Search this site

Local and Combined Authorities in England are tasked with creating Get Britain Working (GBW) plans to tackle local labour market challenges, boost employment (aiming for 80%), and reduce barriers to work. DWP guidance outlines the 'what' and 'who', but how do you plan effectively for local GWB implementation? PolicyDepartment is teaming up with Mylocaleconomy  to support those developing the plans with insights, practical advice, research and LMI, stakeholder management, strategy development and action planning. Here we set out some pointers on what to do, based on our recent experience of drafting multi-agency plans to increase labour market participation, which includes iskills strategies focused on economic inactivity. Identifying the challenges and meeting the local Get Britain Working local plan objectives Key labour market challenges:  GBW plans should address exclusion, youth employment, insecure work, challenges for women, labour/skills shortages, and disparities in outcomes. Understanding GBW plan objectives:   The GBW plans should set clear employment goals, offer tailored solutions to reduce barriers, integrate with existing local plans, foster collaboration (Jobcentre Plus, Integrated Care Boards), and quantify local labour market challenges. How we can help:   every locality is unique. We help you understand your specific labour market nuances. Our team brings 20+ years of experience in labour market and skills economics and research. We provide policy reviews and horizon scanning to keep you ahead of evolving government policies (Jobcentre Plus merger, devolution uncertainties, economic shifts). We've navigated multiple recessions, advising on how to pivot budgets and services to rapidly changing needs. Planning effective delivery Effective delivery:   based on regional reviews of economic inactivity and employment services that we have completed in the past 12 months - successful GBW delivery will require person-centric, flexible support coordinated by advisors; specialist referrals for complex barriers (health, skills, etc.); careers advice with long-term client support and multiple points of use during the year; and resources for long-term support (potentially 2-3 years for some clients). How we can help:   we can support and provide project planning, detailed labour market analysis, stakeholder engagement, gap analysis and service recommendations and specifications. We can also advise on governance and monitoring frameworks. We advocate for agile strategies that adapt to evolving funding and policies. Need help developing your local GBW plan or want an initial discussion? Get in touch. We're here to guide you We can offer agile help with individual elements of work or comprehensive support Developing an effective local Get Britain Working plan requires a thorough understanding of local labour market challenges, collaboration with stakeholders, knowledge of practice and delivery, knowledge of commissioning, and a strategic approach to addressing key issues. We can support with you plan development in several discrete functions, or as part of a comprehensive package: Project planning : developing comprehensive project plans with clear goals, success metrics, and stakeholder roles Labour market analysis : conducting detailed analyses to identify local challenges and drivers of economic inactivity Stakeholder engagement : facilitating consultations with key stakeholders to gather insights and build consensus Gap analysis and recommendations : identifying gaps in current support and providing actionable recommendations Governance and monitoring : establishing governance arrangements to ensure effective implementation and monitoring of the plan We always recommend developing agile local strategies and action plans   that can evolve and adapt for different, new funding streams and policy initiatives as they arise. We are experts and advisors that can help you navigate this crucial work.

An article by  Glenn Athey,   Mike Spicer, and   Professor Peter Tyler On the day before the UK Prime Minister convenes the first  Council of Nations and Regions  of the new UK government, this article - originally published in the Economic Development Insights Newsletter - discusses arguably the biggest factor holding back progress: the proper funding of local and regional economic growth and development. A funding system to support economic growth in the nations and regions This article is partly based on a study –  The Future of Growth Funding  - completed for the Local Government Association in March 2024, we analysed local growth funding between 2015 and 2024 and consulted over 100 local authorities and civil servants. This article represents the sole views and reflections of the authors – between us we have almost 100 years of experience in local and regional economic development and urban regeneration, and have witnessed the transition from early attempts at urban policy in the 1970s right through to today. The socio-economic challenges remain significant As 2025 nears, we must reflect on the significant progress and leaps in government policy that are required in order to begin to address the UK’s large and long-standing disparities in local and regional economic performance. Regional inequalities have worsened over the past 20 years, with many regions now falling behind the former East German states Research  by Martin et al shows that according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2020a), at the level of local TL3 areas, regional economic inequalities in the UK are among the very worst across OECD countries, with only Columbia, Turkey and Hungary having more pronounced disparities. In a  recent article  Glenn provided updated statistics from the OECD which shows that 8 out of 12 UK regions and nations have a GVA per worker lower than the worst performing East German State. This extends to productivity rates, where the difference between London and the other UK nations and regions is greater than that between States of West Germany and former East Germany ( Productivity Institute ). Figure 1: GVA per worker in 2020 (2015 values - US Dollars) in selected German Länder and UK nations and regions - UK nations and regions with GVA per worker below the lowest performing former East German Lander (Thuringia) - are highlighted in orange In this map –  We can see the stark differences in GVA per head between local authority areas in the UK. Figure 2: GVA per head in UK local authority areas in 2022 Poor economic performance has stark long-term impacts . The proportion of children in relative poverty has risen in every city except Belfast and Basildon, and in-work poverty is up almost everywhere ( Centre for Cities ). How much would it cost to address the scale of the regional challenge in the UK? Research  shows (Martin et al, 2021) that expenditure by the UK Government on regional policy has been about approximately £174.5 billion (2020 prices) over 1961-2020. This is equivalent to approx. £3.5 billion per annum (or around 0.15% of GNI). EU funds added another £1.4 billion or 0.12% - so total since mid-1970s around £4.9 billion per annum (0.27% GNI). This compares with £14.5 billion (0.70% GNI) in international aid in 2019. This has to be contrasted with the German  Aufbau Ost  (‘building up’ East Germany programme) which spent some €2 trillion since 1990 (= approximately £55 billion per annum). The  UK2070 Commission  estimated that addressing regional inequalities would require an investment of £250 billion over 30 years. In early 2024 we were talking about pots of money for local growth of, at best, of between £4.7 billion and £5 billion per annum. Clearly this is not enough to facilitate the reversal of economic decline and living standards in our regions. Funding for local and regional economic growth has been 'a patchwork quilt' that is not agile to changing needs Over the past decade, local growth funding has been fragmented and 'a patchwork quilt':  Over £13bn of funding has been provided for levelling up since 2019 via 12 different funding streams. Over 400 bodies are recipients of this funding encompassing over 350 local authorities, 21 county councils, 12 combined authorities, 27 Local Economic Partnerships, 11 Freeports and 22 other forms of partnership/body ( University of West London ). There are a variety of funds, eligible uses, timescales of expenditure and monitoring and claims processes. Some are allocative / some are competitive. The Town Deals were offered to 101 selected towns. The UK Shared Prosperity Fund was allocated to places based on a formula. The Levelling Up Fund and Towns Fund are supporting more than 1,300 individual projects between them, while the UK Shared Prosperity Fund is supporting more than 3,000 projects. Local growth funding is static and often out of date for today’s socio-economic conditions and challenges.  The UKSPF maintains the EU structural fund distribution model - made on the basis of EU Structural Fund allocations, which used evidence from 2011/12. A lot has changed since then. Funding formulas are also designed to fail areas of need . In 2022, the  University of Teeside  calculated for the Northern Powerhouse that if future allocation of the SPF and LUF mimics the allocation of pilot funding so far, some areas in need of levelling up would find themselves worse off, such as Tees Valley – one of the most deprived regions in the UK- where annual funding could potentially be cut from £46m to £21m per year, a reduction of £37 per person per year. Local growth funds are complex & changing.  Funding mechanisms and grants have changed every 1-2 years. Some funds are allocative / some are competitive. Local growth funds are short-term.  There is a quick turnaround in applications, often with weeks or a few months until a funding application deadline. Funding lasts from 9 to 36 months. Central government expertise changes and shifts. This is in an environment with significant pressures on all local government resources. The result is underspend. There has been significant underspend of local growth funding.  As the March 2024 Public Accounts Committee Report noted recently, as of September 2023, local authorities had been able to spend only £1.24 billion, just over 10 per cent, of the promised £10.47 billion from the government’s three Levelling Up funds (Towns Fund, Levelling Up Fund and UK Shared Prosperity Fund). It found just 64 of more than 1,100 projects have so far been finished, while more than 80 per cent of those due for completion in this month will miss that deadline. There have been consistent warnings regarding underspend – with the National Audit Office warning of this in 2023 ( Levelling Up Funding to Local Government ) . Local growth funds have been predominantly capital funds.  Capital funding programmes often lack flexibility to adjust plans as projects progress or unforeseen circumstances arise. Cost inflation has been a recurring challenge, making it difficult to implement some projects by the time funding has been awarded. While capital funding can be used to build infrastructure or purchase equipment, it does not cover ongoing operational costs. This can lead to difficulties in maintaining and utilising the funded assets. Anyone familiar with capital projects knows that they can be notoriously challenging to manage and keep to schedule. The result is - more underspend. There is currently a chronic shortage of revenue funding for economic development projects and services. Capacity constraints and costs of bidding.  A University of Sheffield (2022)  study and survey  found that 75 per cent of local authorities had to pay costs beyond those provided as part of growth funding. They further estimated that for Round 1 of the Levelling Up Fund, authorities spent £14.7m on bids that were unsuccessful, with £5.5m spent on bids that were unsuccessful and not supported by capacity funding. There has been a failure to install effective monitoring & evaluation  and a lack of recognition of existing local government assurance procedures. To date the funds have had limited evaluation and there was virtually no evaluation for schemes between 2010 and 2018. This is a key issue given the repeated calls for an enhanced evaluation evidence base in the United Kingdom made by the  National Audit Office . Lack of joined up thinking in Whitehall translates into funding silos in regions and localities.  There has been a complete lack of joining up central funds – including transport, local growth, and climate change. The local rural economic agenda disappeared for several years, making a surprise reappearance as the Rural England Prosperity Fund was bolted onto the UKSPF. Local and regional growth funding has significantly decreased since 2008.  During the Coalition Government 2010-2015, it was estimated that funding for local and regional economic development and regeneration was at about one-third of 2008 levels. By 2022, the government planned to spend even less on English regional development than previous Conservative governments (2014-21) despite levelling up being a flagship policy. In the decade up to June 2024, the UK government seemed to have learnt nothing from past policy Perhaps the biggest failure has been to learn from the past. As experienced professionals and researchers in this field, we’ve seen it all before: competitive grant funds (1980s and 1990s), movements to funding integration of ‘single pots’ from Whitehall in the 1990s and 2000s. What’s clear is that we need to start learning from the past. There needs to be greater learning from policy and practice, and adapting and developing policy and delivery to continually improve. But don’t just take our word for it - in 2023, the National Audit Office found that there was significant scope for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to improve its understanding of what has worked well in previous local growth programmes and could do more to assess whether individual policies have had their intended impact. This was further validated by discussions with local authorities as part of this study. Local growth funding reflected the state of national government 2015-2024 We sincerely hope that government improves, and we have our 10–point plan for the future outlined below. However – if we think about it, the approach to local economic prosperity reflects the government and policies we had for almost a decade between 2015 and 2024. They were characterised by: Policy drift and ad hoc decisions : a lack of clear national government policy for the national and subnational economy incl. how devolution contributes. Poor levels of trust & capacity : a lack of knowledge and trust of existing local government powers,  capabilities and assurance procedures and no priority for building operational expertise. Instability and discontinuity : with many abandoned policies such as the UK Industrial Strategy, and CSR periods which bear no relation to economic cycles, or the timelines of national infrastructure projects, and constrain long-term funding. A massive implementation gap : made evident by White Papers with sky high ambitions but insufficient resources and almost zero delivery planning. Government silos  based on departments, capital, revenue, CSR periods - whereas ‘place’ requires joined up solutions (and what about climate change…?). No subsidiarity system  that follows the principle of the right scale and administrative level for the highest impact, and the best administrative level to make decisions. The future? Looking forward constructively, the UK government needs to urgently set out a national agenda which includes: Clear policy objectives Trust & capacity building Stability & continuity White Papers with credible delivery plans and budgets Restore the Cities and Local Growth Unit or create other similar joining-up initiatives Clear and rational subsidiarity arrangements We sincerely hope that much of this is set out by the Prime Minister and cabinet colleagues on October 11 at the first Council of the Nations and Regions. We need to think more about the system for economic growth, as much as the ‘projects’ and activities that are funded. Much of the growth funding made available over the past decade has been to support specific projects and activities. There has been little thought to the machinery of government, long-term capacity or building strong and stable links and relationships between local and central government, the private sector, education sector, non-profit sector and communities. There are multiple ingredients for success or system requirements that enable economic growth, development, and regeneration, such as those outlined in  the LGA report . i.e. resources are needed to support the ‘system’ that helps local and regional economic development as outlined in the figure below. Figure 3: The system that is needed to support long term local and regional economic development and growth Our 10-point plan for the future of local growth funding It’s our job, as the authors of this article and with our long-standing vocation in this field to provide some constructive advice. There are more details in the  report  – but in sum, here’s the outline of our 10-point plan which we think makes a lot of sense. We appeal for clarity and consistency in central government policies that can help to enable local and regional economic growth and development. To realise effective local and regional economic growth and development, and address the long-standing disparities in economic performance between the UK’s nations and regions, the UK government should: Set out a clear national economic policy that articulates role of local economies and devolution Match resources and delivery mechanisms to the scale of challenges and opportunities Long term challenges and opportunities require long term solutions – which means a funding commitment of at least 20 years, and funding cycles of six to eight years Build operational capacity and capability Provide capital funding that aims for quality, need, opportunity, impact and a more predictable funding pipeline Provide a bigger role for fixed allocations but retain better designed competitive funds where appropriate Design funding mechanisms that promote partnership working and relationship building between tiers of government and stakeholders Encourage match funding and leverage where suitable and can improve impact Design a funding system that builds-in efficiency and impact Establish processes and compliance that are clear and uniform, supported with training and use existing ‘fit for purpose’ approaches Hopefully some of these points will be addressed on 11 October at the Nations and Regions Summit.

First published on the website of our podcast, LED Confidential . David and Mike are joined on LED Confidential by Pete Tyler, Professor of Urban and Regional Economics at the University of Cambridge ( Episode Link ). They discuss the UK’s forthcoming Investment Zones and the history of area-based initiatives, from the pioneering Enterprise Zones of the 1980s, through Freeports, and the more recent Opportunity Zones of the US. If you’re an economic developer who wants to design successful zones, don’t miss this episode! As a class of economic development programme, ‘area-based’ or ‘zonal’ initiatives are now well established across the world. They work by designating geographical areas with a special status that confers tax incentives, regulatory reliefs, expedited development permissions, and other benefits to the businesses and investors that locate there or invest in them. They come in many flavours – some intended to spur commercial property development in cities, others to encourage growth in exports of manufactured goods through sea and airports. But typically, zones share the common objective of attracting businesses into struggling or underdeveloped areas. The figures are startling: in England alone there are, as of Spring 2023, 48 active Enterprise Zones (EZs), 8 Freeports in development, and another 8 Investment Zones on the way. There are 12 further zonal initiatives like EZs across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In the US, there are over 3,000 EZs. Over the last five years, these have been joined by Opportunity Zones that include deferred taxes on capital gains and reduced taxes on re-invested gains. The enduring popularity of zones with governments across the world hints at their potential to boost economic development in places – when they work well. The variety, number, and long history of zonal policies (dating back to the early 1980s) gives us a wealth of impact evaluation evidence on what makes for successful zones. We cover these three lessons in the episode, and more: The design and generosity of incentives matter . Unlike today’s EZs in the UK, and the forthcoming Investment Zones, their 1980s antecedents included tax reliefs on investment in property. While tax reliefs can become internalised in property prices, studies of the first wave of EZs show they did encourage the creation of special purpose investment vehicles that increased the flow of funds into EZs. Today’s US Opportunity Zones also include powerful fiscal incentives for property investors, with early evidence pointing to similar results. The incentives on offer for the new wave of UK zones are weak by comparison to earlier initiatives and their modern-day US equivalents. Their superiority to easements and reliefs already on offer nationwide is also open to debate. Location, boundaries, and ownership matter . When selecting a zone, it is important to balance the need for investment in high-need areas with the potential for opportunity. Choosing larger, well-positioned sites, particularly if these are in public ownership, supports early development and effective marketing – critical when incentives are time-limited. Fragmented zones, especially those that require excessive time and money spent on site assembly and remediation in the early years, can undermine this. Quality infrastructure is crucial to making enterprise zones attractive places for investment, and to maximize access to opportunity. The new UK Investment Zones are restricted to 600 hectares – either as a single site or a maximum of 3 sub-sites. This is large by the standards of past UK zones, and more directive on ‘non-contiguous’ zoning: multi-site zones were a feature of the 2010s era of EZs. ‘Boundary hopping’ and displacement can be minimised through careful design and industrial strategy , although it is unlikely to be entirely eliminated. Restricting incentives to one, or a small number of target sectors minimises the opportunity for businesses to move existing activity from just outside the zone to within it. It can also encourage local agglomeration of related industries. Ideally – the design of the zone should build out from solid, long-term economic and industrial strategies.

Here I set out PolicyDepartment’s thinking on how to revise public policy documents and campaigns in the light of the Coronavirus pandemic. In March, I set out how membership groups can stay in front when public policy moves fast. I noted how the looming Coronavirus crisis could challenge their basis for setting policy priorities. Lock-down in Britain (where I live) was at that time a few weeks away. But the experience of many countries suggested we were close to a big moment in public policy. In that piece, I argued that to engage with policy debates effectively, trade bodies need four things: A strategic vision to navigate the hard, often zero-sum choices that policy reform throws up. The better it addresses the real-world trade-offs, the more confident you can be in your advocacy. A ‘big funnel’ of information sources: data, expert testimony, news, consultation and inquiry alerts. A systematic approach to the policy-cycle : triage-analyse-decide-respond. A systematic approach to managing knowledge: future-proof what you know against changes in personnel, and work towards a shared understanding of policy issues. These are as relevant for the Coronavirus crisis as before. And they apply to any organisation with a strategic interest in public policy, including place-based ones like local authorities, City Deal Boards, Local Enterprise Partnerships and Combined Authorities in England. They are tough tests to meet at any time. The Coronavirus pandemic makes them even more demanding. PolicyDepartment is working on them with clients and collaborators right now, including the British Chambers of Commerce . We draw on experience from other fast-moving situations like the No-Deal Brexit deadlines of 2019 and the Financial Crisis of 2008-09. We draw on our links into international business networks with first-hand experience of natural disasters and Covid-19 policy. Here are PolicyDepartment’s top three tips for staying ahead in the policy game… 1. Re-set your policy compass by focusing on the choices you may have to make It's unlikely that your pre-Covid, foundational policy document foreshadows a global pandemic. Unless you are in the disaster-planning business. Yet it dominates the policy choices made by governments. Any statement of forward policy priorities by representative groups must address it too. But the future is unknowable, so flexibility is important. Think about the following: List the choices that matter to your members in this crisis These will relate to safety, working in new ways and preserving livelihoods. Take one example: the balance between central direction and personal responsibility. This is a challenging one to strike - for all sections of society. As I learned representing businesses in the lead up to Brexit: in uncertain times there is a strong desire for clarity in public policy. It helps forward planning and understanding liability. But there is also a demand for flexibility – the room to make choices and adjustments in the spirit of the policy. Sometimes there are mechanisms available that address both – like transition periods and regulatory forbearance. But sometimes it is harder to see the scope for compromise. A good example is the tension between local, devolved and national government in maintaining common approaches to social distancing. Witness the heated debates across countries like the US, the UK and Germany. The tension here results from the diversity in the scope of our networks: some people and organisations are primarily local; others employ, travel and interact over larger distances and need consistency. Timing / phasing The best strategies hold actions to timescales. Don’t let the best be the enemy of the good here. Timescales are uncertain. The context could switch in an instant with developments in medical science. With so much uncertainty around, it is better to think in phases and overlapping objectives (restart, rebuild, renew etc) rather than strict timescales. Be most clear about what you want policy to achieve Don’t become too fixed on particular tactics. In a fast-moving crisis, policymakers are more likely to consider new and innovative policies: better to be part of that conversation than holding out for a specific action. Know your co-dependencies Which other sectors or services does yours depend on to operate? Are their actions anticipated, or accounted for? Common ones include schools and transport but are there others? Look to history for clues – but tread carefully It’s natural to see lessons from history when writing forward strategies. But no previous episode fits our present context well, so be careful to draw on a range of perspectives. There are valuable insights from past economic convulsions. There's the Financial Crisis of 2008-9 and the Great Depression of the 1930s. It’s useful to refer to them when thinking about the dynamics of consumer behaviour, for instance, or the labour market. But they differ in crucial ways from our present crisis. In recessions, the goal of policy is usually to encourage more spending in the economy. Today, policy restricts some kinds of consumer and business spending to curb transmission of the virus. In a similar way, there are lessons to learn from past natural disasters but context is important. Like the current crisis, sudden destructive events like tsunamis can bring activity to a complete halt. Successful recovery strategies may suggest that some institutional forms are more effective than others in getting places back on their feet. But the events themselves, however destructive, are often short-lived. The Coronavirus pandemic is a live event of global impact that is still unfolding. Much about its dynamics remains unknown. 2. Update your information sources – and look to new ones Be prepared to look in non-traditional places for information on Coronavirus impacts. Real-time data on sector impacts are like gold dust right now. Many representative groups draw on the traditional suite of member surveys and qualitative data from workshops (all online now, of course). These remain indispensable. But also think about using Google Mobility Reports. It's a fabulous, free, almost-real-time data resource available at the local level in the UK. It uses anonymised data from Google Maps to estimate changes to the number of visits to types of location. Academia is abuzz with urgent studies into Coronavirus impacts. University-based research isn’t always linked up with membership-based insight work as it should be. If this rings true, now is the time to renew those links. I recommend the Covid Economics page of the Centre for Economic Policy Research and the Enterprise Research Centre at Warwick Business School. The disaster recovery literature offers valuable insights, subject to my earlier caveats. A good example is this 2017 Emergency Preparedness, Response and Recovery Guide by the ICC-World Chambers Federation. It is a how-to guide for place leadership by Chambers of Commerce in the wake of contingencies that bring activity to a sudden halt. It draws on the experience of business groups with first-hand experience of volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and floods. Representative groups across the private, public and third sectors will find it useful. 3. Take advantage of PolicyDepartment’s expertise! PolicyDepartment is helping membership organisations to think about their forward policy priorities in this new environment. (See our work with the British Chambers of Commerce on plans for a phased restart of the UK economy ). We can help you too! Our expertise focuses on: Membership organisation strategy and policy campaign proofing / drafting Place-based strategy and vision reviews Get in touch to find out more . Mike Spicer is Founder and Managing Director of PolicyDepartment Ltd.

Converting interest in mentoring could unlock the wisdom of over 100k new business mentors in the UK, finds a new report prepared by PolicyDepartment. The analysis draws on focus groups and a survey of more than 800 business owners and leaders conducted over September and October 2022. The report finds that the UK's appetite for mentoring is on the rise, with 82 per cent of responding businesspeople saying they are now interested in being mentored, according to Mentoring Matters , commissioned by small business support platform Enterprise Nation , business support provider, Newable , and the Association of Business Mentors . The report, launched on National Mentoring Day (27 October), found that this growing appetite is reflected by a broader move towards mentoring in the UK’s business advice culture. Two thirds (61%) of respondents said that mentoring's reputation among their peers and business colleagues had increased, with younger founders seeing fewer barriers to being mentored than older entrepreneurs, suggesting there is also a growing role for mentoring to play in the future. The benefits of mentoring are obvious to most people who have had a mentoring relationship, with 66 per cent of businesses that had received mentoring saying it had helped them survive and three quarters (76%) saying it had been key to business growth. But the report also found too many leaders amongst the country's 5.5 million small and medium-sized businesses are yet to take part in mentoring, despite a willing army of potential mentors waiting in the wings. Emma Jones, CBE, founder of Enterprise Nation, said: The value of the experience and wisdom that mentors can bring has never been greater as we head into more challenging economic times. With a willing army of mentors waiting to be mobilised, we must break down the barriers to ensure entrepreneurs can access this group to navigate the tough times ahead. This report establishes the true power of mentoring on business performance and growth and tells us about the increasingly important role that having a weekly or monthly call with someone who has ‘been there and done it’ could play now and in the future. Chris Manson, CEO of Newable, said: Helping small businesses to grow is at the core of Newable’s mission. The Help to Grow: Management is a winning combination to encourage experienced mentors to volunteer their valuable time and expertise to support the growth of ambitious SMEs at all stages of business growth. Chelsey Baker, founder of National Mentoring Day , said: Mentoring is an invaluable source of inspiration and support to help businesses prosper in these challenging times. We need more mentors to keep up with the demand and we hope this report being launched on National Mentoring Day will encourage more mentors to come forward to support UK businesses. The modern mentoring experience is overwhelmingly meritocratic, the report found. Only small minorities of respondents saw characteristics like age, gender and location as important. By contrast, life experience and relevant knowledge of business and sector issues were the top-three attributes that mentees look for in a potential mentor (chosen by 61%, 58% and 43% respectively). The enthusiasm of potential mentees was matched by a willingness to support other businesses. The report found 83 per cent of those polled were interested in becoming a mentor. Converting the potential mentoring relationships into real ones could lead to 118,000 new business mentors and 284,000 more businesses getting support, the report said. Younger entrepreneurs see fewer barriers to being mentored The report found younger entrepreneurs see fewer barriers to being mentored. Only 38 per cent of respondents under 40 said cost is a barrier to seeking a mentor, compared to 58 per cent of the over 40s. Half (52%) of the over 40s claimed a lack of time as a barrier to taking part in mentoring, compared to just 40% of under 40s. The report findings suggested that removing the barriers to mentoring is, at least partly, about addressing perceptions. For example, the financial cost of participation was more frequently cited than any other barrier (51%) - yet most (70%) of the mentoring that respondents received was free. A lack of relevance was also a popular barrier (cited by 45%) but platforms to match mentees to mentors with relevant knowledge of their sector and business issues do exist, for example the support offered to firms on the Help to Grow: Management course. And while taking time out of the business can be challenging, the research found that the approach to engagement can easily be tailored to need – taking place at a frequency and in a manner that suits both the mentor and mentee. The report found ethnic minority respondents to the survey saw less barriers to being mentored than their white British counterparts. Only 39% of saw cost as a barrier, and 36% said it was a lack of time that stopped them seeking a mentor. The same figures for white British respondents were 57% and 54% respectively. Another 38% of ethnic minority respondents said that a perception of mentoring not being relevant to their business is a barrier, compared to 48% of white British respondents, suggesting firms founded by minorities are more open to this kind of support. “She gets it” Whitley Bay-based Lucy Hull, co-founder of art collective For the Love of the North , was assigned a mentor as part of the Help to Grow: Management course in July and they connect over weekly Zoom calls. The firm employs 11 part time staff and all its creative products are made in the UK. She said: One of the best things about having a mentor was just to know that as a business, we're doing really well and are on the right path in terms of our plans for growth and that we have good values and a clear mission statement. What I totally love about my mentor is that she "gets it". She's a fellow small indie business owner and recognises that we can't implement every single thing at once. It's about concentrating on the areas that are relevant now and doing them well.

PolicyDepartment is proud to present its COVID-19 Impacts and Recovery report for Dorset, undertaken for Dorset LEP . The report analyses the mechanisms by which the pandemic and the public health response to it affects economies. This includes the risk and resilience factors that drive local economic outcomes and how these stack up for the county. It finds that Dorset is performing very close to the UK economic average: output is holding up slightly better but the labour market has taken a bigger hit owing to its large tourism and construction sectors. Dorset’s strategic priorities going into the crisis, outlined in its Local Industrial Strategy , still look very relevant – indeed they even appear to anticipate some of the new trends: its One Health programme focuses on the nexus between the environment and human and animal health; re-imaging town centres and supporting a digital revolution in the way we live and work is even more relevant today. The challenge now – as for place leaders everywhere – is to ensure action plans take account of a weaker labour market, and the accelerated trends and new drivers in public policy. For national governments, getting the balance right between revenue and capital funding for economic development will be important: a weaker labour market demands a new focus on job creation, but also requires investment in the services that support people to get new skills and pursue new careers.

First published on the website of our podcast LED Confidential . In LEDC’s post-election special episode David and Mike discuss the Labour landslide and its significant implications for local economic development and placemaking. This guide distils the key themes for professionals in the sector and things to look out for in Labour’s first set-piece policy event as the governing party – the King's Speech on 17 July. Understanding the new political context A landslide victory for the Labour Party sets the stage for at least five years of UK-level governance. Labour’s manifesto going into the election focused heavily on reform of LED policy areas like housing, industrial strategy, infrastructure development, and skills. Early official statements confirm intentions for major changes in policy frameworks, funding mechanisms, and governance. This new political landscape presents both challenges and opportunities for local economic development professionals. By understanding the new government's priorities and preparing for the known changes coming down the track - especially in funding mechanisms and strategic planning responsibilities - local leaders can effectively navigate this transition and drive positive outcomes for their communities. Conducting thorough reviews of local strengths, opportunities, and key projects that align with national priorities should be viewed as urgent business. Leadership teams should familiarise themselves with the new personnel in national roles affecting local economic development. Where there are new local MPs or even returned MPs, it is important to bring them up-to-speed with how your priority agendas can contribute nationally. Monitor early policy announcements and major speeches - the early announcements of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, have focused heavily on economic development themes like housing and industrial development. The meetings of the PM and Deputy PM with Directly Elected Mayors sets the tone for the character of England’s next chapters of its devolution journey. Five ‘first 100-day’ priorities for local and regional economic development leadership teams in England, and the devolved nations Review your Combined Authority/sub-regional and local economic strategies. Ensure their evidence-base is current. Establish what will be needed to refresh them to address national economic and industrial priorities and future Local Growth Plan requirements. Identify major projects that are unequivocally of national significance and likely to be Government priorities. Update their business cases and make them as investment-ready as possible – including determining options for addressing barriers to their delivery. For priority regional and local interventions that might not be on a national priority short-list, consider options for progressing them. Build preferred options into policy negotiations with Government on the next stages of devolution. Reaffirm your approaches to green/blue and inclusive growth – and particularly how your policies will deliver benefits for left-behind communities and disadvantaged groups. Identify development finance options for delivering national, regional and local growth – including your ask of National Wealth Fund, other public investment, and your areas’ ability to attract local and global private capital and revenue funding. Planning reforms and institutional changes Central government's role Expect a more top-down approach to planning and development control, with less formal consultation and faster implementation of policies aided by more direct intervention by Whitehall. More permissions related to industrial developments in priority sectors will be called in by central government which will increase its institutional capacity to fast-track proposals. Its stated intention is to streamline processes for projects like data centres, factories, and energy infrastructure. Traditionally the call-in option has required developers to navigate a trade-off between certainty and speed, with national-level decisions taking longer, but more likely to result in a positive outcome.  Expect the government to set targets for both increased speed and  certainty in processing called-in applications. Strategic planning Labour’s manifesto commits it to reintroduce mandatory strategic planning – something not seen in England since the days of the Regional Spatial Strategies, which were scrapped by the incoming coalition government in 2010.  While the details are still to emerge (at the time of writing), local areas should prepare for statutory requirements to have local plans in place within this parliament. It will involve some combination of new sub-regional spatial strategies led by Combined Authorities, and local development plans compiled by District and Unitary authorities. Local leadership teams should revisit and rebuild investment pipelines where these are not already advanced. And they should identify and prioritise projects that meet the criteria for national significance (as these become known) and are likely to benefit from fast-tracked consideration of land-use proposals. Balancing national and local priorities The relationships between central, local, and devolved national government are set for major change, with a new Council of Nations and Regions. New ministers in the UK government have talked about ‘more direction but less control’ from a Whitehall acting to implement its new industrial strategy. We do know that in England this will operate through planning and development control, with an extension of call-in powers to cover a greater range of use cases, offset by statutory local and sub-regional plans with their priorities and inclusion goals. It’s less clear how local alignment with national priorities can be assured, beyond access to funding opportunities. Will new sub-regional plans require ministerial endorsement, as with the old, pre-2010 regional plans? Watch this space! While addressing spatial inequalities in wealth remains a driver of policy action – especially in the stated objective to devolve more power to communities from Whitehall - ‘levelling-up’ can now be considered a hex word in local-national engagement.  The term has been officially dropped from the policy lexicon and the name of the local government department – which regains its old acronym of MHCLG, or the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. Financial mechanisms and private investment The National Wealth Fund (NWF) and other new financial mechanisms will emphasise leveraging private investment. The NWF, which brings together the UK Infrastructure Bank and British Business Bank, is aiming to achieve a 3:1 ratio of private to public funds. But…areas with high land values and dynamic markets will find it easier to attract private investment, which is one of the reasons why match funding requirements were left out of the design of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund. Left-behind places may struggle with private leverage requirements and need creative approaches to meet these challenges, expl oring financing solutions and partnerships to bridge funding gaps.

In the concluding part of a guest blog series for PolicyDepartment, negotiation expert and MD of BrassTacks Negotiation Training Gareth Roberts reveals how bad bosses can wreck negotiations and the advice he would give Brexit negotiators on both sides of the talks. To recap, check out Part 1 and Part 2 in the series. I did some consulting work for a biotech firm recently and was interested to hear their Procurement Director say of a supplier “they see us a cash cow and are really aggressive in price negotiations”. The interesting word in that quote is they. A common mistake when planning a negotiation is to anthropomorphise groups of people. That is, to apply the characteristics of an individual person to whole teams, companies or even countries. In fact, they had no unified opinion of my biotech client. They were a heterogeneous collection of individuals working across the supplier organisation, each with different values, beliefs and levels of influence with respect to my client as a customer. We see similar anthropomorphising in how politicians and the media describe Brexit negotiations, saying things like “the EU consider state aid to be a red line” or “the UK are becoming frustrated by intransigence on fisheries”. Good negotiators see beyond this linguistic shorthand and will carefully map out the full cast of stakeholders on the other side, ensuring that they are negotiating only with the decision maker or a negotiator with a clear mandate from a decision maker. In commercial negotiations, I never hesitated to go over the head of my opposite number if I was not making progress, especially if I sensed a lack of alignment on the opposing side. If the other negotiator had done their homework, their boss would be prepped for my call and would politely refer me back to my original counterpart. If not, I found that great gains could often be yielded by negotiating directly with the decision maker. There are several reasons for this: The decision maker may have a team of skilled negotiators working for them, but may not be skilled in this area personally; Decision makers may not be close to the detail of their team’s negotiating plan; this is often a recipe for cheaply-won concessions or responding to persuasion in a way that their negotiating team will not; When senior stakeholders enter a negotiation, the ego-driven desire to appear useful/strong/engaged often kicks in; in practice this can equate to careless language that unpicks the hard-won progress that their team has made. In short, failing to secure tight alignment between a negotiating team and their leadership is a recipe for either a bad deal or no deal at all. In this sense, the EU has needed to show remarkable discipline in coordinating the leaders of 27 member states – plus the EU Parliament that will need to ratify any trade deal – to support a common negotiating position and, crucially, not to “take the call” from UK negotiators seeking to work around Michel Barnier and his team. In theory then, the UK side has an advantage in effectively just having one ultimate decision maker in Boris Johnson, unencumbered by the parliamentary arithmetic that stymied Theresa May’s ability to deliver a credible mandate for her negotiating team. In practice though, the complexity of the EU executive probably makes it much harder for UK negotiators to effectively engage wider stakeholders to any meaningful extent. There is a clear contrast here with the significant power currently held by Boris Johnson to orchestrate – and amend – the UK approach at short notice. It is with Johnson then, that the destiny of the UK trading relationship with the EU mostly resides. It is the decisions he makes in the coming weeks, the mandate he gives his negotiators and how skilfully he manages his direct interventions with EU stakeholders, that will determine how this most complex of negotiations will conclude. So, my advice to UK Brexit Negotiators: Keep building your Best Alternative To A Negotiated Agreementt (BATNA) with putative non-EU trade agreements and preparations for trading with the EU on WTO terms. The public narrative around these activities really does matter – control it! Alignment and planning are key: everyone from Boris Johnson down needs to know what they will do and when between now and the end of the transition period. Ambiguity is not your friend at this point. And my advice to EU Brexit Negotiators: Frustrating the UK from building their BATNA with non-EU players is advisable and probably expected, though subtlety is the order of the day if you ultimately want to do a Brexit trade deal; Do not expect the UK negotiating team to ultimately behave in what you might perceive to be the rational, economic interests of the British people as the transition period deadline approaches; Boris Johnson has staked huge political capital on a “good deal or WTO” outcome and it is ultimately his judgement on whether the deal on the table by November is a good one – or at least could be perceived that way – that will dictate the outcome of negotiations. Given this concentration of power, engage him directly wherever possible between now and the end of the transition period. Interested in improving your own negotiation skills? Get in touch and find out more - BrassTacks Negotiation Training

In a series of guest blogs for PolicyDepartment, negotiation expert and MD of BrassTacks Negotiation Training Gareth Roberts reveals the top 3 banana skins for Brexit negotiators. In Part 2, he explores the pros and cons of using time as leverage. Recap by reading Part 1 of the series on the true nature of negotiating power Young children are experts at executing the negotiating tactic of total non-cooperation until a key demand is met. Parents dealing with a crying toddler spread-eagled across the aisle of their local supermarket – perhaps with a steady stream of tut-tutting passers-by cranking up the pressure to just put the Mars bars in the trolley – will attest to how effective this tactic can be. If you believe the UK media narrative, EU Chief Negotiator Michel Barnier is a big fan of this approach, recently stating that UK concessions on fisheries were a “non-negotiable pre-condition to grant access to our market of 450 million citizens” and directing his negotiating team not to progress other areas of discussion until this concession had been made. Barnier has form in this area, famously stalling progress on the Withdrawal Agreement until the UK agreed to pay the EU a “divorce bill”. In the interest of balance, it is worth pointing out that Barnier accuses the UK side of a “bad tactic” in deliberately postponing the negotiation of “issues that matter most for the Europeans”, going on to state that “they didn’t want to cope with them until now”. Whichever interpretation is accurate, and whether a policy of omerta is really followed to the letter by EU negotiators behind closed doors, there are significant risks and benefits to stalling negotiations in the face of a deadline. On the plus side, if your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) is attractive and you judge your counter party to be in a position of weakness due to time pressure, this can be an excellent way of gaining concessions without offering up anything in return. Furthermore, if you do eventually signal a willingness to concede on your non-negotiable pre-condition, the counter party may be so relieved that they offer significant concessions just to get the process moving again. Professional negotiators call this tactic deploying an irritant and, used correctly when the other side are time-pressured, it is highly effective. It is unlikely that Barnier considers his fisheries stance to be an irritant in the purest sense, but he is no doubt aware that UK frustration on lack of progress could create an emotional energy that might be used to the advantage of the EU as deadline day draws closer. So, what's the risk? Apart from souring the relationship between negotiators (nobody likes time-based tactics deployed against them), this approach requires bullet-proof confidence in how your counterpart sees their BATNA in the face of an impending deadline. Misreading how the other side view the situation is an easy mistake made by even the most experienced negotiators and, as we shall see in the final banana skin, how we define the “other side” can be another source of negotiation pain. Don't miss the concluding post in this series, where Gareth looks at how 'bad bosses can wreck negotiations' and what this means for Brexit. Learn more about negotiation by visiting the BrassTacks website.

In a series of guest blogs for PolicyDepartment, negotiation expert and MD of BrassTacks Negotiation Training Gareth Roberts reveals the top 3 banana skins for Brexit negotiators. In Part 1, he explores the true nature of negotiating power and what it means for each side. I earn a living helping some of the world’s best-known companies transform their executives from people pleasers into effective negotiators. Experience has taught me to use Brexit case studies sparingly as an educational tool. Time after time, I have been struck by the emotions evoked by this topic – emotions are rarely helpful to a negotiator – and the extent to which people hold certainties about the power, motivations and capabilities of those involved in trade negotiations between the UK and EU. Any analysis or comment on this topic needs to be undertaken with a generous helping of humility, acknowledging the considerable unknowns that exist even for those intimately engaged in the process, let alone those of us observing from a distance. On that theme of humility, I would stress that my professional life is usually conducted a million miles from the Westminster bubble and I certainly have no pretensions as a political analyst. I do however know a thing or two about negotiation, having spent my working life living and breathing the “crunchy” conversations that most people instinctively avoid. It is through this professional lens that I offer you a view of the will they/won’t they soap opera that is about to play out as the UK and EU attempt to thrash out a trade deal in time for Christmas, highlighting the potential banana skins to avoid, the negotiation tools in play and advising how each side might best approach the weeks ahead. Banana Skin 1: Power does not always get you a good deal How do you measure the power that you have in a negotiation? Professional negotiators tend to use a technique called BATNA, an acronym that stands for Best Alternative To A Negotiated Agreement. In other words, if you are unable to do a deal with your negotiating partner, how desirable is the resulting scenario? Given this directly proportional relationship between BATNA and negotiating power, negotiators will often work to “build their BATNA” by taking actions to improve the desirability of their alternate scenario. The BATNA-building environment is unique when it comes to Brexit because unlike most negotiations, neither side is long on options when it comes to doing this covertly. Indeed, the perceived success of the UK in developing non-EU trade agreements – the conditions of which will be contingent on where the UK trading relationship with the EU ultimately lands – is the subject of constant public scrutiny and will be a dynamic factor impacting the perceived negotiating leverage of both sides. From a UK perspective, preparing for a no-deal scenario is not only common sense, but also serves to power up the UK negotiating position by publicly signalling to EU negotiators how the UK’s BATNA would look. The irony for the UK’s non-EU trading partners is that by agreeing comprehensive trade deals in principle now, they arguably make it less likely that such deals ever reach fruition, as this activity supports the UK’s efforts to drive a more advantageous deal with the EU… which is in turn likely to demand UK concessions on non-EU trade. On the other hand, by failing to engage in the UK’s no-deal planning now, non-EU players risk delaying the opportunity to secure better access to a market of 67 million people in the event of no UK-EU agreement. Consider that conundrum from the perspective of New Zealand and try not to get a headache! The EU’s suite of BATNA scenarios is more straightforward, given that their relationship with the rest of the world is not changing. The EU is however faced with an interesting dilemma of its own. There will be a strong temptation to diminish UK negotiating power by undermining UK attempts to strike deals with other countries (interestingly, Japanese officials publicly signalled that they were unwilling to give the UK a better deal than the EU when it came to cheese imports) but to what extent is this possible without souring the EU-UK relationship to the point where a mutually advantageous deal is lost to acrimony? Other voices within the EU may well ask: do we really care? We are 450 million people negotiating a trade deal with 67 million people – we can survive without a UK trade agreement and should negotiate accordingly! Therein lies the issue with perceived power in a negotiation: it gives you the option of behaving in a more assertive, demanding way, but it does not guarantee that your negotiating partner will acquiesce to these behaviours. I have experienced many negotiations where both sides have been intoxicated by their perceived power, pushed the other side’s emotional buttons and subsequently been far less willing to lose face by trading concessions to reach a deal. This is a recipe for losing win-win agreements that should have been achieved. It is true to say that neither the UK nor the EU will collapse on WTO terms and you need only pick up a copy of the Daily Express or New European to get a sense of the most rose-tinted BATNA for both parties. The key point here is that negotiating power is subjective and merely presents the option to exhibit more assertive, demanding behaviours. It does not however guarantee a good deal and both sides should carefully examine the role of power as defined by BATNA in their negotiating strategies. Don't miss Part 2, where Gareth explores the role of the 'ticking clock' in negotiations and what this means for Brexit negotiators. Learn more about negotiation by visiting the BrassTacks website.

First published on the website of our podcast LED Confidential . In this episode of LED Confidential, David and Mike are joined by the CEO of Staffordshire Chambers of Commerce , Sara Williams OBE. They explore the role of business networks like Chambers of Commerce in shaping the places they call home. How do they establish clear priorities for local economies? Work alongside other, sometimes competing, agendas? What do they make of institutional changes like the end of Local Enterprise Partnerships in England? And what reforms do they want to see after the coming UK general election? In this blog, we summarise and dissect the main themes from the episode. What is the role of local business networks like Chambers of Commerce in economic development? Local business networks like Chambers of Commerce play an important role in placemaking. As the voice of local businesses, they bring informed perspectives to economic discussions. They help foster understanding between businesses, local authorities, and other interests, smoothing out differences in reference points, mindsets, and jargon. But beyond civic activism, they also deliver real-world programmes. They do this across a variety of themes, from supporting SMEs in their energy-efficiency efforts to helping disadvantaged groups into work. Predating modern local government, Chambers in particular offer high name recognition and consistency for businesses amid an ever-evolving landscape of institutions, programmes, and policies. As Sara herself argues in the episode, it's important for place leadership teams to engage with the full range of representative organisations, not just one or two businesses, to get the most comprehensive view of business needs; to understand the impacts of a strategy, project, or policy; and to account for opportunities and the challenges facing the business community. How do business communities navigate the institutional changes in the local governance landscape? For business associations active in civic life, navigating institutional changes within England's local governance landscape demands a keen understanding of the shifts of the past decade. From the rise and fall of Local Enterprise Partnerships to the evolving contours of city and county-based devolution, the terrain has been marked by significant upheaval. One of the roles of Chambers of Commerce is to translate and explain these changes for businesses and work through their implications with their national association, the British Chambers of Commerce. For instance, a widely held business concern in places like Staffordshire is that areas not covered by Combined Authorities or devolution deals will not receive fair support or attention in Whitehall thinking. Improving collaboration between local businesses and local authorities Local authorities often view Chambers as critical friends—constructive voices that articulate business concerns. This sometimes finds practical expression in initiatives like joint policy forums. In the episode, Sara argues that local government could leverage the value of business networks more by explaining plans, issues, and constraints to get business input and understanding. Chambers advise local authorities not to ‘go it alone’ and make use of people who are deeply invested in the success of the local area, like Chamber members. Sara describes the culture of the business community in Staffordshire as collaborative when working with local government, compared to more transactional or deal-making approaches seen in some other places. Business priorities for local economic development and an incoming government In the episode, Sara argues that the UN Sustainable Development Goals should guide local regeneration, and that businesses need to see more long-termism from whoever forms the next government. A top priority is strong, consistent policies on green issues, with many businesses having incorporated regulatory milestones into plans, only to see those timelines abandoned in the face of short-term political pressures. Developing the skills of the future workforce is seen as important to address the mismatch between what businesses need and what is offered. Addressing infrastructure deficits in road, rail, and digital networks is a consistently high priority for businesses. Planning and development control remain hot-button issues.

PolicyDepartment is proud to work with the British Chambers of Commerce on plans for a phased restart of the UK economy. Some of the outputs of this work were published over the weekend. On Sunday, the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) – a powerful business network representing Chambers in the UK and across the globe - published an open letter to the Prime Minister. It sets out principles for a phased restart of the UK economy as the country fights the Coronavirus pandemic. The plans draw on the extensive experience of its members and their first-hand understanding of the approaches being adopted internationally. BCC plans are built around a three-phase journey: Restart: a phased reopening of the economy Rebuild: building resilience for firms and households Renew: returning to prosperity and growth The open letter sets out five steps for the ‘Restart’ phase: Safely reopen public spaces and restore services (including schools and public transport) Safely reopen workplaces and commercial spaces Minimise job losses and business failures Rebuild supply chains and customer bases; and Put the UK economy on a high-growth, high-wage and low unemployment trajectory as soon as possible