Read GK’s commentary on today’s election results in Scotland and Wales here: A view from the nations

Statement by Robin Grainger, CEO, GK Strategy:

The activities of a former Prime Minister have been frontpage over recent days and look set to remain so, with several probes and inquiries launched by government and Parliament.

At this time, I want to be clear: At GK, we adhere to the highest ethical standards. We are committed members of our industry’s self-regulating bodies, the PRCA and the former Association of Professional Political Consultants. We consistently champion a gold standard for ethical lobbying. We embrace transparency and effective regulation and encourage all those in the industry to do the same.

I am proud of the work GK does as political advisers; to assess political risk, help clients navigate Westminster and Whitehall, and inform and improve public policy making. What we do as strategic advisers isn’t new, and I think it is highly valued. We do this important work whilst complying with and championing ethical standards.

We’re not alone in this. Our industry as a whole has made progress over the past decade to strengthen training, improve its reputation and enforce more robust rules around our ethics.

However, sadly, the actions of a very small number and the resulting ‘lobbying scandals’ are too common. These are mostly, but not exclusively, caused by those operating outside the ethical frameworks set out by industry bodies such as the PRCA (whose members adhere to a code of conduct) and the government’s own regulation.

In addition, current legislation in the UK excludes in-house corporate and charity lobbyists and those current and former politicians who advise independent of political advisory firms. This is not right and I would like this changed. Conversations are taking place about how the legislation to capture those that lobby but fall outside the current rules could be widened.

I want to repeat how seriously GK take our responsibilities and how proud I am of the work we do.

On Tuesday 16 March the government published the long awaited and much anticipated Integrated Review, Global Britain in a Competitive Age. The year-long review of security, defence, development and foreign policy was led by No10 foreign policy adviser John Bew with support from officials across Whitehall. At its core, it provides a synthesised view of the UK’s national security posture and foreign policy for the next decade and beyond.

The review sets out fundamental pillars of sovereignty, security and prosperity. Much has changed since the last Strategic Defence and Security Review in 2015, particularly from a geostrategic perspective. Importantly, this latest review seeks not only to respond to this change and account for it but, crucially, also to shape the landscape that will follow.

In his statement to the Commons, the prime minister said the UK would need to ‘relearn the art’ of competing against countries with opposing values. The ambition is clearly to position the UK as a big state actor committed to global issues. The role of technology in underpinning this ambition will be crucial. The prime minister rightly committed to incorporating it ‘as an integral element of national security and international policy’ and to firmly establish the UK as a global leader in science and technology and as a ‘responsible cyber power’.

The review outlines how the UK’s reach should be global, with particular focus on the Indo-Pacific region as a bulwark to an increasingly aggressive China. It also stresses the importance of deepening our relationships with allies and partners around the world, a recommitment to NATO and others, as well as moving more swiftly and with greater agility.

Many of the headline findings of the review have been well trailed in the media over recent days, including a refurbished COBRA complex and increasing the stockpile of nuclear warheads. What is increasingly clear is the extent to which the UK views both Russia and China as big state threats. The review describes Russia as an ‘active threat’ and China as a ‘system challenge’, although the UK still hopes to deepen its trade and investment relationship with the latter.

It is interesting to note that the UK assessment is closely aligned to that of the US, which recently published its own interim look at national security. Much like the UK review, the US interim review had a heavy focus on great power competition with nation-states and a slight shift away from counterterror initiatives. The similar approach being pursued by both the UK and the US should provide confidence to those who have been concerned at the vacuum created across the traditional diplomatic and defence alliances and institutions over recent years.

The team of advisers and officials who have produced this review have set a clear direction of travel for government. They have identified the critical need to tackle big state issues, while opening trade and investing in cyber and technology. However, with department’s still experiencing shortfalls in budgets, decisions in the forthcoming Spending Review will demonstrate the government’s seriousness to put this plan into action.

Contact Scott Dodsworth, Director, for more information and how to engage with government across defence, trade and international relations. Email scott@gkstrategy.com

Sir Peter Hendy’s interim Union Connectivity review was published today (10^th March). The Review was launched in October 2020 to consider transport connectivity across the United Kingdom and to identify a series of recommendations that will support the Government’s strategic ambitions. Hendy’s final recommendations are expected in the Summer.

Despite being an independent review, the highly political mandate from Government is evident even in this initial iteration. From ‘levelling up’ to the environmental agenda and the future of the Union, the Review is shaping up to be the latest in a long line of reports which elucidate the Johnson administration’s post-COVID, post-Brexit vision for the UK. Hendy appears highly conscious of his work’s position in the greater scheme of things – citing the recent Integrated Rail Plan, the Regional Air Connectivity Review and the upcoming Transport Decarbonisation Plan as parallel and interdependent pieces of work.

As the name suggests, where the Union Connectivity Review is most additive is on the question of how transport links could better operate between nations of the UK. The headline proposal is for a new ‘pan-UK’ strategic transport network to work alongside the existing strategic networks of each nation. This would not alter the operational responsibilities of Highways England, Transport Scotland and others, but would complement them with cross border strategies and assessments.

The final Review will provide an assessment of the ongoing costs of such a network, including preliminary costing and timescales for the proposed fixed link between the British mainland and Northern Ireland.

Only at subsequent budgetary events – most notably the anticipated 2021 Spending Review – will we see how the Government’s priorities fall between cross-border connectivity and other transport projects, including the flagship HS2 project. From a political perspective a Conservative government might assess that apart from diluting the pro-independence feeling in Scotland, there is more to be gained from shoring up their voter-base in the Midlands and the North, than from creating better cross-border links.

On top of the political considerations, there is growing talk of unease from the Treasury about the level of investment chalked up for transport projects versus digital infrastructure – the so-called ‘steel versus fibre’ debate. This rift is one reason given for the continued delay to DfT’s publication of the Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline, which is hotly anticipated by the sector.

If these strands of thought prevail, a new pan-UK strategic transport network could end up far more strategy than substance.

The second week of February was National Apprenticeship Week, and providers, employers and assessors of apprentices waited with bated breath for the plethora of announcements that would come thick and fast to support the sector and encourage greater uptake of apprenticeships by employers. They were disappointed.

Last month’s celebration of the Government’s flagship training and employment policy was a muted affair, with the DfE concentrating on awareness-raising and success stories rather than solid policies. This happened despite the broad consensus currently shared between policymakers and businesses that apprenticeships can provide a solution to a number of issues created or exacerbated by the pandemic. For instance, they can assist in reducing youth unemployment, and allow businesses to meet the new needs of the economy post-pandemic, by retraining existing staff.

Of course, over the past 12 months, the Government has been tinkering with its apprenticeships policy. Most notably with the introduction of the “opportunity guarantee” in June of last year, in which the Prime Minister promised that every young person who wanted an apprenticeship should get one. This featured a cash handout to employers for every apprentice under 25 that they hire. However, this was widely seen at the time as being not nearly enough to offset the risk employers would be taking on by hiring new staff in such an uncertain time. More broadly, this policy has been accompanied by several other announcements in related areas – kickstart, traineeships, t-levels, vocational training – a veritable scattergun of ideas.

This was crystalised with the Spending Review at the end of last year, and the Skills for Jobs White Paper, announced in January, which proposed a number of structural changes to apprenticeships and other similar policies to make them more flexible for employer needs.

While it is good to see the Government prioritising this area, the lack of focus on any one scheme (of which apprenticeships is the most promising) risks confusing and diluting the impact of their initiatives. Apprenticeships work best when they are part of a pathway from education to employment, bridging the gap from school leavers to full-time employees, with a ramp on and off to ensure individuals are not left out from the next stage of their development.

Apprenticeships are fortunate to have some effective advocates both within Parliament and the sector – and it is time for the Government to work more closely with those who want to utilise apprenticeships, and to remove the stumbling blocks that COVID has put in their way. Training providers and employers of apprentices now have an opportunity to engage constructively in this conversation, and stand to reap the rewards of well-trained, motivated staff while Britain builds back better.