📜 The value of journalists is not what they write

When journalists question, the government thinks 

As part of the process of publishing a story, a journalist will approach the communications special adviser or the press office and ask a version of: 'I've heard X. How do you justify that?’. Their enquiry forces the department to articulate an explanation of its policy or actions. That in itself means a previously unscrutinised departmental process, legacy policy or the unintended consequences of either is brought to the attention of decision-makers, who might then think, “Yes, that makes no sense - let’s see if we can change it.”  So getting stories in the media can trigger policy change before the story even makes it into print or on the airwaves.

Government bandwidth is far more limited than you think

Be highly conscious of a government’s limited bandwidth. Governments come into power with a stack of ambitious manifesto pledges. Then they're struck by external events which take up even more of their time. Everything a government promises to do involves so many more trade-offs than you could possibly imagine - many of which they can't tell you about. Blockers may come from another state or a different government department or minister, and unless they're surreptitiously briefing the media about it, you won't necessarily know that blockage exists. If your policy constitutes a major reform, you will almost certainly have to get a political party - or both main parties - to adopt it in their manifestos so that they are bought in from the outset. If it is not a major reform, work out how your policy would help the government deliver on its existing agenda and pitch it to advisers, ministers and officials as such.

Unintended consequences shape everything

Often it's only when the policy goes through the system that all the trade-offs come to light. When I was at the Ministry of Justice, one of the new policies my old boss, the then Justice Secretary Dominic Raab, worked hard to bring in Harper's Law. This was named after PC Andrew Harper who was killed in the line of duty. His wife, Lissie, campaigned for mandatory life sentences for anyone who kills an emergency service worker. Implementing Harper’s Law required a series of trade-offs, because the moment you make a sentence more severe for one group of people, you're making a different crime seem relatively less important. And that can cause anger and frustration. Civil servants will - correctly - say, 'You're aware that if you do this, then victims in this situation will be angry that the perpetrators of a similar crime got a more lenient sentence'. Many of the trade-offs in implementing a policy only become apparent when that process is underway, which is why as an external stakeholder, policy implementation can seem frustratingly and inexplicably long.

Keep campaigning until it's implemented - not just until ministers say yes

Campaign until the day that your policy becomes a reality. Don't give up and don't consider it a done deal until it actually is. In the five years since the Conservatives wrote their 2019 manifesto, so many things happened to disrupt plans - Brexit, the global pandemic, and war. In that context, if there's a sense that something can be parked, it probably will be. So keep up the pressure through the media, constituency MPs, APPGs, select committees - all the tools you have available to you to help the government on track to delivery. Vocal third party support is invaluable to a government taking on vested interests and trying to get things done.

Make every meeting count

I remember when James Timpson [not a politician at the time, now Minister of Prisons] came to see Dom Raab [then Justice Secretary]. James was brilliant - a textbook example of how to use a meeting. He came in with a list of 10 things he wanted to raise and went through each one clearly and concisely, expanding on any of the points if Dom wanted more information. It was the most productive, efficient meeting I've ever witnessed. Don't take ministers' time for granted and don't assume they don't have knowledge of something - they can ask for more information if they need. If their eyes are glazing over then you might need to go back a few steps, but most ministers worth their salt should be able to follow and will ask questions if they need to.

There is a logic to why ministers stick to their lines in media interviews

As a viewer, you look at ministers dodging simple questions on TV and think: how hard can it be just to say yes or no? And yet in No.10 I was part of the team insisting on ministers sticking to carefully drafted answers. The alternative is the minister saying something that the opposition can twist, that would be covered by every outlet in the country and reach millions rather than the few thousand watching the live interview. So frustrating though it is, that discipline isn't just desirable, it's imperative. The best media performers can use their own words, so it sounds like they are talking normally and not robotically, yet avoid giving away the bad headline. For anyone looking to get their message across in the media, you have to boil it down to concise, pithy phrases hooked to an overarching narrative that you can weave into every interview. People live busy lives, you have to earn their attention with disciplined messaging.

Tom’s take👇

I found Beatrice’s point that you may not know what the blockers are to a specific policy change interesting. And, of course, there are policy areas where we do know what the blocker is - we just haven’t articulated a good argument against it (maybe there isn’t one).

I remember a conversation with a civil servant whose view was that as long as campaigners were not prepared to address the legitimate concerns government had on a specific policy ask there was no point in continuing to campaign. That was half a decade ago and, despite some significant campaigns, little has changed in that policy domain.

The campaigners and funders in that space aren’t being realistic about what the conversation is within the halls of power. If you find yourself in a similar situation, three questions for you to ask yourself:

1. Do you know what trade-offs different parts of government are concerned about regarding your policy ask?

2. Do you have a substantive response to address them?

3. If not, what is another policy ask that would make a positive difference, while avoiding the trade-off challenge?

If you’d like a second perspective, drop me a note.