Public affairs and communications management

Logical people favour in-depth arguments that are thoroughly researched, well thought-out and put forth by highly-qualified and authoritative voices. Further, if these voices can explain their position in pounds and pence while addressing why the other’s point of view is less valid, they’re even more likely to persuade them to their way of thinking. At the very least, they’ll prompt a reasoned response.

The seemingly correct assumption above has a glaring error when applied to those in government. Due to conflicting concerns being advocated by party leaders’ priorities and politics, constituents and businesses (and often by public affairs firms on their behalf), parliamentarians and officials can ill-afford to be logical people. Case in point – the Department for Energy and Climate Change’s dismissal of a Policy Exchange research note published this week that used the Department’s own figures to calculate a £400 bill for average households by 2020 due to UK green subsidies.  As this is directly opposite to DECC’s claims that its green policies will actually decrease costs by 7% over the same timeframe, the Department has responded that the report lacks credibility, may be based on a flawed analysis and will not result in a rethink of policies. Lib Dem Energy Secretary Chris Huhne went one step further, deeming it “nonsense on stilts” and essentially classing the report, which recommended a scaled back approach and renewed focus on overall emissions over selecting specific technologies, as a marketing tactic by the influential centre-right thinktank.

This is not the first time DECC has dismissed a report over the impact of green subsidies in recent months, but this one comes as the Department is facing increasing internal and external concerns over its ability to deliver on costly energy policies such as the Green Deal and Electricity Market Reform. The coalition’s main priorities include becoming the ‘greenest government ever’ and positioning the UK as a global leader for low-carbon technologies.  Despite cost concerns of the effect of government policies to achieve these aims, these priorities are largely supported by the public, campaign groups and the UK’s growing low-carbon business sector and are fiercely protected, as evidenced by the ongoing lawsuit by Friends of the Earth and two solar panel firms over the Government’s decision to reduce solar incentives – a lawsuit also supported by intensive research on both sides.

Whilst all advocacy efforts must be firmly based in sound analytical research, it must also be grounded in the current political debate to have a positive impact.  Regardless of your politics, one must be aware of how the conflicting priorities of policymakers will shape debate and legislation by researching the attitudes and opinions of parliamentarians and officials.