How the US presidential campaign was won and lost – four insights from the people closest to the action

Tony Halmos, Director of the King’s Commission on London and a Visiting Professor at the Policy Institute, recently attended Harvard University’s Campaign Managers’ Conference, where operatives from both the Trump and Clinton presidential campaigns shared insights from their time working on the election. In this blog, Tony discusses some of the things he learnt at the conference. 

0n 30 November and 1 December, the Institute of Politics at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government hosted its regular post-US election ‘Campaign Managers’ Conference’ – a two-day review of the presidential campaign by those most closely involved in it. The event itself has been running every four years since 1972, just after each presidential election, but this year’s gained more media coverage than usual, after audio of a short, angry and robust exchange between the Trump and Clinton campaigns was published. But the conference generated light as well as heat, revealing some interesting insights about how the campaign was won and lost. Continue reading

Five reflections on the Casey Review

By Dr Benedict Wilkinson and Professor Jennifer Rubin.1

To say that the recent publication of the Casey Review into integration and opportunity in our most isolated and deprived communities has divided opinion would be to put it mildly. The Review has been widely picked up for its hard-hitting findings – amongst them, that there are ‘worrying levels of segregation and socioeconomic exclusion in different communities across the country and a number of inequalities between groups’, that ‘too many public institutions… have gone so far to accommodate diversity and freedom of expression that they have ignored or even condoned regressive, divisive and harmful cultural and religious practices’, and that previous ‘cohesion or integration plans have not been implemented with enough force or consistency, they have been allowed to be diluted and muddled, [and] they have not been sufficiently linked to socio-economic inclusion’. Continue reading