Could you back Boris?

Comment

Could you back Boris?

Here at Atlas we take our roles as professional contrarians very seriously. We like to discuss and debate and present alternative arguments. Which brings me on to the topic for this blog. The case for Boris.

In the office, despite a range of views on Brexit, we do not have many natural Boris supporters (or if we do they are staying very quiet!). However this is the man that is highly likely to be our next Prime Minister. He is a politician who does have an audience. So Researcher Mike Hough has taken on the job of looking at why Boris is so popular with MPs and the Tory membership and how he can make a positive difference at home and abroad.

PARLIAMENT

On the 20th June 2019 it was confirmed that Tory MPs had selected Boris Johnson as one of their final two candidates for the leadership. A staggering 160 MPs opted for Boris in the final ballot, more than half of the Conservative Parliamentary Party. With support from all wings of a warring party. Quite a result.

This is actually quite a turnaround. Boris has not always been hugely popular with Conservative MPs. So what has changed? Well, rightly or wrongly he is seen as a winner. He won in London. Twice. Securing voters the Tories don’t normally get. He was instrumental in Leave’s victory in the EU referendum. Including convincing voters in Labour Leave heartlands. To many in the party he is the Heineken candidate, reaching parts of the electorate no-one else can. Although a newly published YouGov poll has challenged the idea that Boris would instantly improve the Tories electoral fortunes.

Then there is Brexit. From a Conservative point of view he was on the right side. He believes in Brexit and has buckets of charisma and charm. He comes across as someone who doesn’t simply want to put up with Brexit but actually believes in it. For a party that is haemorrhaging votes to the Brexit Party, this is not inconsequential. The MPs also know that the members love him and, with reselections ongoing, are keen not to annoy their grassroots.

Tory members.jpg

MAKING A DIFFERENCE AT HOME

As many pundits point out, when a new Prime Minister is elected the parliamentary maths will not change. The numbers still won’t be there for the so-called ‘Hard Brexit’ that Boris and his acolytes seemingly desire. But this in some ways does miss the point.

Legally the default option is for Britain to leave the EU on the 31st October. Now, when Theresa May was in charge, no-one really truly believed Britain would leave without a deal. This changes under Boris. Boris certainly does not have the same qualms about No Deal. And Parliament is running out of ways to prevent this option as highlighted by the Institute for Government.

It is looking like the only way Parliament can stop a No Deal outcome is likely through a vote of No Confidence. Will enough Tory rebels back this? And will it end their career if they do? It is not yet clear. The other alternative is backing a deal, whatever this deal may look like. This means the chances of Boris taking Britain out of the EU on the 31st is significant. Being the man who championed Brexit, any Brexit he delivers will be popular with a significant portion of the public.

MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN BRUSSELS

Of course there are two sides in this negotiation. A fact we all too readily forget. From November we have a new Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen and a new President-elect of the European Council. Despite this, Brussels language about Brexit has stayed the same. That is to be expected. But the truth is very simple; they want this to be over. They believe negotiations have concluded and want to move onto other areas. Yet many feel a Prime Minister insistent on No Deal could scare Brussels into concessions.

This brings us to the most contentious issue. The backstop. This is the only issue stopping a deal getting through Parliament and the next stage of negotiations beginning. Now, the EU rightly will not sacrifice the needs of a current member (Ireland) for the sake of Brexit. But neither do they want No Deal.

So what is the solution? Well it isn’t easy. However with a leader who is serious about No Deal and the clock ticking down, the desire to find a mutually beneficial solution will surely increase. The example of Greece shows the EU can work quickly when needed. So, a sceptic might suggest we are heading to a solution where both sides can save face and claim victory. Something that I believe is now commonly referred to as a “fudge”.

ARE YOU CONVINCED?

Well, truthfully, I am not. But many both in Parliament and the public are. They believe Boris is the man who will take us out of the EU. They believe a renewed focus on No Deal will concentrate minds enough in Brussels to find a solution to the backstop. And if not we will leave on the 31st October 2019. They believe we should be more optimistic about the opportunities that Brexit can provide.

If you are a member of the metropolitan elite or simply a resident of the Westminster village, you may not come across many who think like this. But they do exist. In their millions. And they should be listened to and respected. And who knows, ultimately they could be proved correct. Because in this moment in time you would be foolish to predict anything in politics.

Comment

GDP: Grossly Dated Practice

Comment

GDP: Grossly Dated Practice

While the rest of the country is occupied with her successor, Theresa May has been trying to push through some concrete policy in her final month as Prime Minister, including a new mental health plan and promises to tackle poor-quality housing. The UK has a national well-being dashboard yet we continue to prioritise endless economic growth, often at the cost of our personal and environmental health. This begs the question, what does growth mean to the UK? Is it time for a more civilised kind of growth? New Research Intern Sophie Brownlee investigates. 

A Wellbeing Budget 

In May, New Zealand became the first country committed to introducing a wellbeing budget. They’re not the first, however, to look at alternative methods of measuring growth. Surprisingly perhaps, the Kingdom of Bhutan was the first, coining the phrase ‘gross national happiness’ in 1972. Yet Bhutan remains apparently unhappy, ranking 96 places below the world’s happiest country, Finland. Happiness is highly subjective, though. What matters is where our focus lies. Measuring GDP is not the problem, it’s the end goals it causes us to focus on.  

Whilst GDP is viewed as the gold standard in measuring economic growth it is increasingly viewed as not fit for the 21st century. It doesn’t consider environmental degradation or sustainability and tends to measure success on monetary terms alone. A country is surely so much more than its economy. We don’t judge a child’s growth on their savings account or income but on their educational achievements, the development of their interpersonal skills, and their physical growth. Can reorienting government policy to meet measurable wellbeing targets satisfy GDP diehards as well as communicating to citizens the values that a particular nation believes in? 

The Policy Conundrum 

By placing wellbeing measures at the heart of policy government could change the way it communicates with its citizens. On the other hand, with Bhutan languishing in the happiness polls, we cannot ignore the contribution economic growth makes to wellbeing. 

The problem is that social indicators can easily be branded as woolly. Bhutan’s GNH Index includes domains such as ‘community vitality’ and ‘cultural diversity and resilience’, which are arguably difficult to measure. Equally, New Zealand’s plan includes ‘non-traditional’ indicators such as perceived environmental quality and sense of belonging. One might wonder whether it’s better to improve the actual quality of your environment; it doesn’t do much for our health if pollution levels are just perceived to be getting better. 


The way around these criticisms is identifying what constitutes holistic growth, and what can be measured. GDP has its uses, but it should not set the political direction for a world grappling with issues like climate change or whether the jobs we’re creating are sustainable. The Guardian’s Upside feature rosily suggested, albeit rather tongue-in-cheek, about measuring the number of trees planted; difficult, perhaps, but building a policy panel that incorporates such measures need not be impossible and may in fact be necessary.  

Practical Politics 

The term ‘wellbeing agenda’ is more frequently being thrown around in both the professional and public policy space, highlighting the rising tide of people who want to see a more well-rounded definition of ‘growth’. New Zealand’s budget includes half a billion for the ‘missing middle’ – those with mild to moderate anxiety and depressive disorders – as well as a record investment in preventing family and sexual violence. These are issues that affect not only peoples’ lives and health but their productivity. Focusing growth on a human level should only benefit economic growth in the long term.

According to the UK’s wellbeing dashboard our mental health, levels of loneliness, satisfaction with accommodation, and feelings of depression/anxiety are all stagnating. To quote the F-1 driver Alex Dias Riberio, ‘unhappy is he who depends on success to be happy’. 

Britain does indeed appear unhappy. Divided on Brexit, distracted by leadership contests, and grappling with our place in the world, a ‘wellbeing budget’ might seem the last of our worries but it could be the perfect answer to social reconciliation. It offers us the opportunity to ask, what would we change? What do we value? And what do we want to communicate to others that we define as ‘growth’ and ‘success’? Nobody said changing an entrenched system would be easy. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. 

Comment

From Government to Gilead

Comment

From Government to Gilead

On Sunday during an interview with Sky, Conservative MP and Tory leadership contender Jeremy Hunt shared his “personal views” on the abortion time limit; halve it from the current 24 weeks down to 12 weeks. With the latest odds suggesting Hunt is in with a shot of becoming PM, Bethan Phillips, a consultant at Atlas, explains why she thinks his comments  shouldn’t be brushed aside.

Both Hunt and key supporter Amber Rudd MP have assured us he would not be challenging the abortion time limit, should he become PM. But can we believe this reassurance, lest we forget Hunt used his vote to challenge a woman’s right to an abortion in 2008, attempting to halve the time limit then. Even if he vows not to seek to reduce women’s reproductive rights, should he become PM, chances are he wouldn’t be at the forefront of liberating them either.

Jeremy Hunt MP on Sky News

Jeremy Hunt MP on Sky News

Despite being the Secretary of State for Health for six years, Hunt appears to have learnt very little about why women have abortions, if he thinks halving the time limit will stop women needing them after 12 weeks. 90% of abortions in the UK take place before 13 weeks, so you might ask why is the 10% so worth defending? Quite aside from the belief that it is a woman, with the advice (if required) of her doctor, who is best placed to make these decisions, not a politician. There are many varied, and often sad, reasons why women choose to terminate their pregnancies after 12 weeks including:

  • They didn’t know they were pregnant until after 12 weeks because of the contraception they were using

  • Problems with their pregnancy were not spotted until further into their second trimester and deciding to terminate their wanted pregnancy can take time

  • They are young and have hidden their pregnancy from family and friends

  • They are a victim of domestic abuse and were only able to safely escape the relationship when the pregnancy was past 12 weeks

  • Their lives may have changed in a very short space of time with a job loss, eviction or death of a partner, meaning they have to terminate a much-wanted pregnancy

For campaigners on this issue, it’s disappointing the Minister for Women and Equalities Penny Mordaunt and former Home Secretary Amber Rudd MP have continued to back Hunt, despite his extreme views on abortion. Thankfully his views are not shared by all his parliamentary colleagues or rival leadership contenders. The current Secretary of State for Health Matt Hancock introduced a new government plan that allows women in England to take an early abortion pill at home-a plan Hunt refused to approve whilst Secretary of State for Health. There is also currently cross-party support to decriminalise abortion in the UK and for legal abortion to be provided in Northern Ireland.

MP’s on the Amnesty International march for reproductive rights in Northern Ireland

MP’s on the Amnesty International march for reproductive rights in Northern Ireland

So far, the leadership contenders have all remained silent on this and you may well be thinking ‘calm down dear’ is Tory party policy for this and most issues pertinent to women. But it matters that we protect hard fought rights from erosion. Just look at the restrictions to women’s reproductive rights that are happening across the pond in the USA, most recently when 22 male Senators in Alabama passed a bill banning women from obtaining an abortion, including in cases of rape or incest.

If, like me, you believe in a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body, you can support NowforNI, the campaign to decriminalise abortion in Northern Ireland and across the UK. If you are a member of the Conservative party, you can ask this question of your leadership contenders. Because whilst we look on in shared horror at what is happening in the States and feel frustrated by Hunt’s comments, on average 28 women a week are travelling from Northern Ireland to England for abortion care they are denied at home. Wouldn’t it be inspiring if one of the Conservative leader contenders promised free, safe and legal abortion care for the Women in Northern Ireland- where’s Justin Trudeau when you need him?!

Justin Trudeau reacts to the changes in abortion law in the USA

Justin Trudeau reacts to the changes in abortion law in the USA


Comment

 Navigating the jargon jungle: is it really worthwhile?

Comment

Navigating the jargon jungle: is it really worthwhile?

Jargon: Special words or expressions used by a profession or group that are difficult for others to understand.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/jargon

The PR newbie – Chantel-Mariee Lewis, Research Intern

Starting as a research intern I thought I had a fairly good understanding of what PR was. I previously volunteered at a small PR company, handling social media and events but this would be my first time in an integrated comms agency. I quickly learned that alongside the initial tasks that come with starting any new role, there was also the unspoken assignment that everyone forgot to mention - learn the local language.

My first day in the office was like my first day in a new country. Decoding the jargon and acronyms that were being thrown around in team meetings and in emails was an endless challenge. What was the ‘national press’ and why did it differ to ‘trade press’? Who was KPI, and why were we hitting him?! And when I agreed to my first ‘sell-in’ to pitch a story, I thought it would be something much more complex than making a round of calls to journalists trying to get them to write an article.

media targets image.jpg

I was told to look through the ‘media list’ which was far more than just a list of names. It was actually a carefully constructed list of journalists specific to this story. In Cision’s 2019 State of the Media report, 75% of journalists said that fewer than 25% of the pitches they receive are relevant. The subtle targeting of the list is actually what leads to the possible success of the story.

My first sell-in taught me that jargon is also used when communicating with journalists. A quick Google search of the word ‘embargo’ showed me it was all about the banning of ships leaving and entering a port – something I swiftly learnt was not relevant to my news story. Instead, the journalist was simply asking for the date the story could be published. Now, how serious the consequences are of the embargo being broken; I still don’t know - could we sue?

Nine months down the line, I understand how it’s so easy to slip into the routine of using jargon. It may be 1.75 seconds quicker to ask if a project is needed by ‘COP’ today. But are these 1.75 seconds really needed?

***

The PR veteran – Sarah Evans, Consultant

I hate jargon, I find it confusing and isolating. But sadly, I’ve come to realise that jargon is not that easy to avoid.

PR has its own jargon which can lure you into a false sense of security as you pretend to sound super smart as you bang on about ‘engagement plans’ and ‘toolkits’; when really all I mean is ‘ways to get people interested in the story’ or ‘what talking points to remember’.

Our job as communicators is to make sure our audience understand what we are talking about. For example, it’s being able to explain the difference between the online TV show “The Fox Problem” and the physical ‘fox problem’, of urban foxes causing chaos in cities - a valuable lesson I learnt as a young AE that I’d rather not go in to! The point is, we need to get our message across clearly and effectively, but that can be made all the more difficult when you’re also navigating your way through a jargon minefield. Is the interview going to take place ‘DTL’, will it be a ‘pre-rec’, will I need to give them an ‘off-the-record’ briefing etc? But before we even get to the pitching stage, as consultants we need to make sure our clients understand what our recommendations are.

DTL interview image 2.jpg

Often, our client contact will be the in-house comms lead, who has as much, if not more, PR experience as we do, but that’s not always the case. Our day-to-day contact is not always someone who has a history in PR and therefore may not necessarily understand things that we would consider the basics. We can never assume they know the difference between an ‘exclusive’ or ‘general release’ nor the importance of an embargo or a briefing doc vs a briefing event. The last thing you need is to confuse your client more by sending them an email asking if they’re free for a ‘DTL’, ‘pre-rec’ interview and if they could please let you know by ‘COP’ as the opportunity aligns with the existing ‘LTDP’.  When you indulge in too much jargon, it can be a dangerous game to assume your client always knows what you’re talking about.

Being surrounded by jargon means it can be difficult to escape it but working with interns and people who are new to PR is a great way to challenge yourself and pull yourself out of the PR jargon pit. For me, I think it makes me a better communicator. It forces me to take ownership of the language I use and to not hide behind a jargonistic veil. It challenges me to think about what other words I can use to describe what I’m doing and take the time to explain what I really mean when I talk about a ‘media strategy’ and what goes into it.

Not all jargon is bad, and I would argue that some of it is necessary and can even be a bit fun - ‘Prush’, anyone? AKA the PR adrenaline rush that comes with landing a piece of coverage, for those of you who were wondering…

But I do think it’s important you are aware of what words you choose and don’t just use jargon for the sake of trying to sound smart, because more often than not it will have the opposite effect.

***

 

Jargon image.png

So, here’s our jargon buster for old hands and newbies alike…

Briefing doc: A document designed to prepare the client ahead of an interview which usually contains the objectives of the interview, the suggested talking points and some likely questions.

Briefing event: An event that is arranged to brief people on a piece of research, or policy ask that the client is promoting.

COP: Close of play AKA end of the day (something I discovered was not that well known, after I received a very confused email back from a client one afternoon)

DTL: Down the line (NB, most definitely not to be confused with DTF)

Embargo: A date by which a press release or statement can be made public

Engagement Plan: This document usually contains story ideas and suggestions for how to get the media, politicians or other relevant groups and individuals interested in the work your client is doing.

EOW: End of week (again, not something that well known, which was also only realised after I received another confused email back from a client)

Exclusive: When a story is offered to one particular journalist or publication ahead of anyone else.

  • Pros: It is (almost) guaranteed coverage.

  • Cons: It can result in other publications not wanting to cover it.  

General release: When a story is sent to numerous publications and journalists at the same time, to encourage as much coverage and publicity as possible.

KPI: Key performance indicators. Targets which are set at the beginning of a campaign, for example achieving one MP meeting per month or securing one piece of national coverage per month.

LTDP: Long term delivery plan

Media list: Usually an excel sheet that contains suggested journalists to contact for a particular story.

National press: Media publications or outlets that are available across the country. For example, the ITV, The Guardian or BBC Radio 4.

The Noddies: Filming a presenter nodding along to questions a producer has actually asked earlier.  

OB: Outside broadcast (as in recording something physically outside)

Off the record: Sharing information with a journalist that they are not allowed to publish or attribute to the source.

On background: Sharing information with a journalist that they are allowed to publish but not attribute to the source.

Pitch: The ‘sales’ process of suggesting or offering a story to a journalist on the phone or in an email.

Pre-rec: Pre-recorded interview

Prush: PR adrenaline rush. The feeling PR people get when a piece of coverage lands, or when a journalist has agreed to cover your story after you have been pitching for hours/days.

Sell-in: The process of calling and emailing journalists to encourage them to cover your story.

Toolkit: The document that contains the key talking points for a campaign and all additional information, for example sources of information and background context/thinking.

Trade press: The media outlets that are subject specific, for example they only cover stories that are about printing or dogs or property law, for example.

Comment

RETURN OF THE NIGE

Comment

RETURN OF THE NIGE

So the European Elections are all over, and I have good news for you. Your side has won. Whichever side you are on. If you just add A+B to C and forget about D then quite clearly there is a majority for whatever your preferred outcome is. Remainers and Leavers can both rejoice...

Joking aside, now that the dust has settled, one of our resident election nerds Researcher Mike Hough digests the results; who had a good night; what happens next and whether we can really read anything into the results.

WHO HAD A GOOD NIGHT?

_107133510_hemi_update-nc.png

Firstly we have to start with Nige and his shiny new party. The Brexit Party topped the poll with 32% and finished highest in nine of the twelve regions. For the second consecutive European elections, Farage has won. Not bad for a party that was only officially set up six weeks ago. Their strong performance will have worried both Tory and Labour headquarters. Good job there isn’t a tight by-election coming up in a Brexit facing seat anytime soon. We’re looking at you this Thursday Peterborough.

The #LibDemfightback is now a very real thing. Coming fresh off successful local elections, the Lib Dems finished second securing an impressive 20% of the vote. They even beat the Labour Party in London. The Lib Dems have successfully managed to position themselves as the main outlet for frustrated Remainers. Despite this (Vince also resigned on Friday, but if you blinked you probably missed it!), the prospect of further growth is tantalising and will likely dominate their forthcoming leadership contest. It is no wonder the Lib Dems feel like they are back.

Lastly, it was a good night for the independence leaning parties in Scotland and Wales. The SNP scooped up a substantial 38%; a big increase on their performance in 2014. With continued talk of an imminent new independence referendum, the SNP’s momentum shows no sign of fading. In Wales, Plaid Cymru has been enjoying something of a recent revival. Despite finishing behind the Brexit Party, Plaid successfully outpolled Labour. Don’t underestimate how much of a big deal this is for Welsh politics. No Welsh independence referendum looks likely, but all routes to  Labour electoral victory run through Wales and this is looking less and less probable..

_107119627_brexit_pos-nc.png

CAN WE REALLY READ ANYTHING INTO THESE RESULTS?

It is crucial to avoid drawing too wide a conclusion from the Euro Election results. Not too much. Turnout was only 37.6%. Fewer than two in five turned out to vote, compared to the 68.8% turnout at the General Election and the 72.2% turnout at the EU referendum. To many voters, it was seen as a free hit so trying to extrapolate what would happen at a future election or referendum from these results is not sensible. But most pundits had a go anyway.

One conclusion we would draw is that these results show a country that remains polarised. Yes, that polarised word again. The success of the Brexit Party and the Lib Dems and their differing positions show both Remainers and Leavers continue to be passionate about their cause. The results also indicate that adopting a strong position, be it a No-deal Brexit or a second referendum is electorally fruitful. Constructive ambiguity is no longer the way forward. Expect both Labour and the Tories to take note.

 

SO WHERE DO WE GO NEXT?

The immediate response from the Tories will be framed by their imminent leadership contest. At the time of writing we have 13 (yes, 13) runners and riders. With the haemorrhaging of the Tory vote to the Brexit Party, a lot of candidates will compete to sound the toughest on Brexit and leaving the EU (with honourable exception, Sam Gyimah). We expect that whoever the new Tory leader turns out to be will adopt a far tougher stance on Brexit and could even favour a No Deal (e.g Johnson, McVey, Raab). Quite whether this is feasible with the current parliamentary maths is another question.

In the shade from all this heat and light remain the Labour Party who had a disastrous night. Since the results have been counted the push from senior Labour figures has been for the party to take a stronger pro-Remain position. To date, Corbyn has held off but as more and more senior figures within his party publicly contemplate it, the pressure may become too great. It cannot become too long before Labour officially becomes an all-singing, all-dancing backer of another referendum. This will please Alistair Campbell, even if his expulsion from the Labour Party won’t. It may also signal the beginning of the end of Corbyn.

So, in conclusion? The Conservatives and Labour Party moving further apart. Divisions in Parliament likely to expand. No real decisive conclusion on the way forward. These election results indicate this debate is here to stay. There will be no Brexit reprieve. And yes we are still going to be talking about Brexit for the foreseeable future. Ultimately more of the same. Sorry!

Comment

Changing of the Guard?

Comment

Changing of the Guard?

John Humphrys, the long-standing, no-nonsense host of BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme, announced his departure from the show back in February. Whether you love him, hate him, or love to hate him, Humphrys is about as experienced a journalist and interviewer as you’ll come across.

Since beginning his career, the world has been transformed and Humphrys has reported on his fair share of this change. Starting out as a junior reporter, he was first to reach the Aberfan disaster of 1966. As a foreign correspondent he reported Nixon’s resignation from the US and witnessed the creation of Zimbabwe. Beginning in 1986/87, Humphrys’ presenting of the Today Programme has spanned three decades.

Other than blowing a hole in the Today Programme’s line up, his departure (set for some time before the end of 2019) also highlights the media’s transformation over the past few decades. Likely the most widespread of these being the treatment of women in the media. Research Intern, Neil McAvoy, explores this change and what the future may hold.

Humph.jpg

FEMALE REPRESENTATION IN THE MEDIA

While the first full-time, salaried female journalist on Fleet Street was Eliza Lynn Linton around 1860, (before women had even won the vote), women in media remained exceptions to the rule for a long time.

At the dawn of the 20th Century, Alex Harmsworth, original owner of the Daily Mirror, sought to break this trend by creating a paper “for gentlewomen by gentlewomen”. He attempted to do so by hiring a completely female team. Unfortunately, this wasn’t the beginning of a rosy future for women in print. Upon the paper’s mediocre performance, Harmsworth quickly went back on his decision, fired his newly acquired team of women, changed the focus of the paper and alleged, “women can't write and don't want to read”.

It was only during the latter half of the 20th Century that women found themselves more frequently able to enjoy a media career. Wartime participation in the workplace undeniably proved that women could, and the feminist movements of the 1960s helped ensure that women would. Yet progress proved slow and when Humphrys first entered a newsroom, women were the exception to the rule.

While improvements to the media’s Gender Pay Gap have been made in the past couple of years (see Vanessa’s blog to find out more), a distance remains between the sexes with men occupying 66% of senior roles in UK newspapers. Dishearteningly, research indicates the scales are being equalised at a painfully slow rate. As research by Women in Journalism demonstrates, this is especially true of front-page news. The average percentage of front-page stories written by women in June-July 2017 sat at 25%, only 2% above the 2012 average.

Unlike the arguments for low female representation within STEM careers, the same cannot be applied to journalism. A study by the European Journalism Observatory demonstrates that more women than men go on to study journalism in the UK. The culture of the newsroom seems to be where the problem begins.

BATTLES WITHIN THE WAR

Representation is also not the only challenge. Many women have had to fight to secure equal pay (some still are). A notable example being Carrie Gracie, ex-BBC China Editor. Gracie later described her fight for equal pay within the BBC as being worse than her battle with breast cancer. The jokes Humphrys was recorded making about Gracie’s resignation served to highlight the old school culture of the media warring against the new and demonstrated Humphrys’ allegiance within the former.

Gracie 1.jpg
 

Not only do women not making the front-pages as frequently or achieve similar levels of pay as their male counterparts, they also don’t get the opportunity to cover the same stories. Male reporters were almost always allocated the ‘hard’ news stories (such as politics, foreign affairs, terror attacks and disasters) while women predominantly wrote stories in ‘softer’ areas (royalty, showbusiness and health). The below charts released by Harvard’s Nieman Journalism Lab illustrate this disparity in the UK. The extent to when this is a personal choice or an editorial decision is hard to determine.

Chart 1.png
Chart 2.png

One consequence of this disparity is the way women are represented in media coverage. For a long time, the media objectified women, an unfair and unhealthy trait highlighted in Leveson's 2012 report. The removal of page 3 in the Sun in 2015 could have been a particularly powerful advert for cultural change, had they not reinstated it a week later for a one-off, special edition! While dramatic improvements have been made, this ugly characteristic of the UK’s media still lurks in some outlets, albeit less overtly – you only have to look at the Mail’s reporting of Theresa May’s and Nicola Sturgeon’s legs.

Page 3.jpg
Legs-it.jpg

SEEN BUT NOT HEARD?

At least on a visible level, there has been a changing of the guard and the upper echelons of the media now boast an impressive roster of women. Back in 2015, Nick Robinson left his position as the BBC’s Political Editor and Laura Kuenssberg became the first woman to hold the position. Faisal Islam recently did the same to make way for Beth Rigby as Sky News’ Political Editor. Paxman left Newsnight a few years ago to eventually be replaced by Emily Maitlis. When Dimbleby from Question Time Fiona Bruce won the sought-after job. As the below picture demonstrates even the most unequal of ecosystems within the media, the Westminster Lobby, is experiencing improved levels of female representation.

lobby.jpg

While individual high-profile positions are now occupied by women, it would be lazy to infer that that the entire media had equalised opportunity between the sexes. Does the emergence of an extremely ‘visible’ frontline merely show media organisations to have reacted to social pressure and provided ‘good optics’? The number of female newspaper editors, for example, remains shamefully low and suggests so.

Media organisations should also recognise the self-serving importance of focusing on enhancing diversity, in all its forms, throughout their ranks. In an ever more diverse society living through the golden age of content, consumers of media are likely to leave mainstream outlets in droves if they perceive their voice not to be represented. Outlets like gal-dem, an online and print magazine written by women and non-binary people of colour, have proven they can be successful for this precise reason.

Motives aside, it is plainly a benefit that women are increasingly able to succeed within the upper echelons of the broadcast media. While there’s uncertainty surrounding who Humphry’s replacement will be, it would be odd for the BBC to not attempt to enhance diversity on its journalistic frontline. Yet, while it’s a healthy change from the near all white, male dominated line-ups of the past, more needs to be achieved throughout the industry. Due to its visibility and influence (it literally sets the tone) the media may represent one of the most critical industries to achieve such diversity within.

Comment

Your Atlas Guide to the Tory Leadership Contest

Comment

Your Atlas Guide to the Tory Leadership Contest

With the Tory leadership contest now in full swing, colleagues Sophia Stileman (a hard-Brexiteer) and Neil McAvoy (a passionate Remainer) have joined forces to provide you with all the balance and insight you’ll ever need on the runners and riders - ranked here in order of their current odds.

Boris Johnson 2/1

The ultimate marmite candidate and current front runner. Those who love him are drawn to his often jovial and amusing demeanour. Others find his assertions often baseless and clumsy, presented through unnecessarily flamboyant language disguising either true meaning or a complete lack of meaning.

So what are his chances of winning? Thinking suggests that if Johnson makes it to the final two, he stands the best chance of becoming PM. But while he’s popular with the membership, many Tory MPs are not so sure. The crucial factor for Boris is the length of the leadership contest: with over a month to go, there is time for a typical ‘Boris’ shaped scandal to emerge, and another dark horse to win the prize. The latest obstacle is a mandatory court appearance over the famous slightly dodgy number crunching that led to the £350m bus campaign. But can this (or literally anything) stop the political force that is BoJo, or has it even worked in his favour?

Michael Gove 3/1

Unlike many of his colleagues, Gove does get the job done and is an extremely active politician. His time in DfE and DEFRA have each been marked by substantial change. From shaking up marking procedure in the education system to making lofty environmental promises ranging from air pollution to microbeads, Gove has always been an active innovator (for better or worse!).  

It might look like Gove has largely been forgiven for stabbing Boris in the back during the last leadership contest all those years ago in 2016. While his politics aren’t everyone’s flavour, he’s capable, effective and statesmanlike when he needs to be. As mentioned, he’s also no stranger to innovation. He still holds water with some ‘true’ Brexiteers in the party (although many classify him as a sell-out for voting for May’s Withdrawal Agreement) and hasn’t acted so destructively as to mar his relationship with more moderate conservatives. This ability to reach across his own party may be the key to his success.

Dominic Raab 6/1

Backed by wealthy Tory donors and a number of influential MPs including David Davis and Maria Miller, #ReadyforRaab is certainly gaining momentum. However, his identity as a ‘true’ Leaver is arguably too closely linked to Boris – both ‘hard’ Brexiteers with economically conservative and somewhat socially liberal ideals behind them. He’s often regarded as the more credible Brexiteer, with social mobility at the heart of his campaign to become the next PM.

His critics point to his track record as the shortest serving Brexit Secretary of the bunch, Raab’s tenure was either a heroic endeavour to secure a style of Brexit he wanted or a wake-up call that it was never possible. For an ex-international lawyer, Raab’s knowledge of geography, or at least his knowledge of the Dover-Calais crossing, could certainly use some refining.

Andrea Leadsom 8/1

Leadsom famously drew criticism in the last leadership contest for claiming in a Times interview that she’d make a better PM than May because, wait for it… she’s a mother. Already the claws have come out, as she turned on the soon to be former PM, suggesting that we would have already left the EU had she won in 2016. Motherhood powers and all that. In all seriousness, the Leader of the Commons stands a good chance, with prominent backbench support. Whether or not she can shake off past controversy and present a rejuvenated image is the big question.

Regardless, what MPs from across the house likely won’t forget of her tenure as Leader of the Commons were her concerted efforts to prevent and rectify bullying and harassment within parliament, even standing up against the speaker in the most public of ways.

Rory Stewart 14/1

Atlas Director Charlie’s former school fencing teammate wasted little time following his appointment as International Development Secretary in announcing his bid to be the next Tory leader. Nobody can accuse him of being a career politician, having tutored members of the Royal Family and advised Obama on foreign policy, not to mention the fact that Orlando Bloom was lined up to play Rory in a film of his life in 2008. Or has all of it just been a fevered opium dream?

Team #Stewart4Stewardship is picking up momentum daily, with Tory centrists welcoming his commitment to compromise and find a way forward through Brexit without turning to the political extremes of No Deal or a People’s Vote. He’s spent this week popping up in public places, asking to be debated, prompting some hilarious tweets. Regardless, his common sense approach and engagement with the public is a welcome breath of fresh air. Fun fact: did you know his name is actually Roderick? Meaning we may be looking at Prime Minister Rod Stewart in the near future. He’s certainly given us a Reason To Believe.

Jeremy Hunt 16/1

Jeremy Hunt was very unpopular as Health Secretary with the medical establishment, but his odds on winning a Tory leadership contest aren’t quite so dire. A ‘converted’ (soft) Brexiteer, he’s seen by many as a credible alternative to the hard-Leavers of Boris and Dom. He could appeal to both sides of the Tory Party and he has, as Foreign Secretary, come across as sensible and measured; a feat not all that impressive or surprising in contrast to the record of his predecessor. He could well be a surprise candidate to watch out for coming through the middle, although he is seen as a bit ‘continuity May’ which will not be well received by many in the Tory party.

Sajid Javid 25/1

While often uninspiring, it’s safe to say that Javid, or ‘The Saj’ as we hear he prefers, has a big ego and lofty ambitions. Like Hunt, having been a ‘reluctant remainer’, Javid has similarly, dutifully converted to religion of Leave. A tactical move for someone looking to shore up support within both the party and the membership.

While his record in the Home Office hasn’t yet been subject to any real controversy, it also hasn’t been all that noteworthy. No matter his ego, this is likely exactly how ‘The Saj’s’ leadership campaign will go. His first campaign video had us all cringing. The question is, are you #AvidForJavid?

Matt Hancock 33/1

The leading One Nation representative of the group, Hancock is hoping to heal the nation’s deep divides and constitutional crisis through being “a leader for the future, not just for now” and promising the “bright future we must build for Britain”. Could he be the centrist voice the Tories need, or is this just meaningless waffle?

That being said, his record as DCMS Secretary is widely admired across the board, with a great track record on tech investment, and a fervor for digitalisation. We might even all download the Matt Hancock App now. But has someone told him that he won’t be able to digitalise Brexit.... or will he?

Esther McVey 50/1

The former work and pensions Minister has is one of only two women standing in this race. So far she’s welcomed a ‘no deal’ Brexit and committed to more police funding: welcome policies with the Tory grassroots but not enough to really carve out her own identity and form a distinct campaign in a very overcrowded race. In a battle fought almost purely along Brexit battle lines, her commitment to a hard-Brexit won’t be enough to win over voters. She only has five parliamentary supporters so far, and one of them is her fiancé Philip Davies.

If McVey was to progress to the later stages of the race, her views (backwards to many) would be placed under increased scrutiny. Her recent comments on LGBT lessons in schools have already attracted significant scrutiny and it’s very likely that there will only be more instances of this the longer McVey remains so visibly in the public eye.

Mark Harper 100/1

Don’t worry, we had to Google him too. Just in case you can’t be bothered, he’s enjoyed a number of ministerial positions since 2005 and most recently served as David Cameron’s Chief Whip between 2015 and 2016. It seems unlikely that even he believes he can win.

Sam Gyimah 200/1

The latest candidate to announce he’s running for leadership, but the only one to publicly back a second referendum. He’s clearly hoping to capitalise on the parliamentary Remain wing of the Conservative Party, but he would be defeated heavily when faced with the Leave-supporting membership.

James Cleverly 33/1 (withdrawn 4th June 2019)

A relatively fresh faced Brexit Minister, James Cleverly sadly has just one MP supporting him (Colin Clark...yep, us neither). One of the more recent MPs of the group, the former Deputy Chair of the Tories has only been a parliamentarian since 2015.

However, we’re not convinced this is a serious bid to be the next Prime Minister of the UK as much as it’s a bid for a weighty cabinet position. That being said, he is definitely one to watch for the future as his no nonsense style and ability to talk ‘human’ make him an effective communicator.   

(04/06): Cleverly has withdrawn, citing that he is highly unlikely to be considered for the final two candidates.

Kit Malthouse 100/1 (withdrawn 4th June 2019)

To politicos his surname is most associated with the ‘Malthouse Compromise’, a doomed yet commendable attempt to bring the Tory party together during the most fractious period of Brexit votes. To much of the public, he’s a complete stranger. Potentially the least likely to win the race but at least a few more people might hear his name.

(04/06): Malthouse has withdrawn.

Odds are correct at time of publishing.

Comment

Mental Health – the Atlas way

Comment

Mental Health – the Atlas way

Nina Doehmel-Macdonald, Senior Consultant shares her thoughts on Atlas’ wellbeing policy during Mental Health Awareness Week…

One in four people will experience diagnosable mental health issues during the course of a year – that’s technically three people within Atlas alone. Mental health is a critical part of life and given that we spend more time with our colleagues than most other people in our lives, it’s astounding to think that mental health in the workplace is only just becoming part of public discourse.

We take mental health very seriously at Atlas – our wellbeing policy is not just a token gesture. Together, we have all undergone both Mental Health First Aid and mindfulness training so that we can best support each other and manage our own health. Our flexible working policy is a core part of our agency's culture and has enabled us to learn to drive, look for new flats, make time for doctor and dentist appointments, care for relatives in hospital and drop off kids at school. And of course, sometimes, things happen which mean spending a bit of time at home simply helps. We actively try and reduce the stigma around mental health and operate a metaphorical open door policy (metaphorical, as we have no doors!) – all of these points contribute to a better quality of life and work.

There’s no ‘one size fits all’ approach to wellbeing, which is part of the reason why Atlas also offers all employees a ‘Smile More/Save More’ budget to invest in an activity of their choosing – be it painting, language lessons or yoga, or putting the budget into a savings scheme. Along with eating well, getting enough sleep and exercising these activities all contribute to a healthy and happy life, and if there’s one thing I’ve learnt in my 32 years it’s that you have to find what works for you and stick to it. All. The. Time.

For those not personally affected by mental health issues, it’s more than likely you know someone who is, or will be in the future. It’s so, so important to talk about it so that others know that it’s okay to ask for help.  It may be Mental Health Awareness Week this week, but protecting and building our mental health needs to be a 24/7, 365 days a year thing.

Our mission is to be the happiest agency in London – and not just because it’s the woke thing to say. We firmly believe that a happy team results in great work, and great work means happy clients. At Atlas, we’ve pursued this model for almost four years, and we know it works. Our clients stay with us, refer us on to friends and colleagues or come back to us when they themselves change roles. Healthy, long term revenue streams mean we can reinvest back into the company and our staff, which has allowed us to recently launch a completely equal enhanced parental pay policy. The policy is on par with many of the biggest employers in the UK - something we are incredibly proud of.

Comment

LOCALLY SPEAKING

Comment

LOCALLY SPEAKING

As everyone’s favourite B word dominates the airwaves, behind the scenes the nitty-gritty of politics continues. And nothing is more nitty-gritty than local elections. On Thursday many voters in England will go to the polls to elect their local councillors. An event that may not have always captured the imagination, but could actually be quite exciting. Well, for some of us at least.

In this blog, researcher Mike Hough will discuss where the elections are taking place, what we should look out for and what it tells us about the bigger picture of politics.

WHERE?

So firstly where are these elections being fought? Pretty much everywhere in England, barring London. This means there will be elections in the Tory shires, elections in Labour heartlands and elections in key battleground regions.

And who is fighting them? Well, the usual suspects. The Tories, Labour, Lib Dems, the Greens and UKIP will all be contesting a number of the seats. The new kids on the block will not be making an appearance. Alas, the nascent Brexit Party and ChangeUK were not created soon enough to be allowed to put forward candidates. The Electoral Commission are such spoilsports.

May and Corbyn campaigning.jpg

SCORES ON THE DOORS

In total, there are 8,425 seats in play. The last time many of these seats were contested was in 2015 on the same day as the General Election. A pretty good day for the Tories. This means the Tories start from a high base and are defending 4,906 seats. This compares with 2,113 for Labour, 647 for the Lib Dems, 176 for UKIP and 71 for the Greens. It also means turnout then was much higher than anyone expects to see on Thursday.

WHICH ISSUES MATTER

The national mood and national politics is always relevant, which further suggests it will be a difficult night for the Tories. However, it is important to remember in local elections voters cast their vote for a number of different reasons. For some this is the best opportunity to register what they think about bin collections, potholes, police services, women’s refuge funding, libraries, the arts transport services, council tax and a wealth of other local political issues. Parties will be and are campaigning with this in mind. See Labour’s latest pledge to reverse cuts to 3,000 bus routes in England for example.

Potholes.jpg

WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR?

OK, so onto the actual results. Where could we see drama?

BRIGHTON AND HOVE

Brighton and Hove Council is fascinating, at least for the nerds amongst us. No party has had overall control of the council since 2003, and excitingly all council seats are in play on Thursday. The Tories are currently the largest party but both Labour and the Greens have a significant presence. If the national mood turns decisively against the Tories you would expect them to lose seats here. On a good night Labour would expect to do well and probably take control of the council. However, don’t rule out a strong performance from the Greens who have a solid local base.

STOKE ON TRENT

Stoke is normally Labour land. Yet in 2017 on an otherwise bad night for the Tories they seized a parliamentary seat in Stoke South. The local council is now also no longer in Labour hands but is run by a coalition of Conservatives and City Independents. Labour would expect to make gains on Thursday. However there is a caveat, Stoke is also Brexit land. If Labour Brexiteers are angry with the party’s constructive ambiguity on the topic closest to their hearts we could see it play out in Stoke. Whether Labour can in pro-Brexit areas will be an interesting dynamic to monitor.

BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET

Last but not least, Bath and North East Somerset. The council was taken by the Conservatives in 2015, but this could now be under threat. The Conservative councillors will come under attack from all sides on Thursday especially from the Lib Dems as they have traditionally performed well here both at a council and a national level. If the Lib Dems are ever to realise their much promised #LibDem fightback they need to make gains here. Their aim is to win enough seats to ensure the council moves from Conservative control to No Overall Control. And if that isn’t a metaphor for the beleaguered leadership of Vince Cable I don’t know what is.

THE BIG PICTURE

Prediction time. Drumroll please. So come Friday what will we all be talking about? We predict losses of upwards of 500 Tory councillors and more than 300 Labour gains. A good result for the Lib Dems with over 100 gains which will set the stage for Sir Vince’s much heralded exit and a forthcoming leadership contest. There should be considerable gains for the Greens as Sir David Attenborough, our carbon guilt and Extinction Rebellion have seen the environment climb back up the political agenda.

There is one final issue. Trust (you can read our wider views on trust here). Trust in our politics and politicians is at a low ebb. This is likely to materialise through voters staying away with turnout expected to fall from the already low 2018 numbers. So whilst we all dissect the results, it is important to remember most voters probably just won’t turn out which is something for all in politics to reflect upon.

WHERE DO WE END UP?

So where will this leave politics when all is said and done? We think these local elections will capture the headlines for a day or two but then the story will move on. The narrative will return to Brexit and the European elections and their implications (examine our latest thoughts on the European elections here).

Yes, the elections will be another nail in the coffin for our depleted Prime Minister’s career. But no, it will not be the final one. Unfortunately Mrs May will have to suffer a few more wounds yet. So I suppose regardless of the results you might say nothing will change.

Comment

European elections: a 2nd Referendum or a waste of time?

Comment

European elections: a 2nd Referendum or a waste of time?

Few of us would have predicted at the start of the year that by the end of May we would be preparing ourselves for Euro elections in the UK. However bar a Brexit rabbit being pulled from the Prime Minister’s handbag, this is the direction we are heading in. Although Brenda from Bristol will no doubt be unimpressed, the potential implications of this surprising electoral event are rather significant. 

Low turnout, big impact.

The Brexit deadline extension to 31st October has meant that despite MPs returning this week to Parliament, things are pretty calm in Westminster. Apart from continuing speculation about when Theresa May will go and the dying-on-their-feet Government-Labour Brexit talks, the Euro election, with its new parties and wacky candidates are taking centre stage. The ensuing results may have real significance, chiefly influencing the future of Brexit. 

For an election traditionally viewed as a non-event that suffers from a poor turn-out, this is very much a change in mood. That is because the Euro elections are a high stakes poker game for both Leave and Remain to shift the tables and break the current deadlock in Westminster.

Remainers celebrated more than Brexiteers when Theresa May was forced to accept an extension to Brexit. The extra time heightened possibility of a 2nd Referendum. However, Remainers also need to be careful what they wish for.  The delay and therefore the likelihood of Euro elections has created an opportunity for Leavers to put the People’s Vote arguments to bed once and for all.

What the polls say

We all know polls can be unreliable barometers of future voting intention, but if they are to be believed then Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party will be the big winners in these Euro elections.  The Times’ Red Box showed the latest YouGov polling on Euro voting intentions in a handy Leave v Remain v Lab v Tory format. It is early days and only one poll, but what it does show is that there is a very good chance that if you include the Conservative vote as broadly ‘Leave-supporting’ then Leave-supporting parties are on course to win the highest percentage of the vote on 23rd May.

A combined Brexit Party, UKIP and Tory vote would gain 46% of the vote, and a combined LD, Green, SNP/Plaid and ChangeUK vote, 32% of the vote. The great enigma in this is Labour who, are on 22%.

Labour is simultaneously committed to a 2nd Referendum but ultimately still in favour of Brexit (as even arch-Remainer Andrew Adonis has been forced to concede). A sizeable proportion of the Labour vote is pro-Brexit as opposed to the membership which is overwhelmingly pro-Remain. As the only party on the ballot without a firm anti- or pro- Brexit position, on this occasion their vote is essentially neutral and they may see a big dip in support in comparison to previous elections.

redbox.jpg

People’s Vote proxy?

So the question is, come Euro election results day on Sunday 26th May, will a majority for Leave-supporting parties ensure Brexiteers can claim that Britain is still in favour of Brexit and go so far as to suggest that it negates the need for a 2nd Referendum? Given how important motivation and media air time are, and that the more representative EU voting system favours small/emerging parties, I think that it probably will. If the margin is significant between the two sides, then the call to treat the Euro polls as proxy for a 2nd referendum will become deafening. After all, it’s not like the Euro elections are about anything else except Brexit.

To date both sides have been reluctant to discuss this thought, for obvious reasons. As the 2017 election demonstrated, big early polling leads can rapidly disappear. The flip side is, of course, also true. If Labour comes out firmly in favour of a 2nd Referendum and the combined percentage of the Remain parties wins the day then the calls for a 2nd Referendum or even a revocation of Article 50 will be loud too. But those are bigger ‘ifs’.

Either way, much as we are enjoying the revelation of d-list celebrity names of Euro candidates on both sides, the vote is actually far more important than perhaps realised. This has not been lost on senior campaigners and when I put this thesis to a senior Eurosceptic Cabinet Minister recently, his view was ‘100%’ the results of the vote will be used as a 2nd Referendum. There is no doubt that after the 26th May the shape of the Brexit argument will have been fundamentally realigned and perhaps decisively in one direction or another.

Comment

Trump: the 2020 election and why he’s here to stay

Comment

Trump: the 2020 election and why he’s here to stay

I can still hear the faint not my president chant ringing through the streets of towns across America following the election of Donald Trump three years ago. It shook up the nation and politics generally, with ramifications across the globe. For many of the disappointed, it was a matter of holding tight before he would no doubt be rejected in 2020. Or even better, he’d be impeached before the next election even took place.

But let me tell you now: The Donald isn’t going anywhere. While he’s failed to broaden his base beyond his immediate supporters, history is on his side. The economy is doing well, unemployment is down, and he’s got more in the bank than any other past incumbent president at this stage in the campaign trail: all of which are key indicators of upcoming success. Let’s take a closer look.

It’s the economy, stupid

Very rarely has an incumbent presidential candidate gone on to win a second term when the economy is in decline. And fortunately for Donald, the US economy is very much on the up, and most importantly, in the right places. Given Trump has made few new friends, the key question for 2020 will be whether he has retained his old ones.

Here the economies of the rural, ‘forgotten’ states are significant, and they have boomed. Earlier this year it was reported that 10 states hit their lowest rates of unemployment in their histories: Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont and Wisconsin. Nine out of ten of these states voted for Trump. White men without degrees have experienced a 3.1% wage raise over the past two years, 1.5% for black men, 1.7% for white women, and 0.6% for black women.

But is this enough? As Thomas Edsall pointed out in his excellent most recent New York Times piece where he reveals these statistics, these were the same economic conditions under which Democrats reclaimed the House last November in the midterm elections.

Money talks

As the famous political philosophers ABBA once said: “it’s a rich man’s world”. Nowhere is this truer than in US elections. Not only will the successful candidate rack up hundreds of thousands of airmiles travelling across states, they need to fund cripplingly expensive ad campaigns. The price of victory ($400 million). Ads are the most significant expense for any campaign, with more than 70% of Obama’s re-election campaign expenses and 55% of Mitt Romney’s being spent on them. Literally billions of dollars are spent during election season, and nobody is better prepared for this than Trump.

The US President has already raised a whopping $30 million in the first quarter of 2019, more than both of his Democratic rivals combined. We’re still more than 18 months away from the ballot box and already the Trump campaign has spent nearly $11 million on Facebook ads since May 2018, running more than 190,000. By contrast, Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign had less than $2 million at this point in the election.

So is he really here to stay?

Before you all get too depressed, we do have to remember The Donald is nothing if not unpredictable. While campaign finance and the state of the economy are traditionally reliable indicators for the success of an incumbent president, we should know better than to rely on precedent and predictions from past elections.

Indeed, one of the reasons Trump was elected was that he represented change. Americans were bored of the same candidates (and dynasties) running the country and wanted an outsider. But Trump can’t claim this in 2020. He isn’t change anymore, he’s the incumbent.

With the full Mueller report released today fully clearing Trump of collusion with Russia, the reality of a second term feels a real possibility. For all the shiny videos emerging of Democrat candidates now pledging to change America, the cold facts remain that they lack the clear advantages Trump possesses ahead of 2020.

Sophia Stileman, Researcher

Comment

“Lies, damn lies and statistics” and the gender pay gap

Comment

“Lies, damn lies and statistics” and the gender pay gap

When I talk to my dad about the gender pay gap, this is his go-to phrase. Falsely attributed to Disraeli, popularised by Mark Twain, the expression was originally coined by radical liberal Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke in 1891, or possibly not.

According to last week’s second annual publication deadline, 78% of firms pay men more than women. And yet my dad will insist there is no such thing as the gender pay gap. It is a statistical creation, a false metric that allows women to feel hard done by. He will go on to argue that the only form of discrimination is income inequality and, while that has been dramatically widening (he worries) it does not affect women more than men.

My dad is rarely wrong. But on this one he is suffering from a particularly acute case of white male unthinking, deriving his opinion from his own perception (a world where his wife and daughter are treated and valued entirely equally, and his mother and grandmother called all the shots). He assumes his experience is a truth that should be universally acknowledged.

When I commented on Helena Morrissey’s excellent post about the GPG on LinkedIn the response was less polite than the debates my dad and I have… John K from San Diego asked “what about the societal expectation that men should work hard and provide for their families, die younger, perform the dangerous jobs? Shove it sweetheart, we ain’t buying your misandrist crap any more. You and your screeching fellow man hating harpies have ruined the narrative.” Which is something of a surprise to read on a professional networking site. Although it turns out that John is not alone, depressingly nearly half (46%) of American men believe that the gender pay gap is made up for political purposes.

Trolling aside, just because it is a crude metric, doesn’t mean it cannot tell us something meaningful and powerful. What it does not tell us is that women are paid less than their peers. Nor does it tell us that “women should just be more confident and ask for a pay rise” (again my dad). My mum once met my old boss, whereupon he launched into a volley of praise for my performance at work. “Don’t clap, throw money” was her zinging response. She and I, and in fact women in general, don’t have a problem asking for more money. The research shows we are simply less likely to get a positive response to that ask.

Of the 9,961 companies which had filed by 5pm on 4 April, 44% had improved or narrowed their pay gap. On the flipside, 40% of reporting firms saw a growing or widening pay gap. This is not surprising considering that the data being reported is already a year old, so the plans published last year could not possibly have come into effect for this year’s data. Some commentators have suggested those with “good news” to tell should be scrutinised for potentially gaming the system. Whereas those whose gaps have got wider might be investing in the future by hiring lots of young, lower paid women, who will eventually make their way through the ranks.

 

The great Brexit distraction

So now that we have had a chance to review the numbers published last week, what have we learned?

Last year, we predicted that worsening numbers would drive the biggest headlines ahead of the second anniversary. This proved to be the case for HSBC, KPMG and EasyJet, but the biggest difference was actually in the volume of coverage. If like us you have been trying to engage journalists in any story at all over recent months, or simply regularly consume the news, you will know why: Brexit is dominating the agenda to the exclusion of all else.

In March 2018, 7,375 UK stories ran with “Pay Gap” in their title, in March 2019 there were just 1,280, an 80% reduction in media coverage. There was more of a focus on specific sectors, with health, universities and financial services driving the biggest stories.

The outraged scrutiny of the BBC’s gender pay gap looks somewhat hypocritical when you compare their numbers to the rest of the media industry.

The outraged scrutiny of the BBC’s gender pay gap looks somewhat hypocritical when you compare their numbers to the rest of the media industry.

Media companies themselves also had to report on their gender pay gaps, but funnily enough those didn’t drive too many headlines. Two years in a row the BBC actually had the second smallest gender pay gap in the sector, not that you’d know it.

The most improved award goes to the Daily Express who narrowed their median gap from 19 to 14.6 per cent. Hats off to Press Association for demonstrating that a pay gap in the media is not inevitable.

 

Call in the spin doctors?

If transparency leads to bad headlines, who do you call? As we highlighted last year, not all spin doctors are equal when it comes to equality. Very few PR consultancies are required to publish their gap, only 4% of PRCA member firms are large enough that they fall under the regulations. However, the last PRCA Census showed that between 2016 and 2018, the gender pay gap actually increased in the PR industry, growing from 17.8% to 21%. So what credentials can you look for in an advisor?

Well, walking the walk is a start. And the picture here is as murky as the national one. FTI Consulting, reported the largest pay gap, at 32.2 per cent median. But put this down to “providing services beyond PR that are historically male-dominated”. Edelman’s gap last year was 10% and their rhetoric was frankly rubbish, so it’s no surprise so see their gap widen to 13.4%, worse still their bonus pay gap has gone up from 44% to 73%.

As with media, a pay gap in PR is not inevitable. We are a small firm of just 12 so our numbers are easily skewed by individuals, but our median pay gap is 24% in favour of women, up from 5.6% last year. The median gender pay gap at Golin has risen to 7.7 per cent in favour of women, up from 4.6 per cent last year. The same is true for Hill and Knowlton, in 2018 they reported a 3.9% median gap in favour of men, this year that has switched to a 2.36% gap in favour of women.

 

Reputation vs productivity

So spin doctors may or may not be able to help you with a reputation challenge from the gender pay gap. But what is sad is that this is definitely the box it seems to fall into in the minds of management. We should be investing in diversity to make our businesses more productive – not simply to look equal.  As Harvard Business Review explains diverse teams are more likely to re-examine facts and remain objective. They encourage greater scrutiny of each member’s actions, keeping their joint cognitive resources sharp and vigilant, thereby reducing risk. Hiring people who do not look, talk, or think like you, may feel less comfortable but it means you avoid the costly pitfalls of conformity, which discourages innovation. Time and again studies find that equality is good for business performance, but we still don’t act like we believe those findings.

 

No plan, no action?

Many firms did not publish a plan of action alongside their numbers, which means we shouldn’t expect to see meaningful progress any time soon. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) - which enforces the gender pay gap rules - said that forcing companies to report their pay gaps was not enough to eliminate pay disparities.

On a more personal level, this isn’t a ‘girls job’ to fix, and it is illusory to think that the argument should only be concerned with women’s choice over their lifestyles. As men become more aware of the problem, having to collect and address the stark facts, they too can help as powerful agents for change.

Part of the future of Pay Gap reporting needs to be concerned with the workplace stereotypes that remain frustratingly persistent. As I wrote last week, some of this is about a parenting penalty at work. But it starts even before childcare becomes an issue, according to the Government’s graduate earnings survey, men earn more than women at all stages in the decade after graduation, with male earnings 8% higher after just one year, 15% after five years and 31% higher at 10 years after graduation.

The same unhelpful gender stereotypes that teach girls to be polite and helpful, not pushy or bossy, also teach boys not to cry. These attitudes and behaviours should not be overlooked when searching for solutions, meaning a focus on mental health support at work and shared parental leave for male managers are just as important as affordable childcare and negotiation skills for women in the executive pipeline.

If you need help planning for gender pay gap 2020 – we’d love to hear from you.

Comment

COMPROMISE, COMPROMISE, WHERE ART THOU COMPROMISE?

Comment

COMPROMISE, COMPROMISE, WHERE ART THOU COMPROMISE?

Well where to begin. It certainly has been an exciting week. Tottenham have finally moved into their new stadium. Harry and Meghan have broken a record by reaching one million followers on their newly launched Instagram account. New adverts have been released for the last series of Game of Thrones. Oh and Parliament has continued to talk about Brexit.

Yes, the B word. Now if your mood is anything like ours it would be fair to say you are probably suffering from Brexit fatigue. And we are the political nerds. The bad news is there does not appear to be an immediate end in sight. Researcher Mike Hough looks at what the future may hold and whether there will ever be a time when we do not talk about Brexit.

WHAT ON EARTH IS HAPPENING

The best we can probably say is [Add strong insight here.] Of course I’m kidding but this does rather sum up where we are at with Brexit. Parliament has continued to clarify what they don’t want without expressly saying what they do want. No to No Deal, No to revocation, No to the PM’s deal, No to a customs union, No to a second referendum. Some more resounding than others.

In an attempt to break the deadlock the Prime Minister this week invited Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn for talks. To say this has gone down badly with Tory backbenchers is an understatement. The brave loyal band of ERGers have been sharpening their knives. Ministers have resigned. Yet the world has not come to an end. Of course, conversations may fail to bear fruit. Despite the reaction what our politicians should know is that the public actually like our politicians working together. With a 52:48 result, compromise was always a necessity rather than a luxury.

SO WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Initially, more talks. And then probably some more talks. Likely followed by even more posturing. Both sides competing to use the most ridiculous and unhelpful language. However, at some stage Parliament will have to make a decision. In a Bill passed in just one day on Thursday in the Commons, Parliament ordered the PM to seek a further extension. But then what? All competing sides in the UK political sphere will have to compromise. Yes the dirty C word again. This compromise could look like a softer Brexit (whatever that means), a confirmatory referendum or a combination of both.

We have a tendency to forget one fairly important player in this debate. The EU. Any request for a further extension will have to be agreed by the EU. The Prime Minister has requested an extension until 30th June yet the EU appears to favour a longer extension. All will be decided at a special EU summit next week. Power is in their hands. Which given Parliament’s inability to reach a decision may be viewed as a relief by those on the remain side.

Donald Tusk.jpg

HOW IT ENDS?

You will be glad to know I have conducted detailed market research on this question. Thus rendering any future democratic exercise meaningless. I jest, but I did ask the office. Whilst there are currently 19 different options on our sweepstake of wild predictions the consensus view was that the UK will most likely face a long extension. In this extension period we consider it likely there will be a further democratic exercise; a General Election or a confirmatory referendum. In this period we will also probably have a new Prime Minister.

But this is just a guess (hopefully an educated one!). In reality, your guess is as good as ours. No situation is simple here and all come with challenges. No-one on either side of this debate is likely to end up satisfied. Our office Brexiteer and People’s Voter are united in horror (if not on much else!). This whole situation has not been handled well and questions have to be asked about all parts of the process. The 20:20 hindsight of commentators wise after the event is already creeping in.

SHALL WE TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE?

Whilst all this is ongoing we shouldn’t forget there are other issues of political significance. The Gender Pay Gap (read our latest blog here), schools funding, the NHS and an ageing population, the regeneration of our most deprived towns and cities, the police and knife-crime. These are really serious issues and they are not getting the airtime they deserve. They should not be an after-thought to the Brexit conversation.

Anyway, let’s try to end on a positive note. There are good things happening as well. Happiness is at an all-time high. Technological and medical developments continue to astound. The sun is shining (at least some of the time!). Politics has engaged a greater number of young people. And despite the present discord in the words of the late Jo Cox MP, “there is far more that unites us than divides us”.

I know it doesn’t feel like it, but this won’t go on forever. We will move on. And yes, regardless of how this ends and what side of the argument you are on the future is bright. Well brightish!

Comment

Balance for Better: Women in Sport

Comment

Balance for Better: Women in Sport

Balance for Better: Women in Sport

Today is International Women’s Day, where the theme is ‘Balance for Better’. It provides an opportunity to talk about the progress we have made in working to achieve gender balance, as well as a chance to reflect on the challenges that still lie ahead. Our Researcher, Sophia, explores the gender balance in sport, highlighting problems in the way women’s sport is reported in the media, and what we can do to tackle them.

Where are we at?

First, we should note that great progress has been made in the world of women’s sport globally. Representation in high positions has improved. The number of women on International Olympic Committee (IOC) Commissions has been increased to almost 43% of the total membership since 2013.[1] A growing support for women’s sport is also reflected in our population. According to the Women’s Sports Trust, 59% of people in the UK have an active interest in women’s sport – a potential market of 24 million people.[2] Women's sport is on the rise compared with years gone by.

This is starting to be reflected in the media. Alex Scott made history as the first female pundit in the Sky studio on Super Sunday last year, where she reported on premier league fixtures alongside Graeme Souness and Jamie Carragher. While she had been a pitchside analyst in the past, having a woman in the studio was unheard of. She said of her success as a female pundit: “I want people – boys and girls – to be sat at home watching me alongside the likes of Rio Ferdinand or Frank Lampard, thinking that it’s normal, that we all know what we’re talking about, and that they’re not judging me at home just because I’m a female.”[3] You and I both, Alex. But it remains that women are still not playing and talking about sport on an equal footing to men.

Drip drip drip

One problem is the way we speak about women’s sport. Often it’s a subtle drip drip drip that influences our perceptions and can have a significant impact. For instance, men’s sport is largely considered the default ‘sport’, with pundits most often referring to “football” and then “women’s football”. I’m no expert but women’s football is just as much ‘football’ as men’s football. They both play by the same rules and require the same commitment.[4] Then there are the not-so-subtle commentators. Simon Kelner, the former editor of the Independent, said that women talking about Football World Cup games “is like getting a netball player to discuss major league basketball”. Not helpful. Jason Cundy also attracted widespread criticism for his comments on hearing Vicki Sparks commentate on the World Cup last year, complaining it was “a tough listen. I prefer to hear a male voice. For 90 minutes listening to a high-pitched tone isn't what I want to hear.”

Aesthetics or athletics?

Perhaps the worst and most enduring practice of commentators is the focusing on appearance over ability. Why are we talking about the length of Heather Watson’s skirt, rather than the possibility she might win the UK women’s first gold medal in tennis since 1908? Why does commentary focus so disproportionately on women’s appearance and personal lives in sport rather than the quality of their performance? The double standards and sexual undertones in the way women’s sports are reported is a dis-service to the sport being played, as well as the individuals playing.

Culture

But maybe the current narrative around women’s sport is just a symptom of a wider problem of culture? For many women the ‘lad-culture’ of football is very off-putting and makes it seem like it’s not ‘meant for them’. It’s not hard to see where this comes from. It’s reinforced very early on in the playground that netball is for girls and football is for boys. In fact, by the age of 10, 95% of boys will be playing football, compared to only 41% of girls of the same age. We can’t expect adult sport fans to dramatically change their view of men’s and women’s sports teams when it runs counter to everything they experienced growing up. When Girl Guides did their Girls’ Attitudes Survey 2018, one young respondent said: “I think girls’ lives would be better if girls felt more encouraged to do sports and ‘male’ subjects in school.” We cannot stress enough the importance of starting the process of encouraging girls into sport early.

What next?

Given all this, what can we do? In a conversation that so often relies on vague conclusions about “society” and “equality”, having tangible actions that can make a positive difference is important. Here’s a few ways we can take small steps towards a big goal (if you’ll pardon the pun).

Firstly, we can’t underestimate how important it is to work alongside men, rather than opposite them. Not just because shutting out 50% of the human population makes absolutely no sense, but because men suffer from gender inequality too. Men in sport can play an incredibly important role in calling out sexism where the voice of a woman sadly just wouldn’t be as effective. Sir Andy Murray is a wonderful example of this. Two years ago, Murray was praised for correcting a journalist who said Sam Querrey was the first American to reach a grand slam semi-final since 2009. Murry responded: “Male player,” highlighting that Serena Williams had won a fair few majors in that period.

Secondly, we can build on successful instances where both men’s and women’s sports have happened side by side. In 2016 the Men's and Women's World Twenty20 was held simultaneously in India. In fact, the final took place on the same day and at the same ground. The result was greater publicity and interest in the women's game. Whilst some may argue that such a format makes the women's game a sideshow to the "main event" of the men's tournament, that is not the result in tennis or athletics. A Jessica Ennis-Hill title is as widely reported and known about as a Mo Farah one.

It is a similar story with rugby. The Six Nations has both a men’s and women's tournament running concurrently. Often the women's match is played at Twickenham straight after the men, or alternatively takes place across the road at the Twickenham Stoop on the Friday night before. This raises awareness of the women's rugby and allows fans to be introduced to the women's game. My local club Harlequins include their women's team on their results page, in their social media posts and competitions. As far as they are concerned, they are one club with two teams.

Another way balance can be achieved in sport is through brand investment. Advertising and sponsorship are crucial, not just through funding but in the message projected to women that sport is for them too. The commercial male focus puts a lot of women off and brands are often hesitant to invest in women’s sport because they don’t feel that they’re reaching a large enough audience. But more brands need to break the cycle and tap into a growing market of women.

Some progress has been made here; only yesterday Lucozade announced they will be moving into sponsorship of women’s football for the first time ever ahead of the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2019. This follows Nike’s ‘Dream Crazy’ ad series, featuring Serena Williams calling out double-standards on how female athletes are described when showing emotion. The ad closes with: “If they want to call you crazy, fine. Show them what crazy can do.”

This is the way forward: equal treatment and partnership, including, not excluding, men in the debate. Celebrating the progress made thus far, but mindful of our steps yet to come.


[1] https://www.olympic.org/news/women-in-sport-where-are-we-with-gender-equality-today

[2] https://www.womenssporttrust.com/there-is-a-real-and-growing-demand-for-more-womens-sport-in-the-uk/

[3] https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/alex-scott-sky-sports-pundit-super-sunday/

[4] Cambridge University Press have analysed millions of words relating to men and women and how they are described in language associated with the Olympic sports.

Comment

IT’S THE FINAL COUNTDOWN

Comment

IT’S THE FINAL COUNTDOWN

It’s that time of year again where the Gender Pay Gap dominates the headlines. In March last year 7,375 UK stories ran with “Pay Gap” in their title. New research from Opinium shows 64% of Brits have heard about the Gender Pay Gap in the last 6 months. With last year penned the “grace period” for firms, this year looks set to be double the scrutiny for those finding themselves under the spotlight. With less than a month to go until the reporting deadline our new Consultant, Bethan Phillips, examines what’s been creeping out of the woodwork.

FROM BAD TO WORSE

16% of firms, nearly 2,000 companies, have released their gender pay gap data for a second time. And so far in 2019 there have been 1,130 stories with “Pay Gap” in the headline. BBC analysis in February showed at the time of publication the median gap (that is the difference in pay between the middle-ranking woman and the middle-ranking man) in Britain has lessened - it is now 8.4%, down from 9.7% last year. Hurrah? Alas, not quite. In 4 out of 10 companies, the gap is getting worse.

Towards the end of last year, in the midst of Brexit chaos, some firms released their gender pay gap results for 2018- including HSBC and 18 Government Departments. At nearly a third of government departments the gender pay gap has widened over the past 12 months, despite previous pledges to reduce it.

Guardian GPG infographic.png

The biggest rise in the median pay gap was reported by the DCMS, where the median gap nearly trebled from 8.2% to 22.9% in 2018. The main reason cited for this increase was a “loyalty penalty”. Whereby progressive policies such as flexi working, targeting working parents, encourage women to stay on in their roles. Only for them to be “screwed on pay” because by being promoted internally they are limited by civil service policy on internal pay increases. However, men who were hired externally at a director level were (surprise surprise) recruited on much higher salaries than their female equivalents.

HSBC might have thought they’d escaped media scrutiny when the press didn’t initially pick up their increase in gender pay gap. Roll on 2019 and a flurry of articles branding HSBC the “worst bank” for the gender pay gap surfaced. Their gender pay gap grew to 61% in 2018, compared to 59% a year earlier. Safe to say- HSBC’s new year wasn’t off to the best start.

HSBC gender pay gap.PNG

Another pay gap offender was the energy giant Npower, whose median gender pay gap has grown from 13% to 18%. This was in part attributed to more female than male employees opting for a salary sacrifice benefits scheme. These schemes were hailed “a positive step towards the company being more family friendly”. There appears to be a recurring correlation between family friendly policies and the gender pay gap, with women suffering the financial consequences. But it also goes to show that Gender Pay Gap reporting is just one crude metric which doesn’t tell the full story behind the number.

BOYCOTTING ON THE INCREASE?

With the second year of Gender Pay Gap reporting well underway, conversations around consumers and potential recruits boycotting brands and businesses because of their gender pay gap are growing. Research from The Equality and Human Rights Commission shows candidates are putting more pressure on companies to show they are pushing diversity and gender equality – with two-thirds of women taking a company’s gender pay gap into consideration. At a panel discussion on The Gender Pay Gap, hosted by Lansons, Opinium and PRCA, Bibi Hilton MD at Golin suggested we will see an increase in consumers boycotting brands with a gender pay gap. An opinion echoed by Allyson Stewart-Allen, CEO of International Marketing Partners. Reputations are certainly at risk, but will consumers actually boycott these businesses? We’re not sure that consumers are really ready to put principle above pricing yet, but we’ll be delighted to be proven wrong on this one!  

LONG TERM ACTION PLANS

There are no silver bullets when it comes to fixing the gender pay gap, so we will no doubt see these worsening results continuing to dominate the headlines. Sam Smethers, Chief Executive of Fawcett Society, is urging businesses to draw up long term action plans. She believes they need to illustrate a dedication to making change by producing a 3-5 year strategic plan on how they will improve their gap. A piece of advice reverberated by Chloe Chambraud Director at BITC Gender Equality at the PRCA Gender Pay Gap panel discussion. The pressure is on for the Government to require firms to have a real action plan to address their pay gaps and consequences for those that don’t.

Comment

Would I lie to you?

Comment

Would I lie to you?

Our Researcher Toni Heijbroek promises to stick to the facts in her latest blog, when pondering on the state of our public psyche and the findings from this year’s Edelman Trust Barometer.

Who do you trust? Why do you trust them? These questions permeate our lives from the workplace to our weekend conversations in pub corners. But the consequences for business and comms are far greater than trusting your mate to get the round correct.

For 18 years, headlines from the Edelman Trust Barometer have provided insight into the state of trust in our international communities. With 33,000 respondents worldwide, it is the mother of all surveys. It’s highlighted shifts in the way we, as global citizens, view the world and the institutions in it. In 2017, trust was in crisis. 2018 was coined the year for the ‘Battle of Truth.’ And the 2019 results are in... but what do they actually mean for politics, media and comms?

THE POWER OF POLARISATION

This year has seen ‘trust inequality’ return to record highs. As part of their barometer, Edelman have calculated the average percent of trust placed in NGOs, business, government and media by two groups of society. The ‘informed public’, the top 16% of the global population holding the top quarter of global household income, who went to university and the ‘mass public’. The 84% of people around the world who aren’t so lucky.

This increase in ‘trust inequality’ means the gap between our global population’s ‘informed public’ and ‘mass population’ has widened.

This tells us that, unsurprisingly, as a global society we are becoming more polarised over whom we trust and why. We, as Brits, are in an even more dire state. Our ‘informed public’ sits happily in a state of ‘trust’ at 64 points, with our ‘mass population’ 24 points lower in a state of active distrust. We are a nation divided along a number of fault lines.

Protesters at the #MeToo survivors’ march : thousands march in LA as sexual misconduct allegations continue

Protesters at the #MeToo survivors’ march : thousands march in LA as sexual misconduct allegations continue

Take politics, for example. In a post-referendum environment, it will hardly come as a shock that things are not looking rosy for our political elite. But 3 in 5 UK citizens believe Government doesn’t listen to “people like them”, regardless of their leaning in the 2016 referendum. And half of us believe the socio-political system is broken. For better or worse, you need look no further than Parliament’s new Independent Group of MPs, or TIGgers, to see that this disillusionment with politics is echoing in the halls of Westminster. 

We are also divided along gendered lines. Gender Pay Gap reporting and the #MeToo movement are indicative that inequalities and injustices are not going away. Our collective desire for change has never been greater, fuelled by a mutual feeling that governments and elected officials just don’t get it. 

BUT WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR MEDIA?

This collective urge for change means our desire for fact finding has sky rocketed. Our engagement in the news agenda is up, the disengaged are becoming more engaged, and more and more people are amplifying the news agenda through their own personal social channels or blogs.

PR professionals everywhere can sleep easy, as this means our market is growing. As more people engage with and augment news, there is the ever increasing opportunity for our work to affect more and more people. Our scope for impact is on the up. 

Yet with power, comes great responsibility. Awareness of scary algorithms designed to perpetuate echo chambers of news online are coming under fire. And two thirds of us worry that the news we consume may be weaponised and fake.

SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? WHO DO WE TRUST?

If you are reading this from the relative comfort of your ergonomic desk chair, take a moment with me. Do you trust your boss?

Turns out, 73% of us in the UK do.

Our gradual reordering of trust has landed “My Employer” with the top job. They are considered more trustworthy than NGOs, governments and the media. And they hold this position because in our polarising world, we look to relationships that are close at hand.

Your employer is much more tangible than government, for example. The talking heads in Central Lobby on the Ten O’Clock News are a far cry away from who you see across the office on a Monday morning.

These relationships make us feel more empowered. They are more controllable.

Surprisingly, this also rings true for those who are more traditionally considered disenfranchised. Even the majority of those who believe the system is failing them trust their employers.

 
From the Edelman Trust Barometer: For each one, respondents were asked to indicate how much they trust an institution to do what is right, using a nine-point scale where one means that you “do not trust them at all” and nine means that you “trust them a great deal.” “Your employer” was a category for those who are employed, but not self employed.

From the Edelman Trust Barometer: For each one, respondents were asked to indicate how much they trust an institution to do what is right, using a nine-point scale where one means that you “do not trust them at all” and nine means that you “trust them a great deal.” “Your employer” was a category for those who are employed, but not self employed.

BUSINESS AS USUAL?

However we are not allowing the top cats to rest on their laurels. Globally, three quarters of us say that CEOs should take the lead on change rather than waiting for the Government to impose it. This means that we are increasingly expecting employers to be at the forefront of issues like gendered pay, prejudice and discrimination, and even the environment.

Similarly, 7 in 10 of us think it is “critically important” for CEOs to respond to challenging times. This means we want our business leaders to take a stance on political events and national crises. Board rooms across the country: take note.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR COMMS?

As we look to our employers more and more as trusted partners, the role of internal comms gets ever more important. If we trust our businesses so much more than our governments, and our media outlets, why aren’t we all utilising internal comms as part of our campaigning?

The year of ‘Trust at Work’ shows the increasing necessity of successful internal comms. Employers need to be vocal on change that is happening in their businesses and in the wider community. They need to start and continue meaningful conversations that support workplace progression. They need to run open and honest internal comms campaigns that nourish this growing trust.

Put simply, employees are putting their trust in the workplace, which means we need to trust them with our campaigns.

Comment

The Independent Group: A Bold But Empty Gesture?

Comment

The Independent Group: A Bold But Empty Gesture?

While both Labour and Tory defectors in the new Independent Group appear seemingly united, underpinning their rationales are two very different parties, with very different problems. New Atlas researcher Sophia looks at whether the TIGers can mobilise the centre ground and offer more than an anti-Brexit movement, or whether their inevitable differences will be too strong to overcome.

 

CONTEXT

 

The creation of the Independent Group is understandable but also puzzling, as Britain’s two main parties find themselves in very different circumstances. While Labour has been consumed with allegations of antisemitism and bullying, many have been left wondering why three Tories have left a party that is trying to fulfil its manifesto pledge of pursuing Brexit.

 

If you separate the Independent Group’s policies beyond Brexit you will still find, at heart, Labour and Conservative MPs. Despite both main parties being split, they are of course ideologically separate. Umunna still supports greater public spending, and Soubry still supports the austerity agenda driven by the Conservative Government. While ideological differences with their native parties have brought them together, ideological differences may yet tear them apart as buried beneath the surface lie very different views on the role of the individual and the role of the state.

 

SUBSTANCE

 

So can the Independent Group unite around more than disillusionment with the leading parties? More than slowing -even preventing- Brexit? Their statement of independence is worryingly empty: void of distinct policies and consisting more of vague statements that nobody could really disagree with. On the other hand, (highlighted here in a previous Atlas blog), a moderate (even if somewhat vague in TIG’s case) middle ground for the politically homeless is welcome at a time when politicians (and people) are so deeply divided.

 

CHANCES OF SUCCESS

 

Last week a YouGov poll placed the Independent Group at 18 percent, despite their lack of manifesto. Although the usual caveats around the reliability of polling applies, to put this in some context, Cameron called a referendum when the UK Independence Party polling at just 10%. This latest polling suggests that the electorate to some extent shares TIGer’s disillusionment with the main parties and simply favour a change -any change- from May’s shambolic handling of Brexit and the hard-left of Corbyn.

 

These considerations are now more poignant as the Group's character shifts from an SDP-esque Labour splinter movement, to a political grouping with the potential for electoral influence. The First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system has historically smothered small parties before they even get started, and this will surely be no different. Once the novelty of their creation has worn off, whether they have the potential for electoral success is yet to be seen.

 
independentgroup2.jpg

 

THE FUTURE

 

One option on the table is to facilitate some form of merge with the Lib Dems, however this comes with its own baggage and further dilutes the possibility for consensus as a third party enters the mix. The extent of agreement within the Group on Lib Dem involvement is already contentious, with some avoiding the question and some seemingly suggesting they’re all welcome.

 

Regardless of how you look at it, it’s bold. To cross the benches and collaborate with your opposition on forming a new parliamentary group takes some guts. But once the novelty wears off, will they unite and change political history, or be remembered as an idealistic but ultimately hollow faction? We will be watching with interest.

Comment

No such thing as bad publicity?

Comment

No such thing as bad publicity?

Gillette Logo.png

An unusual suspect for controversy by all accounts, Gillette certainly kicked 2019 off with a bang. Their advert, ‘We Believe: The Best Men Can Be’, sought to combat toxic masculinity by asking men to call out the detrimental and damaging behaviours of their peers.

Our intern, Neil McAvoy, examines the recent advert causing quite a stir.

So, why the fuss?

To many the advert is uncontroversial. The statement that men no longer must fall into behaviours that, while deemed ‘masculine’, have been problematic and unhealthy for men and women alike is surely one to be welcomed?

Gillete Ad, Pro Response 1.png
Gillette Ad, Pro Response 2.png

If only this was where the story ended …

THE REACTION

As if to confirm the existence of a problem within the psyche of a noisy portion of the advert’s male audience, a fierce and relatively widespread backlash ensued. At the time of writing, the short film version has around 25M views, 678K likes and 1.2M dislikes.

Gillette Ad, Neg Response 1.png
Gillette Ad, Piers Morgan Response.png

While the advert is certainly not without its faults (few ever are!), it’s hard to, in good conscience, disagree with the message that bullying, harassment and workplace sexism aren’t aspects of society that should be allowed to endure. Nor is the advert wrong in suggesting that these behaviours, at least the latter two, are disproportionally experienced by women. The assertion that men need to act more often to prevent the spread of these behaviours is also accurate. While these truths are hard to deny, they were lost on many men who watched the advert.

As the advert’s reception demonstrates, Gillette is also correct to think that these messages have yet to resonate with the parts of society they need to most. Whether a 30 (or 90) second Gillette advert is either the effective or appropriate vehicle to accomplish this is another matter.

ARE GILLETTE THE RIGHT FRONT-RUNNERS?

If companies are going to provide this type of social commentary in their adverts at all, should Gillette be the one to do so?

On this issue, rationally, yes, they probably should. Gillette is one of the world’s largest marketers to men. Its (potential) influence is huge.

They are also donating $1m annually into US non-profits which align with their recently demonstrated ethos. Additionally, Procter and Gamble, Gillette’s corporate overlords, have run similarly motivated adverts on other companies they own in the past. Whether this is for their own gain or society’s, I’ll leave you to decide.

Always, Throw Like a Girl Ad.gif

SO WHY ISN’T IT RESONATING?

Firstly, when most watch the advert, they don’t see this context. Instead, many protectively see the ‘feminisation’ of a male world they have grown accustomed to, feel instantly uncomfortable and react defensively. Others, rightly or wrongly, perceive the advert to stink of virtue signalling.

The generally poor execution of the advert doesn’t help either. The acting is far from ground-breaking. Shock horror, I know. The several heavily exaggerated stereotypes and caricatures featured make it challenging for the advert to convey sincerity. A line of men stood BBQ’ing is tricky to take seriously, no matter the context. This trivialises the issue and, while the message remains the same, makes it more difficult for the advert to achieve its goal of changing minds.

Gillette, Men BBQing.png

The short and simple requirements of an advert don’t lend themselves well to a convincing comment on one of society’s longest-running problems. Resultantly, it oversimplifies an issue which, whether you like it or not, can’t be resolved without sensitivity and the appreciation of nuance. It uses the example of two young boys play-fighting to represent toxic masculinity. This is neither accurate or helpful.

While short and sweet adverts work relatively well when selling products or experiences, they work less so when trying to change men’s minds and misplaced senses of identity. This has caused many men to miss the point of the advert, unable to see the benefits both men and women will receive from such a change and merely perceiving an attack on ‘masculinity’.

THE RESULT?

Perhaps Gillette’s foray into the realm of social commentary will add itself to a list of examples that prove there is such a thing as bad publicity. While certainly raising the company’s profile, the advert has created serious uncertainty for Gillette’s brand reputation and sales. It may have also further entrenched the type of men it was trying to reach into their defence of the more unpalatable and disruptive aspects of masculinity. Through gargantuan publicity, Gillette has risked deteriorating the circumstances of each of the matters it set out to better. Bad publicity does exist.

Whatever your view, it’s probably worth remembering that it was just an advert. A reality which seems to have been lost on many.

Gillette Ad, JamesO'Brien.png

Comment

MOMENTS THAT MATTERED 2018

Comment

MOMENTS THAT MATTERED 2018

As the year draws to an end, here at Atlas we’ve been reflecting on our top 12 moments that mattered in 2018; the good, the bad and the ugly.

Salisbury poisoning

4th March 2018

On Sunday 4th March Salisbury, a relatively unheard-of city famed for its Anglican Cathedral, hit headlines around the globe, as the setting for a Le Carré style attempted espionage. In the early afternoon Mr Skripal and his daughter Julia were discovered unconscious on a bench in Salisbury. The city went into lock down and the press went mad; who was behind the poisoning, Putin or rouge Russian security agents? Since then we’ve learnt the pair were poisoned by military-grade Novichok nerve agent.  There were two other innocent people who later came into contact with the perfume bottle, used to contain the nerve agent, one of whom died. The two Russian suspects have been identified as officers in Russian military intelligence.

Did you know…The head of the British Army has declared Russia a "far greater threat" to the UK's national security than the Islamic State group.

 

Gender Pay Gap headlines

Gender Pay Gap headlines

Gender Pay Gap Crescendo 

April 5th 2018

The Gender Pay Gap filled the headlines in the lead up to April 5th, with barely a day going by without the media putting a company and their data in the spotlight. Despite people frequently conflating equal pay and the gender pay gap, it was encouraging to see the message break through that more needed to be done to support the progression of women across all industries. By April 2018 positive stories and calls to action, such as EasyJet’s efforts, were gaining as much attention as the scandals and outrage. A lack of workplace equality isn’t a ‘girls job’ to fix, and as men become more aware of the problem, having to address the stark statistics, they too can help.

 Whilst over 10,000 companies and public sector organisations revealed their pay gap data this year, one got more criticism than any other - the BBC. The ONS puts the UK’s average median pay gap at 17.9%  so the BBC’s gap of 9.7% is significantly below that, and better than the majority of other UK  media organisations. However, it’s PR woes were compounded when former China Editor, Carrie Gracie won an equal pay claim against the corporation. She later donated all of her back pay to the Fawcett Society to support other women fighting legal cases.

Did you know…There were 7,375 pay gap stories in UK media during March, five times more than in the previous month. And there were 10,891 employment tribunal claims from April- June in 2018, up 13% on the same period in 2017.

 
Mark Zuckerberg at Congress

Mark Zuckerberg at Congress

Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, grilled on live TV by Congress over data misuse

10th April 2018

It was the most oddly riveting TV watching the gawky tech billionaire, who still wouldn’t look out of place on a college campus, getting grilled over the Cambridge Analytica data-harvesting scandal. Having refused numerous times to testify (UK Parliament didn’t get a look-in), politicians wanted blood. The out of touch questions and gnashing teeth of lawmakers jarred with the nervous yet robotic calm of the overly prepared CEO. The hours of scrutiny revealed snippets on Facebook’s battle with regulation, it’s business model and vulnerabilities over election interference and fake news. For many though, the real insight was as much about getting a peek of the man-child who grew an empire that defined a generation of social media users and is unrivalled in its global influence.

Did you know… Mark Zuckerberg was questioned by over 100 politicians for almost 10 hours.

 
Windrush protesters

Windrush protesters

The Windrush Scandal

29th April 2018

The Windrush scandal hit the headlines, triggering social outcry and political outrage as it revealed elderly people of Caribbean heritage had been wrongly detained, denied legal rights and threated with deportation. Once the story broke, the Government argued they did not consider the Windrush generation to be here illegally, despite the ‘hostile environment’ they had been forced to endure. Following weeks of uproar about the Government’s treatment of the Windrush generation, on the 29th April the then Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, resigned. Tragically, this will never compensate the families of the 11 people deported from their home who passed away overseas, or those who lost jobs and driving licenses when their indefinite leave to remain was withdrawn.

Did you knowSam Beaver King, one of the passengers on board the first Windrush journey later became the first black Mayor of the London Borough of Southwark in 1983. He also had an influential role in the first Caribbean carnival which is what we now know as Notting Hill Carnival.

 
Prince Harry and Megan Markle exchange vows

Prince Harry and Megan Markle exchange vows

The Royal Wedding

19th May 2018

On a glorious sunny Saturday in May, almost 2 billion people tuned in to watch Prince Harry marry his American girlfriend Megan Markle. Yes, almost 2 billion. Their ‘I Dos’ were heard across countries, continents and cultures. Their every movement and fashion decision analysed by royalists and republicans alike. It marked an important moment of diversification for the royal family, as they welcomed a mixed-race American divorcee with a high flying career and a longstanding commitment to activism into their ranks. And the reverberations of their big day are still being felt. Google has revealed that Megan Markle was the ‘most searched for person’ of 2018 and the royal wedding itself was the most searched story. Love them or loathe them, the royals are still undeniably top of our news agenda.

Did you know… Harry and Meghan read traditional vows from the Common Book of Prayer, though Meghan left out the word "obey" - just like Diana did.

 


Dacre Departs the Daily Mail

7th June 2018

In June this year, Paul Dacre, Editor of the Daily Mail since 1992, announced he was stepping down. Under Dacre’s leadership the paper was always at the forefront of political and public debate, from calling out Stephen Lawrence’s suspected murderers, to being on the side of the ‘free press’ during the phone hacking scandal and most recently, christening Remain supporters in Parliament the “enemies of the people” off the back of the Brexit vote. Love him or loathe him, Dacre has been the éminence grise of British politics for decades. In his absence, with huge pressure on traditional print, the question Geordie Greig his successor must answer is what lies ahead for Britain’s third most read newspaper.

Did you know The Daily Mail has 1.3 million readers and is the most read newspaper after the Sun with 1.5 million and the free Metro paper with 1.4 million.

 
Tense fans watching the penalty shoot out

Tense fans watching the penalty shoot out

England winning a penalty shoot-out in World Cup

3rd July 2018

The Women’s Commonwealth netball final win clinched the BBC Sports Moment of the Year Award. But surely, for football fans, England finally winning a penalty shoot-out for the first time since v Spain in Euro '96 was the moment of 2018?! It was the last 16 tie of the World Cup in Russia. England had done well to qualify out of their group and they were facing Columbia. A testy match ended in a 1-1 draw after 120 minutes and every England fan's worse dread was looming… Amazingly, despite Henderson's miss, the goalkeeper Jordan Pickford performed heroics and Eric Dier calmly slotted home the winning penalty for England to bury 22 years of penalty pain.

Did you know… More than 24million people in the UK watched the penalty shoot-out (not counting those who live-streamed it on the internet).

 

The new temperance

10th October 2018

Wave goodbye to Student Union £1 a pint nights, new research published in the journal BMC public health showed earlier this year that nearly 30% of 16-24 year olds do not drink, an increase from 18% in 2005. It seemed Generation Z was swiping left to drunken nights ‘out out’ in favour of looking picture perfect for their Instagram stories. Increased tuition fees, housing costs and mental health concerns could also be contributing to the increased sobriety. Binge drinking, much like smoking, is dropping out of fashion. But, with cocaine use rising sharply in the last year, is booze being replaced with risqué habits.

Did you know… Declining interest in alcohol among young people is a worldwide trend, according Dr James Nicholls, director of research and policy development at Alcohol Research UK.

 
Angela Merkel negotiates with Donald Trump at the G7 summit in Canada, in June 2018.

Angela Merkel negotiates with Donald Trump at the G7 summit in Canada, in June 2018.

Angela Merkel to step down

28th October 2018

With her announcement that she would step down as party chair, the Merkel era is drawing to a close.

Even her harshest critics can’t say that she had it easy. The collapse of Lehman Brothers, the Euro crisis, the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the shift in Germany's stance on nuclear power, the Greek bailout and then, of course, the Refugee crisis.

Frau Merkel will be remembered for her commitment to freedom, her profound response to Trump’s election as US President in 2016, her unique ability to get through to Putin, her unflinching desire to help…and, of course, for her love of the beautiful game.

‘Mutti’ will be admired and praised for her quiet confidence, but torn apart for her actions that led to the formation of the Alternative für Deutschland. Her successor, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, or AKK, has a lot of work to do both to reunite her party and the nation if she is to hold onto Merkel’s power base. Let’s see what 2019 brings.

Did you know… Potato soup is one of Angie’s dinner party staples.

 

US mid-terms

7 November 2018

Though the long-awaited ‘blue wave’ turned out to be more of a ripple, it was clear the morning after the mid-terms that the weight of political power in Washington had definitely shifted. It had been a night of many firsts. The first openly gay male governor took charge in Colorado, the first two Muslim women were elected to office, and the first woman under 30 years old was elected to the House. But despite all the reasons for Democrats to cheer, they had lost the expectation management game. The results also reiterated the deep divisions in US society – and the uphill struggle ahead as they look to 2020. 

Did you know… 529 vs. 312 is the number of women running for Congress in 2018 vs. 2016.

 

 

Michael Cohen’s Sentencing

12th of December 2018

In the final throes of 2018, Michael Cohen was found guilty of, among other crimes, tax evasion and campaign finance violations. President Trump’s former lawyer/fixer/Pitbull, having turned on his old master, was sentenced to 3 years in prison and hit with nearly $2,000,000 worth of fines. The cloud already hanging over the Trump Whitehouse darkened as the President became an alleged accessory to these crimes.

Cohen repudiated Trump’s self-confessed ignorance of Cohen’s payment of hush money to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, women who allegedly had past affairs with the now-President. This prompted Trump to label Cohen a ‘rat’ on twitter. Not the smartest analogy considering the circumstances. If he didn’t before, Trump now reeks of illegal wrongdoing and the office in which he works is the most noxious it’s been since Watergate. Talk about ‘cleaning the swamp’?

Did you know… According to the Washington Post, between taking office and September of 2018, Donald Trump made more than 5,000 false or misleading claims.

 

A vote of no confidence

12th December 2018

7:30am. The moment when Sir Graham Brady announced a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister had been triggered by the Conservative Party.

By 9:00pm it was all over. In a packed committee room full of MPs and journalists in scenes relayed across the world, Sir Graham Brady confirmed Theresa May retained the confidence of her party colleagues winning with 200 votes to 117.

This was the moment that the internal divisions within the Conservative Party and the Government reached a crescendo.  It was the culmination of a year where the Prime Minister has taken many hits but had managed to cling on.

Did you know… Between the announcement of the vote and the vote itself there were more than 90,000 tweets that included "the Conservative Party" and the prime minister's name as well as the hashtags #NoConfidence and #LeadershipChallenge.

 

 

 

 

 

Comment