who had got us into this mess originally, but also some important strategic decisions such as the continued investment into science and infrastructure that should be warmly applauded.
The process was seriously compromised from the start by the Party’s electoral commitment to ‘protect Health and Overseas Aid’. As a result Welfare, the Home Office, Housing and Local Government have been really clobbered to make up the gap. We’ve probably squeezed our Armed Forces too much too given their existing commitments.
Welfare needed to be addressed, despite the pain this will cause people and families in genuine need, there is too much misdirected money which needs to be reigned in and targeted more effectively to those that really need it. With the country still in dire straits after the worst recession in 70 years there has to be a question as to how achievable some of the proposals are. I applaud the start to tackle the ludicracy of universal benefits, despite the cack handed way it was initially rolled out but l fear the Coalition Government will wither in its determination on this necessary reform.
The key question now is how is the patient going to respond?
I fear not well and ironically the real threat is not the Chancellor’s cuts but interest rates.
Few people can genuinely defend the current Welfare system or budget and with IDS we probably have the best chance for 40 years to reform the current mess but it will be tough. If Cameron didn’t enjoy the debacle over Child Benefit, he’s going to really squirm over the plethora of other measures that will need to be imposed to deliver the draconian savings set out yesterday.
Local Government after several years of squeeze of Gershon efficiencies, is now one of the most efficient parts of the public sector but is being tightly squeezed again. Worryingly infrastructure investment has been savagely hacked – too much in my opinion and many councils will find this unsustainable. Maybe this is where the funding from new houses will play a key role in rescuing them from the impending black hole.
The real elephant in the room is interest rates. Vast swathes of the middle classes have emerged from the last two years almost unscathed due to incredibly low interest rates. Inflation is above the Bank of England’s target, we have a VAT rise due in the New Year which will increase it yet further albeit for a just a year but the current level of interest is unsustainable. Has the Chancellor acted to prevent inflationary pressures? Not enough, and this will be the catalyst for real unrest and political change.
Frank Browne
Conservative Consultant
The death of compassionate Conservatism
The Comprehensive Spending Review is one of the most ideologically loaded decisions of any Government in recent years. This is the true face of the Tory Government - the ‘nasty party’ are back and they have some yellow friends this time!
The impact on the Welfare State and Public Sector of these cuts will be the greatest since the 1945 Post War Settlement. This is what many Tories came into politics to do - rip up welfare and slash and burn the public sector.
The rush to cut the deficit endangers the recovery and reduces the prospects for employment in the short term, and prosperity in the longer term. Before Nick Clegg discovered Greece (in the period between the ballot boxes closing and the door of his ministerial car opening) they, like Labour, argued that in the context of reducing the deficit, speed kills. It’s amazing how power has changed everything the Liberals ever believed.
There is nothing fair about Child Benefit changes that leave a single earner on £45,000 losing thousands of pounds, while a family on £80,000 gets to keep every penny. As things stand the government is looking for a bigger contribution to reducing the deficit to come from children than from the banks. That can’t be right.
The poorest 10% will bear a greater burden than the richest – with the middle squeezed, and women are shouldering three quarters of the cuts?
A 75% cut in the social housing capital budget and putting social rents up by 80% to bring them closer to the private market will result in a large increase in homelessness. The landscape of housing will change dramatically as people who cannot afford a home or as a result of these changes even a social home will find themselves excluded and what do we do then – leave families homeless who can’t afford to rent? Developers are going to be forced away from delivering affordable housing and in so doing large parts of our population will find that they cannot afford a home, this will hit social mobility very hard - it will make the poorest poorer.
This whole spending review is about easing the pain on the wealthy, avoiding doing too much damage to the middle class, and hitting the poorest hardest. It is regressive and cruel. In the middle of this political storm are the Liberal Democrats and they have a lot to answer for…it’s amazing how power corrupts principles, I’m sure Nick Clegg’s Conservative Party membership card is in the post.
Dr Paul Harvey
Labour Consultant
The silent partners
Liberal Democrat members will have received a communication from Nick Clegg following the CSR yesterday reassuring them that “Liberal Democrat values and priorities are written through the review, like the message in a stick of rock”.
A stick of rock straight out of the Conservative ‘tuck shop’ presumably - for which Mr Clegg has developed a worryingly sweet tooth in the last 3 months.
Liberal Democrat ministers have had an input into this review. This is beyond doubt - but the principles upon which Liberal Democrats would like to think their leadership base policy programmes and decisions upon are, bar a few exceptions, nowhere to be seen here.
The party’s rhetoric on ‘Fairness’ in particular has not translated into anything substantial. The concept itself needs redefining according to David Cameron, and the Conservatives have put down something of a marker in this regard over the past week.
The Comprehensive Spending Review was never going to be a pleasant experience (though the government’s front bench seemed to enjoy themselves) and, there were some tough but necessary decisions that needed to be taken by the government yesterday.
Cuts to welfare in some shape or form were inevitable and justified. More detail on Duncan-Smith’s plans for the area is long overdue, and any reasonable judgement of welfare cuts must take into account what will replace the current structure.
Investment in education, foreign aid and innovation are all welcome steps of course. Although granting the NHS holy cow status at the outset of this process has inevitably resulted in an over-squeeze of other areas. Whilst ultimately effective as a political tactic, ring-fencing emotive areas may come back to bite the Conservatives as the knock-on effects to other departments (particularly the Home Office and DCLG) begin to take hold over the next year.
What will deeply concern those who consider themselves on the progressive end of the political spectrum is the unrestrained joy with which these cuts were greeted from the government benches yesterday – and not just from the kind of Conservatives who have made it their life’s mission to deal a blow to the ‘nanny state’ (though there was no shortage of those lining the aisles).
It was an unpleasant moment – and one that reveals a deeply entrenched lack of empathy within the government with those who will be made jobless as a result of these cuts. Labour’s handwringing will only carry them so far in the political dynamic we now found ourselves in, and although the impact of these cuts will have a huge impact on the public’s perception of the coalition, the Labour party need to haul themselves out of 1945 and engage in the debate in the meaningful way if they are to present a credible challenge.
Ally Kennedy
Liberal Democrat Consultant
So, after six months of speculation, rows and leaks the country’s necessary but bitter medicine has been prescribed and dispensed.
There were few surprises, a number of worrying political flourishes which reminded me of the former Chancellor who had got us into this mess originally, but also some important strategic decisions such as the continued investment into science and infrastructure that should be warmly applauded.
The process was seriously compromised from the start by the Party’s electoral commitment to ‘protect Health and Overseas Aid’. As a result Welfare, the Home Office, Housing and Local Government have been really clobbered to make up the gap. We’ve probably squeezed our Armed Forces too much too given their existing commitments.
Welfare needed to be addressed, despite the pain this will cause people and families in genuine need, there is too much misdirected money which needs to be reigned in and targeted more effectively to those that really need it. With the country still in dire straits after the worst recession in 70 years there has to be a question as to how achievable some of the proposals are. I applaud the start to tackle the ludicracy of universal benefits, despite the cack handed way it was initially rolled out but l fear the Coalition Government will wither in its determination on this necessary reform.
The key question now is how is the patient going to respond?
I fear not well and ironically the real threat is not the Chancellor’s cuts but interest rates.
Few people can genuinely defend the current Welfare system or budget and with IDS we probably have the best chance for 40 years to reform the current mess but it will be tough. If Cameron didn’t enjoy the debacle over Child Benefit, he’s going to really squirm over the plethora of other measures that will need to be imposed to deliver the draconian savings set out yesterday.
Local Government after several years of squeeze of Gershon efficiencies, is now one of the most efficient parts of the public sector but is being tightly squeezed again. Worryingly infrastructure investment has been savagely hacked – too much in my opinion and many councils will find this unsustainable. Maybe this is where the funding from new houses will play a key role in rescuing them from the impending black hole.
The real elephant in the room is interest rates. Vast swathes of the middle classes have emerged from the last two years almost unscathed due to incredibly low interest rates. Inflation is above the Bank of England’s target, we have a VAT rise due in the New Year which will increase it yet further albeit for a just a year but the current level of interest is unsustainable. Has the Chancellor acted to prevent inflationary pressures? Not enough, and this will be the catalyst for real unrest and political change.
Frank Browne
Conservative Consultant
The death of compassionate Conservatism
The Comprehensive Spending Review is one of the most ideologically loaded decisions of any Government in recent years. This is the true face of the Tory Government - the ‘nasty party’ are back and they have some yellow friends this time!
The impact on the Welfare State and Public Sector of these cuts will be the greatest since the 1945 Post War Settlement. This is what many Tories came into politics to do - rip up welfare and slash and burn the public sector.
The rush to cut the deficit endangers the recovery and reduces the prospects for employment in the short term, and prosperity in the longer term. Before Nick Clegg discovered Greece (in the period between the ballot boxes closing and the door of his ministerial car opening) they, like Labour, argued that in the context of reducing the deficit, speed kills. It’s amazing how power has changed everything the Liberals ever believed.
There is nothing fair about Child Benefit changes that leave a single earner on £45,000 losing thousands of pounds, while a family on £80,000 gets to keep every penny. As things stand the government is looking for a bigger contribution to reducing the deficit to come from children than from the banks. That can’t be right.
The poorest 10% will bear a greater burden than the richest – with the middle squeezed, and women are shouldering three quarters of the cuts?
A 75% cut in the social housing capital budget and putting social rents up by 80% to bring them closer to the private market will result in a large increase in homelessness. The landscape of housing will change dramatically as people who cannot afford a home or as a result of these changes even a social home will find themselves excluded and what do we do then – leave families homeless who can’t afford to rent? Developers are going to be forced away from delivering affordable housing and in so doing large parts of our population will find that they cannot afford a home, this will hit social mobility very hard - it will make the poorest poorer.
This whole spending review is about easing the pain on the wealthy, avoiding doing too much damage to the middle class, and hitting the poorest hardest. It is regressive and cruel. In the middle of this political storm are the Liberal Democrats and they have a lot to answer for…it’s amazing how power corrupts principles, I’m sure Nick Clegg’s Conservative Party membership card is in the post.
Dr Paul Harvey
Labour Consultant
The silent partners
Liberal Democrat members will have received a communication from Nick Clegg following the CSR yesterday reassuring them that “Liberal Democrat values and priorities are written through the review, like the message in a stick of rock”.
A stick of rock straight out of the Conservative ‘tuck shop’ presumably - for which Mr Clegg has developed a worryingly sweet tooth in the last 3 months.
Liberal Democrat ministers have had an input into this review. This is beyond doubt - but the principles upon which Liberal Democrats would like to think their leadership base policy programmes and decisions upon are, bar a few exceptions, nowhere to be seen here.
The party’s rhetoric on ‘Fairness’ in particular has not translated into anything substantial. The concept itself needs redefining according to David Cameron, and the Conservatives have put down something of a marker in this regard over the past week.
The Comprehensive Spending Review was never going to be a pleasant experience (though the government’s front bench seemed to enjoy themselves) and, there were some tough but necessary decisions that needed to be taken by the government yesterday.
Cuts to welfare in some shape or form were inevitable and justified. More detail on Duncan-Smith’s plans for the area is long overdue, and any reasonable judgement of welfare cuts must take into account what will replace the current structure.
Investment in education, foreign aid and innovation are all welcome steps of course. Although granting the NHS holy cow status at the outset of this process has inevitably resulted in an over-squeeze of other areas. Whilst ultimately effective as a political tactic, ring-fencing emotive areas may come back to bite the Conservatives as the knock-on effects to other departments (particularly the Home Office and DCLG) begin to take hold over the next year.
What will deeply concern those who consider themselves on the progressive end of the political spectrum is the unrestrained joy with which these cuts were greeted from the government benches yesterday – and not just from the kind of Conservatives who have made it their life’s mission to deal a blow to the ‘nanny state’ (though there was no shortage of those lining the aisles).
It was an unpleasant moment – and one that reveals a deeply entrenched lack of empathy within the government with those who will be made jobless as a result of these cuts. Labour’s handwringing will only carry them so far in the political dynamic we now found ourselves in, and although the impact of these cuts will have a huge impact on the public’s perception of the coalition, the Labour party need to haul themselves out of 1945 and engage in the debate in the meaningful way if they are to present a credible challenge.
Ally Kennedy
Liberal Democrat Consultant
Tuesday 19 October 2010
Why the Gloom?
Everyone seems to be expecting the CSR to be a doomsday for business. I am not surprised that planners are worried for their jobs – it is a feeling most industries will understand well after the last few years.
However, speaking regularly to politicians, there is a firm belief that the CSR is going to hit local government even worse than has been anticipated. When this has sunk in and budget deficits have become clear where will they find the plug for their spending gap? Development.
Localism says that there will be incentives for councils to build in order to meet their housing requirement (read “target”, if you like) and, even if this is not at the level that Shapps has been promoting to date, it will still be necessary in order to fund community projects.
So we should be looking at localism in a different way: as an opportunity.
The Government is right that it will mean less of the top-down, target-driven development which we saw under New Labour, but this does not (indeed, it cannot) mean the end of development full stop.
Instead, we need to begin from a new starting point: not the pristine masterplan which has been worked up for months before being released upon an unsuspecting public; but with that public itself. Planners will still be key because nobody else fully understands the complexities of the job they do. Under localism, though, they will not be the first cog turning in the planning machine any more, but will have to learn to respond to what the community wants. In this way, effective communication is the most important feature of localism – mediating between two distinct parties (communities and developers, planners, etc) to create win-win developments.
However, speaking regularly to politicians, there is a firm belief that the CSR is going to hit local government even worse than has been anticipated. When this has sunk in and budget deficits have become clear where will they find the plug for their spending gap? Development.
Localism says that there will be incentives for councils to build in order to meet their housing requirement (read “target”, if you like) and, even if this is not at the level that Shapps has been promoting to date, it will still be necessary in order to fund community projects.
So we should be looking at localism in a different way: as an opportunity.
The Government is right that it will mean less of the top-down, target-driven development which we saw under New Labour, but this does not (indeed, it cannot) mean the end of development full stop.
Instead, we need to begin from a new starting point: not the pristine masterplan which has been worked up for months before being released upon an unsuspecting public; but with that public itself. Planners will still be key because nobody else fully understands the complexities of the job they do. Under localism, though, they will not be the first cog turning in the planning machine any more, but will have to learn to respond to what the community wants. In this way, effective communication is the most important feature of localism – mediating between two distinct parties (communities and developers, planners, etc) to create win-win developments.
Will 'Third Party RIghts' lose out in the Localism Bill?
Interesting (although not altogether surprising) to note the DCLG's refusal to confirm the inclusion of 'third party rights' in the forthcoming Localism Bill today.
Whilst empowering communities remains top of the coalition's agenda, the move signifies a recognition that the country's planning system must not grind to a complete halt at the hands of local residents groups and vehement objectors.
The door remains open for an inclusion of third party rights in some shape or form, although one would expect this to be significantly watered down if a 'rebalancing of the planning system' is to avoid the obvious danger of gross imbalance in the opposite direction.
The coalition's resolve to reform remains firm.
However, industry professionals will doubtless be thankful that a sense of reason is also starting to manage expectations as to how sweeping the Localism agenda can be.
Whilst empowering communities remains top of the coalition's agenda, the move signifies a recognition that the country's planning system must not grind to a complete halt at the hands of local residents groups and vehement objectors.
The door remains open for an inclusion of third party rights in some shape or form, although one would expect this to be significantly watered down if a 'rebalancing of the planning system' is to avoid the obvious danger of gross imbalance in the opposite direction.
The coalition's resolve to reform remains firm.
However, industry professionals will doubtless be thankful that a sense of reason is also starting to manage expectations as to how sweeping the Localism agenda can be.
Wednesday 13 October 2010
Opinion: Labour's Shadow Cabinet
We asked two of our political consultants to give ustheir views on Ed Miliband's recent Shadow Cabinet announcement, and a flavour of some key contests to watch in the months ahead.......
From Red Ed to Sensible Ed
So Ed Miliband has chosen his Shadow Cabinet, whilst being a David Miliband supporter in the run-up to the leadership election, I was warming towards Ed, thinking that maybe he would be able to move the party on from New Labour. After seeing his Shadow Cabinet appointments however, I am yet to be convinced.
Despite winning the most votes by far and being, and in my view the most qualified for the Shadow Chancellorship, Yvette Cooper was appointed as Shadow Foreign Secretary. Instead Ed Miliband appointed former postman Alan Johnson – the safe option, the easier to control option, possibly the keeping the seat warm for David option. Yvette Cooper was also appointed Shadow Minister for Equalities, yet it seems to me that rather than being a champion for equality Cooper is scared to step out of her husband’s shadow.
Balls takes on the role of Shadow Home Secretary, in my view one of Miliband’s best appointments, and Teresa May should be shaking in her leopard-print kitten heels at the prospect of a showdown.
Caroline Flint, who during her time as housing minister introduced new shared ownership and equity schemes and who is known for her outspoken views, takes the Shadow Cabinet role at the DCLG.
Burnham takes education, and Healey who came 2nd in the Shadow Cabinet elections takes health - both safe and sensible options.
Evidence that Ed Miliband is looking to the future however is in his appointment of several new MPs as junior ministers, including Chukka Umunna the Streatham MP who has been hailed as ‘Britain’s Barack Obama’ and named by the Economist as one of the 8 new MPs to watch.
He’s been called ‘Red Ed’, from his Cabinet appointments I see ‘Sensible Ed’, but when are we going to see ‘Progressive Ed’?
Anna Mitra
Labour Consultant
Christmas comes early for Mr Miliband
Parliament reconvenes this week after a lively conference season and the beginning of the end of the coalition government’s honeymoon.
Reports that Mr Cameron is rubbing his hands with glee following ‘Red Ed’s’ surprise victory over his brother are likely to be short lived following a canny set of cabinet appointments.
Whilst the political pundits got all hot and bothered about the surprise appointment of Alan Johnson to Shadow Chancellor, what most missed was Ed’s opening up of a second front with the positioning of Ed Balls to face the Home Secretary Theresa May. The Home affairs brief is almost always the most unpredictable and whilst Mrs May has surprised many by an adroit handling of the brief many considered too big for her, she will neither enjoy nor respond well to the pressure Balls will bring. Not only has he demonstrated that he is not the one trick treasury pony many expected him to be by being a robust and energetic education secretary, almost out Blairing Blair in this field; he has been one of the nimblest and most effective labour M.P.s to handle the transition from power to opposition, causing serious damage to Michael Gove on the way. Labour’s very own semi-trained polecat will ruthlessly exploit the differences between the Liberals and Conservatives in the government as well as being merciless in highlighting any failings – real or perceived.
The positioning of the former postman Alan Johnson against ‘never had a real job’ Osborne ahead of the necessary cuts is also a neat trick from a labour perspective. The Conservatives have, so far, failed to successfully get the message across as to why the heavily trailed cuts are necessary and with Johnson in place as Osborne’s shadow, Labour is well positioned to benefit from an empathy with the country over the cuts they really do not deserve.
The other ‘one to watch’ is Sadiq Khan who will be facing both Ken Clark and Nick Clegg. My guess is that he will be quick to out-tough Clarke on the justice brief and will ruthlessly exploit the gaping splits between the Conservatives and Liberals on the political and constitutional reforms currently rumbling through the Houses. Whilst the threat of a full scale Conservative revolt over AV is receding, prepare to enjoy the spectacle of Khan shamelessly highlighting the unease and mutual dislike on the green benches opposite him on this issue.
With tuition fees, electoral reform and the spending review coming up over the next 10 weeks, it will not be long before the Michaelmas term cannot end fast enough for the Con Dem coalition whereas ‘Red Ed’ could be forgiven for thinking that all his Christmases had arrived early.
Frank Browne
Conservative Consultant
Wednesday 6 October 2010
Broken Promises and Yet More Cuts.
George Osborne’s announcement yesterday that child benefits will be cut to middle income families should have been nothing of a surprise. After all, this is the government that seems to want to make the young in society suffer the most, with the cutting of the BSF, Sure Start, pregnancy grants, Future Jobs Fund amongst many others. However, during the election campaign, one thing that was explicitly and repeatedly said by both parties in this coalition government was that universal benefits would not be cut. It seems clear now, that these election promises were just words. Only this morning, David Cameron was forced to apologise for not including these cuts in their party manifesto. An act of omission is one thing; a broken manifesto promise (which this is) is another.
Nobody denies the deficit or the fact that it has to be tackled, but the reality is that the deficit was caused by the irresponsible actions of the banks, not the average hard-working middle income families. The current government have attempted to insinuate that they had no choice; that their backs were against the wall over these cuts. Let me be very clear; this government had a choice and this is what they choose to do. They have on the one hand chosen to cut these benefits under the premise that it is only fair to ask everyone to contribute to the deficit, whilst on the other hand chosen to give the banks a multi-billion pound tax cut. Where is the consistency or ‘fairness’ in that?
However, for me, the problem goes much deeper. By deciding to test child benefit on single salaries, as opposed to the household income implies a complete disregard for single parents and the right of mothers (or fathers) to choose to remain at home. The reality of modern living means that families often make the choice to keep one parent at home, on the basis of the other being able to provide a higher wage packet. Furthermore, these proposals may place undue pressure on stay-at-home mums and dads to re-enter the workplace at a time when unemployment is still high, and these roles could go to those in desperate need of employment.
If the Tories were only after fairness, then I would argue that it is only ‘fair’ to look at household incomes, not to punish those that have worked hard and slowly and consistently worked their way up the salary ladder. They may be classed as middle-income but the reality is that a lot of people rely on these payments, set their budgets on the basis of having these payments and the loss of thousands of pounds a year (in addition to the earlier cuts mentioned above) would have a profound adverse reaction on them. In addition, the expected announcement of married couples tax credits all seem to paint the picture of what this government sees as the ‘ideal’ family set-up, a view which is not shared by me. One can only look forward (ha!) to October 20th to see what other misery this coalition has in store for families, children and the rest of us already struggling with their annihilation of public services.
Pavitar Mann
(Labour consultant)
Pavitar Mann
(Labour consultant)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)