Viewing entries tagged

“I haven’t got the foggiest idea”


“I haven’t got the foggiest idea”

Well the date has finally been set. Tuesday 11th December. Set your calendars. The Atlas Christmas Party is in the diary.

Oh, you thought I was talking about something else? That’s a little awkward!

Of course, the 11th December is also the date for the so-called ‘meaningful vote.’ At around 7pm MPs will vote on whether to approve Theresa May’s deal.

And then? Well that is a matter of considerable debate. This blog will attempt to assess what could come next.

So the vote?

Well if you take MPs at their word, the vote will be lost. 100 Tory MPs have said they will vote against the deal. And all the opposition parties have said they will vote against the deal. This means the Prime Minister (PM) does not have the votes.

Then the fun and games could really begin. Here are some potential options on what could follow:

The Guardian.jpg
  1. The Prime Minister is removed

The rumour mill will go into hyperdrive if the Government lose the meaningful vote. Prepare for the prominent opinion that the Prime Minister and/or the Government is finished.

One thing you will hear a lot about is No Confidence Votes. Now, crucially a No Confidence Vote from Parliament is different to a No Confidence Vote from the Conservative Party. First let’s begin with a No Confidence Vote from Parliament. This requires a majority of MPs to vote they have no confidence in the Government. If this vote was lost, the Government would collapse, triggering a General Election. This is very rare in UK politics.

But the possibility has been enhanced by Labour Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer suggesting it is “inevitable Labour will press no confidence vote if the vote is lost.” The DUP, whose votes the Government rely on are also refusing to confirm whether they would back the Government. This would make the numbers very tight and the end result unpredictable.

Ok, so now a No-Confidence Vote from the Conservative Party. This has no legal impact on the Government and is a direct vote against the leader of the party. This is a simple majority vote but only Conservative MPs can take part. Should the Prime Minister lose she would be forced to resign. To trigger this, 48 Conservative MPs need to request a vote by submitting a letter (yes an actual printed letter). Rebels have launched efforts to reach this threshold before, but have failed. Following ‘the meaningful vote’ we expect there will be another sustained attempt. And in a more febrile mood the rebels stand a greater chance. Yet, the struggle to date to even reach 48 letters means their ability to marshal the 160 or so votes to carry a ‘no confidence’ challenge against the Theresa May is far from certain.

Our view is that the PM suffers a greater threat from the House than from her own party.

2.    The Prime Minister is sent back to Brussels

After the vote the PM will be summoned to the despatch box. The mood of the House will dictate what happens next. One option could be they instruct the Government to negotiate a new deal with Brussels. That is of course assuming Brussels is in any mood to renegotiate. Some have argued that the only way to win further concessions from the EU is to show that Parliament will not accept their current offer. We’re not so sure.

What direction further UK-EU Brexit talks take would have to be focused on what deal could secure the support of the House as the new deal would have to be put to yet another Parliamentary vote.

To this end, cross-party talks have begun over the so-called Norway plus option. This is viewed as a softer Brexit. This angers Eurosceptics as the UK would have to retain free movement but would be more attractive to opposition MPs. It is feasible to see a deal of this kind gaining a majority in the House after a first vote is lost.

Another option is a ‘No-Deal’ Brexit or a negotiated ‘No-Deal.’ Legally, if the vote is lost and no further legislation is passed this is where we are heading. This would please the Brexiteer wing but would worry many more in Parliament. We believe Parliament will find a way to stop this.

Our (current) view is that Norway plus is more likely than no-deal. But ask us again next week!

3.    Another Vote

Could the Government have to go back to the people? A General Election? Another referendum?

Under the Fixed Term Parliament Act, a General Election (Labour’s preferred option) is hard to achieve without the support of the Government. A General Election could be triggered by the Government losing a vote of no confidence (as mentioned earlier). However, even in a divided Conservative Party, one thing that unites them is not wanting a General Election. Faced with the risk of Corbyn taking the reins in Number Ten, the tories will fight hard to avoid one.

On Monday, a petition carrying almost 1.5 million requesting a ‘people’s vote’ was delivered to Parliament. Despite the PM refusing to consider this option, momentum is growing. Former Universities Minister Sam Gyimah is the latest to voice his support. There is a debate over how you could turn any majority into the House into legislation to permit a second referendum though. Especially with a looming deadline and an unsupportive Government.

Our view is that the Government does not want to go back to the people. But in a Parliamentary stalemate this might be the last option standing.


Truthfully, no-one knows how this ends. There has been a lot of talk about a constitutional crisis. But, we just don’t know. We have never been here before. We are in uncharted territory.

So, as none of us are any the wiser, why not like us go out and enjoy the festivities. The matter of whether we still have a Government can always wait until the next morning!

We will leave you with the wisdom of BBC reporter Chris Mason, who when asked what could happen next candidly replied  “I haven’t got the foggiest.” Now there is a man who speaks for the nation.


If only Brexit wasn't so, you know, Brexity...


If only Brexit wasn't so, you know, Brexity...

Let’s exercise our imagination for a second. 

In an alternate universe, Theresa May is the champion of the consumer, defender of JAMs, and lynchpin of Conservative majority rule following a landslide victory in the 2017 General Election, where her “nothing has changed” campaign won advertising awards for its cut through, simplicity, and honesty. In this timeline, May’s agenda is in full swing: house building is on the up, tax avoidance is decreasing, and the UK is the fastest growing economy in the G7. Oh and, of course, Brexit hasn’t occurred (let’s skip over the fact Cameron and Osborne might still be around). 

Sounds like utopia?

Back to reality and the Prime Minister's initiatives to defend consumers from broken markets are side-lined, the JAMs (Just About Managing families) are forgotten – along with her dream team of Nick and Fiona – and her majority rule is dependent on thirteen unruly Northern Irish DUP MPs who seem to be the only people in Parliament enjoying themselves…

As the news and parliamentary agendas constantly remind us, Brexit is all consuming. It is not simply an innocent bystander in the log jam that is Government policy. It is the roadblock, stretching from Trafalgar Square to the end of Victoria Street, from Holyrood to the Senedd and over the sea to Stormont. No elected official or civil servant can escape it.



May and her Cabinet are desperate for alternative news stories. Their agenda (I’ll let you know when I actually find out what it is) is being lost in the day-to-day in-fighting of what type of Brexit we might negotiate. Will it be hard, will it be soft? Will we be in the customs union, a customs union, or none at all. Never has the indefinite article carried more meaning. 

But amidst all this non-debate, a serious issue is growing. Domestic policy is languishing. The NHS is still experiencing its worst ever winter crisis; the number of homeless has reached 275,000, with over 4,500 rough sleepers nationwide (a 175% rise since 2010); and the standard of social care has reached critical levels as Councils fail to balance the books after 8-years of austerity. One Council had their budget deemed “unlawful” by their auditors earlier this year. 

Major infrastructure decisions such as on Crossrail 2, Heathrow, HS3 and the urgent repair work on the Houses of Parliament are kicked down the road (again). Emergency services reaction times have grown as pressure on their limited resources increases. Rural public transport routes continue to be disbanded, leaving elderly citizens cut off from vital links to their communities – exasperated even further by the recent ‘Beast of the East’ weather surge. 

In Whitehall, over 600 civil servants are feverishly working within DexEU (Department for Exiting the European Union) and DIT (Department for International Trade) – although what the latter is actually doing at the moment is anyone’s guess (air miles are great if you can get them). This doesn’t even include the teams working within other Government Departments on how Brexit affects separate sectors: from farming, to air travel, to immigration, down to manufacturing standards. 

600 people who could be, and IMHO would love to be, working on any number of the issues mentioned above, rather than dealing with the consequences of Brexit.



So how can the Government find the time to focus on other priorities? In short, only with great difficulty.

Last Friday’s keynote speech by the Prime Minister on (you guessed it) Brexit provided some breathing space and allowed the media team, led by Robbie Gibb, to control the news cycle for the first time in months. May’s homebuilding initiative launched smoothly, and the choreographed State Visit of Mohammed bin Salman, Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia would have led headlines if it weren’t for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Salisbury. 

But this is the problem, only a landmark Brexit speech by the Prime Minister herself can push Brexit off the news cycle long enough for one announcement to sneak in, then, like an angrier version of Boris, Brexit screeches back into the limelight. 

The respite is just not long enough.

MPs want to help their constituents and focus on the issues they care about most. Our job as communications and public affairs professionals is to get that cut through. To ensure the issues are debated, challenged, and now more than ever, pushed forward. If you want help getting round the all consuming dementor that is Brexit to get your issue on the political agenda, we are here to help you conjure your patronus.


An energy price cap will work, but…


An energy price cap will work, but…

Back in the heady days of 2013, pre-Brexit, before “nothing has changed”, THAT exit poll, and the promise of a strong and stable government, the former Leader (now lead comedian) of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, introduced the idea of a cap on energy bills. It was instantly labelled as a “lurch to the left” (The Sun), “flawed in practically every way” (Times), and a move “back to the bad old days” (Daily Mail).

Theresa May’s energy price cap (currently winding itself through pre-legislative scrutiny) in contrast is “a crackdown on energy rip-offs” (Daily Mail) and “attempt to capture the political centre ground” (Sunday Times). Backed up by the excoriating Competition and Market Authority (CMA) Energy Market Investigation, published in 2016 following a two-year review of the industry, May secured political and media backing for a policy which goes against natural conservative values.

The fundamentals are simple, to save consumers from rip-off energy bills, but the overall impact on the market is only now becoming clear.


Will a price cap work?

In essence, yes.

The much-quoted £1.4bn detriment in the market is the key figure to be aware of. This is the margin the CMA stated consumers were overpaying for their bills. The government, and Ofgem by extension, aim to substantially decrease this, or eliminate it entirely, by 2020 at best, or 2023 at worst.

The majority of this £1.4bn is sourced through customers on Standard Variable Tariffs (SVTs). Currently over 13 million customers are on non-price protected SVT contracts. These consumers are on average charged £292 (Ofgem) more than a comparative fixed price tariff available on the market. The legislation in its current form tackles these SVTs directly. By capping what suppliers can charge for their basic rate – not including fixed price tariffs or separate deals – the government is aiming to save consumers an average £100 off their bills.

Much of the evidence from the recent BEIS Select Committee pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill concurs with this synopsis. Essentially, a price cap will decrease energy bills for the 13 million consumers on SVTs by mandating the methodology from which it is calculated.



… the sharp eyed amongst you will notice that there is a big discrepancy between the £100 savings quoted by government, and the £292 savings currently available on the competitive market.

The key figure to be aware of here is 5.5 million. This is the number of consumers who switched energy deals in 2017 – a 15% increase on 2016 figures (Energy UK). The potential to switch supplier has increased hugely in the last few years, made possible by the entrance of small and medium players who can offer highly competitive deals to new customers through either direct advertising or price comparison websites (PCWs), such as MoneySuperMarket.

The 13 million consumers languishing on SVTs are those who are utterly disengaged from the market. If even half of these consumers were to switch supplier or engage with their current operator to gain a better deal, they could save £1.9bn in bills. Compared to £650 million using the current £100 saving offered by the government price cap – it is clear which is the better solution. If switching rates were to double by 2020, the £1.4bn detriment will have disappeared, with interest.

So why isn’t the aim to “put a booster rocket behind [switching]” as Mark Pawsey MP stated so bluntly in the most recent oral evidence session? Not even the new Minister, Claire Perry, was clear on this point, suggesting that 83% of households have yet to switch, and likely never will.

Depending on your viewpoint, the price cap is either a necessity in order to benefit the 13 million on SVTs, or the wrong solution to the question of how to increase engagement in the market. Fundamentally, a price cap will almost certainly decrease the estimated £1.4bn consumers have been overcharged, but this creates losers as well as winners. Those currently on the cheapest tariffs will most likely see their bills rise as tariffs bundle around the cap – which has occurred on the only comparative policy, the Pre-Payment Meter Cap enacted earlier in 2017. Likewise, those who are on SVTs and do see their bills decrease through the cap (the supposed winners), will see a lower gain than they would have found had they switched prior to the Bill coming into force in a competitive market.


Will the price cap come into effect?

This is the source of a current bet in the Atlas office, with one Director convinced it will not, or will be amended in such a way as to make it a non-entity upon completion. This Consultant however is less sure.

It was in both Labour and Conservative Manifestos, is backed by both leaders (however shaky their tenure may be) and is one of the very few policy initiatives that voters are aware of outside of Brexit. If it goes through, Labour will claim it was their policy all along. Likewise, the Conservatives will claim they are intervening in broken markets and crony capitalism. This is almost too big to fall.

The government is determined to see this gain Royal Assent by Summer recess so that Ofgem can implement it in time for Christmas 2018. We’ll look forward to seeing how this progresses over the coming months.


Atlas Partners is currently working with clients on the potential impact the price cap may have on their core business. If you’d like advice on how it could affect your day-to-day operations, get in contact with the team.