Two weeks ago (28th January), the nation’s favourite finance guru Martin Lewis broke the fourth wall on BBC Newsnight and issued a stark warning straight to Downing Street. Freezing the student loan repayment threshold was not the “moral thing” to do, he said. Later in the week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves went further than defending the policy, which was announced in last year’s Autumn Budget. She dubbed the whole student loan system “fair and reasonable”.
This soon sparked a public debate with national coverage on television, online and on social media. How can we look at this example and see where businesses can reclaim the narrative, even if the debate seems to get increasingly out of their control?
Where did it all go wrong?
It is easy to comment that words matter, especially for leadership figures that might face lots of public scrutiny. Yet, the importance of choosing your words carefully is even more clear when it relates to whole systems that need fixing.
Pretending that a system is working fairly when it is understood by many to be inequitable is going to make the problem feel even worse for those affected. For example, bClear is helping client OPDA grow awareness of its efforts to make property sales more efficient using data collaboration. This starts by acknowledging how difficult the homebuying process can be for consumers when faced with repeated data entry, long delays and a lack of communication between different service providers.
Sticking your head in the sand would even be better than actively claiming that everything is fine.
Knowing your audience
Back to Reeves, very few stakeholders involved – least of all students and universities – agree that the loan system as a whole is “fair and reasonable”. It’s a bit of a kick in the teeth.
Reeves could have tried to justify the policy in line with the Labour government’s rhetoric on fiscal responsibility. She could have raised the profile of new changes that will help younger people, such as new renters’ rights and updated the public on the timeline. She could have created space to explore (and, just as importantly, publicly announce and discuss) how they might help with other relevant crises, such as record youth unemployment. Instead, she is doubling down on a system that some view as reaching breaking point.
It’s what you say and how you say it
There are ways to avoid this:
- Sticks and stones: Words can speak as loudly as actions if they don’t match up. The headlines after a sweeping statement or poor choice of phrase can soon blow out of proportion compared to the original policy change.
- It’s all in the prep: Companies or public bodies need to pre-empt responses to potential criticism. Acknowledge your audience and explain with empathy. In this case, students, graduates and older parents will want to know why their loan contract has changed. Many of those affected will want to feel that Reeves and the government are acknowledging the difficulties of the student loan system and the ongoing funding crisis for universities.
- Don’t underestimate your opponent: It can be tempting not to engage in a public debate. Yet, when it comes to someone with as much public respect as Lewis, ignoring the statement can be as unwise as ignoring the bigger problem at hand.
- Turning points: Difficulties can turn into opportunities, though. Stay focused on what you are doing to help affected groups. Brand and celebrity partnerships, targeted marketing campaigns, or regular press releases can re-centre the conversation in your favour. Although it does help if the person you are disagreeing with is not endorsed by vast swathes of the public to take over your own job.
Don’t be late to lectures
The right phrasing can make or break a public discussion. There are vital chances to build awareness about an issue. But you have to acknowledge that there is an issue in the first place, or you might just have to face off Martin Lewis on the next episode of Newsnight.
Written by Madeline Browne
Read our next blog on: 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer: what FS needs to know