Supporting business: let's follow northern Europe

The UK needs to raise its game.

As the UK economic recovery continues to stutter, calls for a return to an active industrial policy to restore the competitiveness of British business grow louder. We are increasingly looking to Germany and other northern European economies to understand how they have managed to weather the global recession more successfully than the UK.

One lesson that the UK could take from our northern European competitors is the way they support businesses to expand and innovate. Very little of this support has traditionally been available in Britain, with governments paying scant attention to the choices that employers make about how to compete, despite the impact this has on innovation, resilience, wages and the quality of goods and services. 

Labour’s Business Link service was designed to fill this gap but its impact was patchy, often lacking operational knowledge of local markets and a real understanding of how SMEs work. Instead of reforming Business Link into a service capable of promoting growth and innovation among British firms, the Coalition has simply reduced it to a generic website and phone line. This is in marked contrast to the tailored and practical business support available in a number of other European countries.

The failure of business support in the UK is rooted in the hands-off approach to industrial policy evident over the last three decades. Over this period, skills and training have been the only areas of business support deemed suitable for government intervention, an approach exemplified by the previous Labour government, which put adult skills policy centre-stage in its strategy for economic competitiveness and social inclusion. This was based on a misguided belief that a more highly qualified workforce would, by itself, drive innovation, competitiveness and resilience in the "knowledge economy". Substantial investment in adult skills coupled with targets to increase qualification rates among the adult population followed.

The impact of this new activity and funding was limited by Labour’s reluctance to consider how skills are used in the workplace, and what else drives innovation and competitiveness, like access to finance and market intelligence. As a result, a stubborn third of employers fail to invest in staff training and training rates have actually fallen over the last decade. Many UK firms have retained low-skilled, task-based production processes where training and workforce development are largely irrelevant to the bottom line. Studies suggest these kinds of business models are more prevalent in Britain than in many northern European countries. Such firms are profitable but could be less resilient to changing economic conditions. Levels of innovation also tend to be lower, and, for employees, the work is badly paid and repetitive. 

Countries like Germany, Finland, Norway and Australia have stolen a march on the UK by experimenting with different ways of supporting businesses to raise their game. Employers are supported to invest in new ways of working, access finance and develop new products, as well as to develop a well-skilled workforce. In one example in Finland, a local catering service was helped to restructure its business so that catering assistants took on a role in planning meals, budgeting and purchasing ingredients. Procurement costs fell and productivity improved, and the ability to use new skills raised motivation among staff. A simple training programme divorced from the need to reorganise the production process is unlikely to have delivered the same results.

Just like in welfare, extra support should be matched with extra conditions. To access public money for training and business support, employers would have to join local employer associations and commit to raising wages for trained staff or sharing the cost of training. But the specific deal would be left to local partners and employers to negotiate, taking skills policy and funding out of the hands of centralised quangos. In the UK, this kind of tailored business support delivered by people who know about business – whether in employer associations, professional bodies or local chambers of commerce – is the missing link that will ensure investment in skills delivers sustainable economic gains.

Kayte Lawton is Senior Research Fellow at IPPR. No Train, No Gain: Beyond free-market and state-led skills policy by Tess Lanning and Kayte Lawton is available here.

The Uk could take cue from Europe, Getty images.

Kayte Lawton is senior research fellow at IPPR.

Photo: Getty Images/AFP
Show Hide image

Is Yvette Cooper surging?

The bookmakers and Westminster are in a flurry. Is Yvette Cooper going to win after all? I'm not convinced. 

Is Yvette Cooper surging? The bookmakers have cut her odds, making her the second favourite after Jeremy Corbyn, and Westminster – and Labour more generally – is abuzz with chatter that it will be her, not Corbyn, who becomes leader on September 12. Are they right? A couple of thoughts:

I wouldn’t trust the bookmakers’ odds as far as I could throw them

When Jeremy Corbyn first entered the race his odds were at 100 to 1. When he secured the endorsement of Unite, Britain’s trade union, his odds were tied with Liz Kendall, who nobody – not even her closest allies – now believes will win the Labour leadership. When I first tipped the Islington North MP for the top job, his odds were still at 3 to 1.

Remember bookmakers aren’t trying to predict the future, they’re trying to turn a profit. (As are experienced betters – when Cooper’s odds were long, it was good sense to chuck some money on there, just to secure a win-win scenario. I wouldn’t be surprised if Burnham’s odds improve a bit as some people hedge for a surprise win for the shadow health secretary, too.)

I still don’t think that there is a plausible path to victory for Yvette Cooper

There is a lively debate playing out – much of it in on The Staggers – about which one of Cooper or Burnham is best-placed to stop Corbyn. Team Cooper say that their data shows that their candidate is the one to stop Corbyn. Team Burnham, unsurprisingly, say the reverse. But Team Kendall, the mayoral campaigns, and the Corbyn team also believe that it is Burnham, not Cooper, who can stop Corbyn.

They think that the shadow health secretary is a “bad bank”: full of second preferences for Corbyn. One senior Blairite, who loathes Burnham with a passion, told me that “only Andy can stop Corbyn, it’s as simple as that”.

I haven’t seen a complete breakdown of every CLP nomination – but I have seen around 40, and they support that argument. Luke Akehurst, a cheerleader for Cooper, published figures that support the “bad bank” theory as well.   Both YouGov polls show a larger pool of Corbyn second preferences among Burnham’s votes than Cooper’s.

But it doesn’t matter, because Andy Burnham can’t make the final round anyway

The “bad bank” row, while souring relations between Burnhamettes and Cooperinos even further, is interesting but academic.  Either Jeremy Corbyn will win outright or he will face Cooper in the final round. If Liz Kendall is eliminated, her second preferences will go to Cooper by an overwhelming margin.

Yes, large numbers of Kendall-supporting MPs are throwing their weight behind Burnham. But Kendall’s supporters are overwhelmingly giving their second preferences to Cooper regardless. My estimate, from both looking at CLP nominations and speaking to party members, is that around 80 to 90 per cent of Kendall’s second preferences will go to Cooper. Burnham’s gaffes – his “when it’s time” remark about Labour having a woman leader, that he appears to have a clapometer instead of a moral compass – have discredited him in him the eyes of many. While Burnham has shrunk, Cooper has grown. And for others, who can’t distinguish between Burnham and Cooper, they’d prefer to have “a crap woman rather than another crap man” in the words of one.

This holds even for Kendall backers who believe that Burnham is a bad bank. A repeated refrain from her supporters is that they simply couldn’t bring themselves to give Burnham their 2nd preference over Cooper. One senior insider, who has been telling his friends that they have to opt for Burnham over Cooper, told me that “faced with my own paper, I can’t vote for that man”.

Interventions from past leaders fall on deaf ears

A lot has happened to change the Labour party in recent years, but one often neglected aspect is this: the Labour right has lost two elections on the bounce. Yes, Ed Miliband may have rejected most of New Labour’s legacy and approach, but he was still a protégé of Gordon Brown and included figures like Rachel Reeves, Ed Balls and Jim Murphy in his shadow cabinet.  Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham were senior figures during both defeats. And the same MPs who are now warning that Corbyn will doom the Labour Party to defeat were, just months ago, saying that Miliband was destined for Downing Street and only five years ago were saying that Gordon Brown was going to stay there.

Labour members don’t trust the press

A sizeable number of Labour party activists believe that the media is against them and will always have it in for them. They are not listening to articles about Jeremy Corbyn’s past associations or reading analyses of why Labour lost. Those big, gamechanging moments in the last month? Didn’t change anything.

100,000 people didn’t join the Labour party on deadline day to vote against Jeremy Corbyn

On the last day of registration, so many people tried to register to vote in the Labour leadership election that they broke the website. They weren’t doing so on the off-chance that the day after, Yvette Cooper would deliver the speech of her life. Yes, some of those sign-ups were duplicates, and 3,000 of them have been “purged”.  That still leaves an overwhelmingly large number of sign-ups who are going to go for Corbyn.

It doesn’t look as if anyone is turning off Corbyn

Yes, Sky News’ self-selecting poll is not representative of anything other than enthusiasm. But, equally, if Yvette Cooper is really going to beat Jeremy Corbyn, surely, surely, she wouldn’t be in third place behind Liz Kendall according to Sky’s post-debate poll. Surely she wouldn’t have been the winner according to just 6.1 per cent of viewers against Corbyn’s 80.7 per cent. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.