Search this site

First published on the website of our podcast LED Confidential . Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) have been a key part of England’s economic development landscape for over a decade. But in August 2023, the government confirmed that it would no longer sponsor and fund LEPs. This decision raises important questions about the future of local economic development. In the latest episode of LED Confidential, Mike and David are joined by Chris Starkie , the former CEO of New Anglia LEP which works across the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk in the East of England. He is now the Director of Growth and Investment at Norfolk County Council. In the episode, Chris, David, and Mike discuss the LEP story from 2010 to 2023 and the key issues that will influence successor arrangements. The transition from Local Enterprise Partnerships to successor arrangements The Government's decision to replace LEPs had been expected for 2-3 years, so the August confirmation was no surprise. Some in the sector argue that there is a strong rationale for streamlining sub-national leadership and governance of economic development with new Mayoral and Combined Authorities, and as devolution spreads to county areas. Others, however, express concerns that it might weaken the voice of businesses and local communities in economic development. Chris explains that in the transition from LEPs to successor arrangements the emerging approach in Norfolk and Suffolk is one of collaboration. The two counties are working together to ensure a smooth transfer of functions, expertise, and funding. But transition challenges vary from place-to-place depending on factors like the maturity and cohesion of devolved arrangements, and the extent of consensus between county and unitary authorities in specific sub-regions. The goal is to prevent the kind of cliff-edge scenario faced by LEPs when they were first established. The role of intermediate tiers LEPs belong to a category of governance that at LED Confidential we call the 'intermediate tier'. This is the space between national and local government. At its best, the intermediate tier provides the necessary scale and critical mass for agreeing and enabling strategic economic change. It can play a vital role in coordinating economic development across administrative boundaries. The episode covers how the intermediate tier can add significant value, particularly in bringing together disparate stakeholders around a cohesive local economic plan. Organisations in the intermediate tier also serve as honest brokers, conveners, and coordinators. But they need to guard against the risks of becoming merely a level of central government field administration, or too challenging to the ambitions and democratic accountabilities of the local authorities within their geography. The role of national government in designing economic development bodies The role of national government in shaping the future of local economic development is crucial. The episode discusses whether more local government involvement in defining intermediate tiers would lead to a more stable and enduring setup. Chris points out that the level of central government commitment to devolution is a critical factor. There is a paradox. The current levels of fiscal devolution and local financial headroom in England are so constrained that the sub-national system relies almost totally on central government funding. But the more central government funds intermediate and local economic institutions the more it expects to direct what type of institutions receive that funding and how they spend it. Reflections on future agendas The field of economic development is constantly evolving. Automation, demographic change, and sustainability are just some of the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead for successor arrangements to LEPs across England. In the episode, Chris stresses the importance of preparing the workforce for the future. Automation is likely to have a significant impact on the workforce, both in manufacturing and the services sector. Investing in the skills and training to ensure that our workforce is ready to meet the demands of the future economy, will be close to the top of the in-tray. Demographics is another important consideration. Regions like Norfolk and Suffolk are facing the challenge of a shrinking working-age population. This means that there will be fewer people to support the economy. Chris argues that we need to find ways to attract and retain talent, to support older people to stay in the workforce, but also to deliver productivity improvements that, for some industries and services, deliver increasing outputs with fewer workers. Sustainability is another key agenda item. Chris stressed the need for local areas to fully grasp the job opportunities and potential economic growth associated with sustainability initiatives, such as retrofitting and renewable energy. Throughout the episode with Chris Starkie, it was evident that while the context may change, the fundamental building blocks of economic development remain constant. Whatever new institutional arrangements are put in place post-LEPs, they will need the capacity and capabilities to manage changes in skills and employment, enterprise and innovation, skills and infrastructure, green economy, inequalities, and inclusion, well.

First published on the website of our podcast LED Confidential . In the June 2023 roundup episode of LED Confidential , Mike and David discuss revelations that the UK Shared Prosperity Fund is massively underspent in its first year (listen from 8.55). Using FOI requests, local government researcher Jack Shaw - a fellow at the Bennett Institute  found that some councils had spent less than 5 per cent of their UK Shared Prosperity Fund 2022-23 allocations by the end of March 2023, and overall, perhaps as little as a third of the that year’s budget has been spent. Here’s a Q+A based on the episode. Why should the massive underspending of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund come as no surprise to regular LEDC listeners? The proximate cause is long delays to Whitehall sign-off of UKSPF investment plans. It’s a feature of all major recent UK funding processes for local economic development, and sadly, one of the regular ‘uninvited guests’ on our show! We saw similar delays of up to four months for other funding streams, including the Community Renewal Fund, and Levelling Up Fund. But the true scale of the challenge has only been revealed through freedom of information requests. What role should central government play in distributing funds to local government? However far fiscal devolution proceeds in England, some form of central government oversight of devolved monies is always going to be present, as it is in other countries. However, the current process of requiring government approval for spending plans is both impractical - due to the large number of local authorities and limited civil service resources – and undermining of local right of initiative. The episode discussed how an alternative approach could work. This would be based on agreeing a national framework with basic rules on what UKSPF can fund, allowing local economic development bodies to spend flexibly within that framework, subject to periodic audits to uphold financial probity. How can the issue of underspending be mitigated in future rounds? The Trailblazer devolution deals and single settlements may provide a better regime for funding distribution, although these are currently limited to Greater Manchester and the West Midlands Combined Authority area. However, there are still many local authorities facing underspends. New guidance needs to allow for extending the UKSPF timeframe by removing financial-year restrictions and aligning it with local timetables for delivery of programmes. What are the benefits of longer timeframes for economic development programmes? Longer timeframes allow for effective mobilisation, operational delivery, and de-mobilisation of funded programmes. EU multi-year financial frameworks, for example, lasted up to seven years. Although going beyond a parliamentary term may be challenging in the UK's constitutional setup, aiming for a full parliamentary term is a reasonable goal. What issues have arisen in the guidance for districts within Mayoral Combined Authority areas? Within UKSPF’s prospectus and investment planning guidance, the respective roles of district local authorities and Mayoral Combined Authorities where they co-exist was made unclear by the inclusion of ‘indicative district allocations’. While MCAs are, in theory, the ‘managing’ or strategic authority for compiling UKSPF investment plans in their areas, in practice district authorities played a more strategic role in setting the priorities for the plans than originally envisaged by the guidance. Was this intentional or the result of poor communication? We’ll let our listeners decide!

LED Confidential’s first episode of 2023 is now live! The podcast, jointly hosted by Mike Spicer from PolicyDepartment, and David Marlow from Third Life Economics, lifts the lid on those intractable and enduring challenges facing those of us working in and on local economic development and placemaking today. We are introducing a major change for 2023 – a monthly ‘what’s new in LED and placemaking review?” which will augment the return of our monthly thematic episodes with an expert guest. So what are our reflections on January 2023, and why are they important for our sector, policy makers, and local leadership teams? Let us whet your listening appetite with five teasers… First we consider how the Levelling Up Fund Round Two (LUFR2) announcements have landed (spoiler alert – not very well), and wonder whether this is the beginning of the end for small, short-term, nationally micro-managed challenge funding? If LUFR2 is going to be a tipping point, we need to be clear whether our arguments are for a smaller number of much larger longer-term funding pots or whether the big bang change has to be an end to competitions altogether and a new single pot system. The answer to this issue is to a large extent dependent, especially in England, on our second discussion point – the future of devolution. Our episode touched on both the proposed North East agreement and the promise of Greater Manchester and West Midlands ‘trailblazers’ to come. Amongst a number of points, we really ought to take stock of what has been learnt from devo agreements from the city deals of the early 2010s to the Combined Authority agreements of the last five or six years. Where is the honest informed discussion on what has gone well and less well – in both design and implementation? The influence of the growing cohort of elected mayors can be at the forefront of redefining better devolution in the mid-2020s and beyond. Our third discussion point reflected on their profile at the Convention of the North. They were absolutely clear and united about moving away from the ‘begging bowl mentality’ of challenge funding. But genuine fiscal devolution remains a dog that isn’t barking very loudly in the UK. Surely, this is an area of work that merits serious attention going forward? Fourthly, we mulled over the ambiguous signals on economic clusters coming out of both Gove (and therefore Government) at the Convention of the North, and arguably from Labour in Gordon Brown’s recent ‘New Britain’ report. Gove, perhaps surprisingly, seemed to suggest scepticism about Government role in supporting place-based economic clusters, whilst ‘New Britain’ sometimes seems to suggest that every place has clusters that should be empowered and enabled. Where might the balance lie between effectively zero and over 100 clusters meriting public policy strategic support. Economic clusters lie in the overlaps between LED and placemaking and can be of global, national, regional and/or local significance. We suggest returning to this issue in a future thematic episode. Finally, both of us reviewed some of the reading we had found particularly stimulating in January – from the World Economic Forum Global Risk Register, to Centre for Cities 2023 Cities Outlook, and the Enterprise Research Centre's SME Research Showcase. We hope a brief overview of what is influencing us is a helpful part of the monthly review. But what do you think? The current affairs review will work so much better if it is informed by what types of news you most want us to discuss; if it starts or contributes to ongoing important debates in our sector; and mostly if it is shaped by the listener and motivates you to engage further. We welcome suggestions on what LEDC should do next and how you wish to contribute…over to you!

Want to know how European funding for local economic development projects will be replaced, how this will work, and how you need to prepare over the next 3-6 months? This article will help to inform your approach. It has been written in collaboration between Mike Spicer from PolicyDepartment and Glenn Athey from mylocaleconomy. Mike has been involved in the design and specification of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund over the years. Glenn has witnessed several iterations of local and regeneration funding since the mid 1990s and has been involved in every round of EU Structural Funds since then. Both Mike and Glenn are old colleagues, and work together on advisory projects throughout the UK. We’re nearing the start line for the Shared Prosperity Fund… Up until implementing Brexit and until they expire in 2023, the EU Structural Funds (ESIF) have been the largest single source of local economic development funding in the UK for several areas of intervention. These include business support, enterprise promotion and green economy schemes and incentives. The UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) is ESIF's post-Brexit successor. The journey to its April 2022 launch has been a long, complex and at times, conflicting process. And not least between the UK and devolved nation governments. Some of us will remember how the earliest consultations in 2017 acquired the informal tag of 'project sunblock'. This shorthand, used by industry lobbyists, started as a tongue-in-cheek reference to the fund's acronym. But over time it proved fitting as a description of its slippery and invisible qualities. Because until recently, no-one outside of Whitehall circles knew what the final shape, nature and size of the fund would be. Three schools of thought battled over its design. First - the 'continuity school'. This preferred a grant scheme like the existing ESIF but with some technical tweaks. It would hold close to what localities and officials already knew. It was about evolution, not revolution. Second - the 'centralising school'. This saw UKSPF as a successor to the Regional Growth Fund (RGF): a centrally-directed challenge fund run from Whitehall. In this view, it was about maintaining budget controls, short lead times and UK government visibility. It was about reducing the perceived red tape associated with sub-national ‘gatekeeping’. Finally - the 'radical devo school'. In this view, ESIF would be replaced with block 'single pot' grants for flexible use across local areas. The role of Whitehall minimised to upholding financial probity and good practice within a reformed geography of local government. Although details are sketchy, a lot of preparation will be required to make best use of the UKSPF in 2022… With the pre-launch guidance published in February, we now know that UKSPF is closest to the continuity school’s vision. It bears a strong family resemblance to ESIF albeit with a much shorter programme timescale (1-3 years vs 5-7). Similar to ESIF, it involves: Fixed allocations by geography Sub-national gatekeepers with strategic and match-funding responsibilities (in this case local government); And is Plan-led, with features analogous to ESIF’s Operational Programmes and Priority Axes. It may have turned out differently. The Community Renewal Fund of 2021 (CRF) was launched as a dress-rehearsal for UKSPF. This was a centrally-directed challenge fund of the sort favoured by the centralising school. But the short bidding timescales and long judging delays proved to be major obstacles to scaling it up. Pre-launch guidance for UKSPF leaves most of the technical detail to be published in April 2022. What we don’t know at this stage is: Actual funding allocations by geography Prescribed use of these allocations – such as the split between capital and revenue Match fund requirements Pre-qualification requirements - including the need for an investment plan, what that comprises and how it is approved State aid requirements and monitoring How funds get drawn down – is it funds held by local authorities to be disbursed, or funds reclaimed in arrears? Mechanisms for accrual of funds to financial years – vital to know, given the tight timescales Any mechanism for reallocation of funds due to surplus and lack of draw-down The UKSPF development process also shares common features with ESIF design processes. The missed deadlines. Being late with guidance. And being almost a complete mystery in terms of themes, priorities, guidance and permitted use until launch. The risks ahead – and what you can do about them To prepare for the UKSPF’s launch in Spring 2022, local government will need to second guess the likely funding type and allocation. It will need to anticipate the capital / revenue split and eligible uses. Timing is critical. EU funding will dry out completely by Spring 2023. Full allocations are spent in many areas. ESIF won't fund new activity between now and June 2023, only pay for existing commitments. A slow start to UKSPF would open up local funding gaps in 2022-23. Think about the type of support that Growth Hubs broker to. Most of this is business support and advice, grants for equipment and low-carbon solutions, and trade and investment promotion. There is a heavy reliance on ERDF to fund this in England. Schemes to address youth unemployment and disengagement in the labour market depend on it too. Much ESIF-funded activity is at risk of halting or being mothballed without bridging or successor funding. And UKSPF is much smaller than the funds it replaces: roughly £0.9bn vs £2bn per year over 2022-2025. There is also uncertainty over existing initiatives not funded through ESIF – such as LEPs, Growth Hubs, and the Towns Fund. So, what can local authorities and partnerships do? It would be sensible to audit current ESIF and government funded economic development initiatives, services, grants and programmes for their funding continuity and risks. Draw up a list of essential services and support to protect or find bridging funds for. The spatial governance of the new fund is very mixed across the UK… The ‘Managing Authority’ geography based on the concept of ‘strategic regional areas’ is clear for Wales and Northern Ireland. But it is largely undefined in Scotland and fluid in England. In Scotland the pre-launch guidance references City Deal geographies. This is the existing basis for UK government – sub-national engagement in Scotland. But it leaves big unanswered questions around coverage. The role of the Scottish Government in setting boundaries is unclear. In England, a parallel programme of devolution complicates things. At first, lower-tier local authorities are to be in the lead where devolution deals don’t exist (along with MCAs and unitaries). But counties may become the strategic unit after deals happen. The pooling of allocations requires complex planning and delivery in the interim. The situation is further complicated by the different options for county-based devolution. Level 1 (as set out in the Levelling Up White Paper) would see districts keep managing authority status for UKSPF compared to the deeper integration of Levels 2 and 3. What can local authorities and partnerships do? Identify the starting point for preferred strategic and delivery geographies. This can be based on historic progress and performance or a rapid review of capability and capacity. For example, inward investment tends to be done at the MCA, county, and LEP level. Over the short-term, this should perhaps be left in place rather than creating a hiatus in services created by a period of introspection. Or maybe there are services or aspects of economic development which have not worked or had little progress over the past years? If it is a priority for the local economy, then perhaps more consideration should be given to how UKSPF can push this forward? Some may be unprepared for new funding and delivery opportunities… UKSPF puts new responsibilities on districts outside Combined Authority areas. They will need to understand their current position and performance, trajectory, ambitions, needs and how to get there. They will need to grasp the merits of past approaches done in collaboration with LEPs and other local authorities. They must prepare LIPs (Local Investment Plans) to draw down monies and begin convening civic society groups around priorities for funding. This might give some new latitude to districts and unitaries that have had to follow LEP – led funding streams. But there are new challenges and risks, such as: Accurately understanding what’s currently funded and what would be beneficial to retain The risk that knowledge, relationships and progress built in one spatial configuration (e.g. LEPs) are unwound, and capacity, knowledge and progress in developing services is lost Some functions may be more effective, get returns to scale or may only be viable through collaboration amongst districts and upper tier authorities ERDF funds were notoriously difficult to mobilise into delivery in the first year of a project. We have lost count of the number of ERDF project evaluations, where project administrators asked to reconfigure spend and outputs due to the lengthy time taken to establish the grant award, the project staff, and recruit beneficiaries. It takes time to set up a project and delivery. This will remain true for UKSPF event if the timeframes are shorter. What can local authorities and partnerships do? Get a rapid and accurate understanding of what you currently deliver or support through your own organisation, or in partnership. Appreciate that some functions will only be viable through collaboration with other local authorities, but that some may be better done locally. Be open and honest about your current levels of capacity. If you have only a small number of officers dealing with these issues, there are only so many projects, grant applications and services that can be progressed. Prioritisation is key. Risks of stakeholder relations and support – particularly the private sector UKSPF presents real risks to stakeholder relations and support. The private sector is a vital partner in economic development and regeneration. Locally, it may view the uncertainty and recasting of new spatial configurations and relationships as time-consuming and counter-productive. Business representative groups are embedded in local partnerships. They are sensitive to how reconfigurations may affect the balance of their strategic and delivery roles in local growth. If UKSPF offers a more balanced capital / revenue split than existing UK programmes then civic society groups may need help to adjust to new revenue programmes or possibilities. What can local authorities and partnerships do? Businesses may grow weary at further reorganisations. But they prefer transparency to being kept in the dark about risks and implications. Be open and include them in transition management or oversight groups. Setting area strategies – make yours a ‘next generation’ strategy Public funding for local economies is fragmented. This despite integrated local solutions offering more benefits and higher impacts. This is well illustrated by measures to address climate change. Let's say a locality wants to promote electric or alternative fuel vehicles. There are many aspects to deliver and join up. There's refuelling infrastructure, battery technologies and recycling. The need to drive consumer demand. Work with and develop industry supply chains and workforce skills. It demands a consistent, area-based package of interventions with the strategy, funding and partnerships to make it happen. LIPs demand a new focus on the built environment, placemaking and social capital. But delivery will be challenging when based on small and time-limited grant allocations. For the UKSPF era, strategic areas will need: Active knowledge of their local economy, UK and global trends, current and future challenges Area economic strategy, action plan, with funding requirements and plan for funding Knowledge of what works and how to deliver Good stakeholder communication and management Ability to make tactical funding bids In our experience, using a scenario approach is a great way to utilise this data and insight to set delivery priorities when the context is uncertain. By ranking projects according to their relevance and viability under different economic or funding scenarios, places can remain agile while holding true to their longer-term aims. ‘Next generation’ area strategies for the next decade will be broader-based than in 2010s, covering issues such as public health and key workers. The Covid-19 pandemic has also increased policy attention on community benefits and inequalities. Local strategies must aim to raise the prosperity of all residents and communities. They must strive to deliver equality of opportunity and impacts; be environmentally sustainable while delivering economic growth, wealth and prosperity. But they still need to address the long-standing priorities of enterprise, skills, innovation and hard infrastructure. What can local authorities and partnerships do? We would encourage all to push towards ‘next generation’ strategies, and to develop strategies that can be agile enough to be relevant throughout the changes to local funding, be they UKSPF or the next iteration of local economic development funding. Local strategies must be able to join up disparate funding sources and central government silos. Central government won’t help with this at the moment – it is up to local stakeholders and partnerships. We’re here to help! Glenn Athey (at mylocaleconomy) and Mike Spicer (at PolicyDepartment) are experienced economic development professionals and public policy experts who are well-versed in local economic development policy and practice over the past 30 years. Need help with the UKSPF, or just want to have an initial discussion? Get in touch. We can support you in several ways: Initial scoping and advice. We can help you navigate a way forward in the short and medium-term Design, process and delivery of investment frameworks and funding strategies. We have a practical knowledge of policy and delivery areas that previously your district may not have engaged in so much – including working with communities, inclusion, local business, innovation, inward investment, and the low carbon agenda Rapid reviews and recommendations. We are well-versed in providing light-touch strategy reviews, gap analysis, options for further development, and templates for LIPs Full strategy reviews - more detailed baselining, stakeholder engagement, business case development and drafting of LIPs We always recommend developing agile local economic strategies and action plans – that can be repurposed and adapted for different, new funding streams and opportunities as they arise. We are experts and advisors that can help you at every step on your journey into the next phase of local economic development and the UK Shared Prosperity Fund. Get in touch here: Mike Spicer, PolicyDepartment Glenn Athey, mylocaleconomy

In mid-April 2022 the UK government published its prospectus for the Shared Prosperity Fund. UKSPF will replace EU Structural Funds in the UK - hitherto the largest source of public money for business support programmes in the country. The fund has three core themes analogous to the 'Priority Axes' of EU funding programmes. They are: Communities and Place (built environment, public realm and social capital), Local Businesses and People and Skills. Part of the fund is ringfenced for adult numeracy under the 'Multiply' programme. This briefing outlines the key features of UKSPF... Like the EU monies it replaces, UKSPF is plan-led with funds allocated to local governments by formula. But there are important differences across all the major dimensions of fund design and management. These will affect the number and type of projects that get funded, how they are delivered, where and by whom... Less money - smaller pot than equivalent, past EU funds. £0.4bn is allocated for 2022-23, £0.7bn for 2023-24 and £1.5bn for 2024-25. Over the period £430m will be ringfenced for adult numeracy. This is less than the EU's ERDF and ESF funds it replaces (approx £2bn per year). Tight timeline – investment plans required by Summer 2022. To draw down their fund allocations, localities must submit investment plans for adult numeracy by 30 June and for the remaining UKSPF themes by 1 August. Once unlocked, UKSPF can reimburse spending from 1 April 2022. More flexibility over uses and delivery than EU funds. For investment plans there is a lower evidence threshold for uses that are pre-specified for each UKSPF theme. But with quality appraisals localities can go beyond these. They can deliver in-house, with partners or outsource. Revenue-based – focused on ‘resource’ or programme spending. Capital spend makes up a minimum of 10% of UKSPF in year 1, rising to 20% by year 3. For ERDF it was 50%. Publicly-funded business support will be less focused on subsidising investments and developing physical spaces. Delivery geography - 'managing authorities' to change over time. Investment planning and delivery will be based on 'strategic regional areas'. In England these are MCA areas, unitary and district councils, moving to devolution deal geographies as these form for counties and city regions. Download the full briefing here:

Economic developers in the UK have a lot to digest in 2022. Post-Brexit disruption to public-sector funding models and institutional reform of local government loom large. But it's important not to lose sight of what matters most to local economies - the real-world factors shaping job creation and investment. Alongside the economic cycle here are some of the most important to watch this year... The pressures of the ‘shortage economy’ and the impact of technology. A potent mix… In 2022 UK-based firms are adapting to survive and grow in an economy where prices are higher and labour supply lower than expected. Where logistics and international trade are more challenging. And where growing use of technology forces more business decisions around location of assets and workforce... Pressure to raise prices early in 2022. The increasing costs of energy, logistics, finance and COVID disruptions are squeezing margins. This will impact public-sector procurement. And it will hit business survival where price contracts are inflexible. Recruitment challenges – bottlenecks in labour supply. Demographics, COVID and Brexit have combined to arrest growth in the UK’s labour supply. This will increase the interest of employers and employees in workplace automation and lifelong learning. ‘Out-of-area’ hiring – more competition for talent. More employers now offer remote working. More jobs seekers demand it. This means firms can recruit from further afield but face new competitors for talent at home. Local skills strategies must account for this. More tech-based collaboration – new options and expectations. Most businesses say they will use the tools of digitally-enabled collaboration more not less in 2022. This will affect not only business location and operational choices but preferred methods of accessing support services. Disruptions to international trade - more onshoring. Post-Brexit rules join new trade frictions with China and Russia. Longer-term these may impact industry collaboration and investment across borders. They may further encourage the building of 'locally-resilient' supply chains. Download the full brieifng here:

A report published earlier this month by Climate Action For Associations (CAFA) with PolicyDepartment support demystifies the COP26 climate summit for membership groups. It unpacks the Glasgow Climate Pact made by wold leaders and signposts to guides for industry associations on the actions they and their members can take to play their role in the race to zero. Visit the CAFA website to access the report and post-conference discussion featuring Mike Spicer and PolicyDepartment associate Sophie House.

A report prepared by PolicyDepartment for Enterprise Nation and Dropbox found that business leaders could save an average of 150 hours each year by adopting new tech tools and digitalising processes. The analysis draws on a 900-strong survey of business owners and leaders conducted between September and November 2021. The majority (73%) credited the survival of their business through the COVID pandemic to tech tools like cloud computing and video conferencing. But not all were making full use of the tools available to claim back wasted time or amplify sales. Respondents cited lack of information, guidance and the perceived cost of licences as barriers to greater uptake. The report makes recommendations to: Businesses - test the market . 'Tech tools usually offer a free tier of service. Business owners should test the market for entry-level deals.' Government - open up financial support for tech adoption to more businesses and use cases . 'Widen the scale, scope and eligibility criteria of government initiatives [like Help To Grow Digital].' Tech industry - improve communication of benefits to small businesses . 'As the subject-matter experts on tech, industry players must finds stronger mechanisms for educating the smallest businesses.' You can read the full report here .

Contributing to high-stakes scrutiny events like Select Committee sessions in the UK or Congressional hearings in the US is right up there with the most nerve-racking job duties of any policy professional. But also the most rewarding. Preparing the right way is essential. Former colleagues and others I've worked with know that I favour what I call the 'Evil Twin' approach. That's because, on more occasions than I care to remember, it's saved me from making a fool of myself. Evil Twin is the very opposite of the traditional approach to media engagement. Media training teaches you that good communication focuses on a single core argument. The most important thing you want your audience to hear. You craft a 'top line' and three supporting arguments that reinforce the message. That's the basic structure of most press releases and most political campaign lines. It's how any media-trained spokesperson would prep for a broadcast interview. (Next time you watch the news, see if you can spot this in action). But this approach is most effective when the format is short and the person or organisation behind the message is in control of the engagement. Live TV interviews, for example, usually take three minutes or less and interviewers are under intense pressure to keep to schedule. This hands control of the engagement to the spokesperson. They can be confident that whatever the question, they can always bridge back to their top line and say what they want to say. The format doesn't allow for in-depth discussion or probing scrutiny. There are some exceptions to this. But in those cases I would strongly advise any policy professional to decline the interview. One for another time - but take it on faith there are some encounters you cannot profit from however good you are. Where the very structure of it will work against you. But what if the encounter is 'long-form' and dynamic in nature? Parliamentary or Congressional evidence hearings are good examples of this. So too are local Examinations In Public in England, online or broadcast panel discussion formats. In these scenarios, policy professionals must prepare to meet resistance - even hostility - to their point of view. You don't get free reign in these settings. And you can't bank on the space to repeat pre-prepared lines without interruption. So how can your Evil Twin help? In this approach you do the exact opposite of what you usually do: think about the top things that you don't want people to hear. Your anti-top lines. This is not quite the same as being aware of counter arguments, though that does help. I'm talking about the most damaging things you could say to undermine your cause. Be creative. Be brave. The most damaging ones will confirm others' prejudices about your motives, make you seem self-serving or out of touch with reality. Once you've got these, the next task is to identify the supporting arguments. The biggest danger of any long-form engagement is the 'pincer' or the 'cul-de-sac' discussion where you find yourself cornered by a question for which there is no good answer. Even if you think the question unfair, often you will not get the opportunity, after the fact, to explain why 'it's a bit more complicated than that'. Knowing the supporting arguments to your anti-top lines allows you to see these nightmare situations develop before it's too late. Think of them as your intellectual trip wires: if one of these snaps, it's time to move out of harm’s way. For example, let's say you're making the case for improvements to the public realm, like harsher penalties for littering. One thing you might not want to say is that the police should spend a bigger share of their finite resources on litter monitoring. A supporting argument might be that other, more serious forms of crime need more police attention. Working through an argument like this allows you to see it coming before you are cornered with a question like: 'which is more important - police action on drug gangs or empty pizza boxes in hedges?'. It allows you to get ahead of the argument with the case you want to make when the discussion turns to enforcement. If you embrace your Evil Twin you'll discover it can help you in many other situations - from job interviews to funding bids.

In economic development, the ability to fund your priorities so often comes down to effective bid management. Whether your organisation is a local authority, a development body, charity or association, writing bids for funding competitions is a fact of life. Here’s how to win... The UK is living through an era of funding competitions run from Whitehall. Not ideal for financing long-term plans but a fact of life for those us working in local economic development. Writing compelling bids is a bit like interviewing for a job. The fundamentals of the pitch are always the most important. But these can be undone by poor technique or strategy. Stay methodical, objective, and don't lose sight of what the judges need to see... Be forensic in building an information requirements checklist. Download all official bid prospectus and guidance materials for the fund. Comb each line for formal and informal requirements. Combine these with the HMT Green Book Checklist for Assessment of Business Cases. Remember the bid judge's test: why are they doing this? Judges expect bids to be built out from solid ‘logic model’ and project appraisal principles. They will get suspicious if they don’t see evidence that you considered other options for project design and delivery. Maintain a live model of bid financials vs project outputs. Bids develop in the lead up to submission. Funding partners come and go. Outputs change. Spreadsheet models that link bid financials to project measures simplify updates with a single, at-a-glance version of the truth. Make time for external review – use an ‘evil twin’ checklist. Keep things objective with outside perspectives. Peer reviewers should cross-reference content with the fund's information requirements and an ‘evil twin’ checklist of mistakes and bad impressions that could sink the bid. Mobilise high-profile alliances of support. Judges want to see evidence that the bid supports local and national plans for the economy, society and the environment. Nothing shows this better than statements of support from civic leaders that emphasise the strategic fit. Download the full briefing here:

The hallmark of an effective public policy advocate is influence. And the ultimate test is to persuade government to commit energy and resources to the cause. Set-piece policy statements, such as Spending Reviews and Budgets in the UK, are golden opportunities because policymakers are in the market for ideas. Here’s how to make the most effective pitch for these occasions... Wherever you work as a policy advocate, set-piece financial statements by governments will loom large in your diary. The biggest dimensions of public policy are decided there. There's tax, public spending, priorities for investment and reform. Engaging with these effectively is all about speed and focus. But these must flow from solid foundations of influence and stakeholder involvement… Test the waters with government – what kind of Budget is it? Budgets close to major political events are more often ‘change’ than ‘continuity’ statements. Influential submissions must align their content to the ambition and policy focus of the times. Submit proposals weeks before the formal deadline if possible. A major financial statement is a whole-government exercise of proposing and developing ideas. In the UK they involve thousands of civil servants. The earlier that advocates pitch into this process the better for their cause. Choose a focused theme for the pitch not a vague catch-all. Pushing for your priorities here is about battling to be heard. Not just in the corridors of power but across all channels of influence. As in any public policy campaign, a clear goal beats wide-ranging verbiage every time. Present one or two headline proposals not a big wishlist. A single headline ask focuses government representatives on your priorities. And the likelihood of your negative reaction across the media if they go unmet. All-encompassing wishlists can be – and are – safely ignored. Include costs but don't over-share with the funding advice...Including an estimate of the static cost of your proposal to the taxpayer is essential to its credibility. But don’t get into a tangle by suggesting where the money should come from - unless the proposed reform generates revenue by design. Download the full briefing here:

Post-COVID economies face questions that are fundamental to their future. How will people live and work as restrictions on movement end? Which industries will rise and fall? And where will they call home? Effective recovery plans must embrace these uncertainties. Here’s how… Effective recovery plans are living documents. They direct public resources to where they best support the economy in the present. They coral business and community players. And they position the local area for post-recession opportunities and trends. But how do you know where we are and what the future holds? Lots of scenario planning and focused monitoring of data… Make a framework for decisions - not a vague list of priorities. Show how the crisis affected existing strategies and provide a clear logic for intervention over the short and medium terms. It should set out roles and responsibilities, arrangements for review and refinement. Embrace post-recession uncertainty and plan for different scenarios. War-game plausible scenarios and integrate them into your appraisal criteria for interventions. They should build from known uncertainties about the socio-economic context – e.g. overseas travel restrictions. Focus 'now-casting' on routes to impact and emerging trends. As a live document, a recovery plan should be underpinned by focused data monitoring, not a point-in time ‘data dump’. The goal is early confirmation or dismissal of trends relevant to decision-makers. Seek out the broadest range of stakeholder perspectives. You need access to timely, real-world knowledge of developments. But don’t rely on others coming to you. This will skew engagement towards existing relationships and those with the resources for civic involvement. Guard against ‘square-pegging’ of existing projects. Do prioritise shovel-ready schemes and scaling up live projects if the evidence supports their value to a recovery. But don’t overlook new, higher-impact interventions if these better fit the context. Download the full briefing here: