Chuka Umunna: business "has been emasculated under Vince Cable"

Taking on Labour's biggest challenge.

Chuka Umunna talks to Richard Cree about his vision for active government:

Having entered parliament in May 2010, representing his home constituency of Streatham, Umunna was elected to the Treasury Select Committee in June, became Ed Miliband’s parliamentary private secretary when the latter was elected opposition leader in October and became shadow minister for small business and enterprise in May 2011. He then joined the shadow cabinet as shadow business secretary when John Denham stepped down from the post in October 2011.

He bemoans the fact that this great office of state has been "emasculated" by its current occupant.

"The beauty of the business brief is that it is very broad and covers education, foreign policy and trade. It is the largest brief in cabinet with more ministers than any other ministry. But it has been emasculated under Vince Cable, because he doesn’t have clout across Whitehall and doesn’t have the ear of Number 10 or the Treasury. That’s why it became such a powerhouse and a great office under Peter Mandelson, because he had that clout."

Umunna describes his personal politics as those of a "European social democrat", and places himself "right in the centre of the broad church that is the Labour Party". Those politics are becoming increasingly influential within Ed Miliband’s senior team, as Labour attempts to formulate a cohesive and coherent ideology and build a set of policies that might resonate with voters. Umunna believes the current government has misjudged the public mood. The UK, he says, is not a place for the "me, myself and I" politics of the Conservatives. He adds that he doesn’t know what the LibDems stand for any more. The country, he says, is in the mood for government that acts for the common good.

The state modern

But the idea of active government is more than a mere soundbite. The interaction between government and the private sector looks set to become a key battleground in international politics and a major differentiator between political parties in the UK in coming years. With the global economy still suffering the effects of the 2008 crash, there has been a widespread reaction against completely free markets and growing interest in the exploration of new, more regulated models of capitalism. This leads naturally to the question of the precise relationship between government and business.

"It is very interesting, because there is a big debate in politics about the proper role of the state viz-a-viz business and the private sector and how it works and interacts with government," says Umunna. He says the divide on the best approach doesn’t always cut neatly along party lines, but there is a broad left/right split, with the right seeking to reduce the size and role of government and the left seeking to, if not expand, then at least change that role.

Here Umunna delves into a bit of the management speak all modern politicians are prone to. He admits to sitting "in the same space and mindset" as Vince Cable, Lord Heseltine and even Conservative universities and science minister David Willetts. On the other side of the debate is a group of Tory politicians, past and present, including the likes of current foreign secretary William Hague as well as David Cameron and George Osborne. Umunna names a long list of previous Tory ministers including Nicholas Ridley, Norman Tebbit, Keith Joseph and others on the right who championed the cause of small government. It was an approach and philosophy pursued in government in the UK by Margaret Thatcher and in the US by Ronald Reagan. The complaint is that the orthodoxy they established was only questioned after the crash of 2008. The approach is still best summed up by President Reagan’s joke about the most terrifying words in the English language being "I’m from the government and I’m here to help".

Active encouragement

But Umunna’s vision of active government is precisely that it should be there to help. This requires taking a strategic view of industrial policy. But it’s a phrase too redolent of heavy industry and the dark days of the 1970s; hence his preference for "active government" instead. "We have a mixture of excellent industries that don’t fit the classical view of industry, including the creative industries, pharmaceuticals, biotech and business services. These are not what people think about when they hear the phrase industry," he asserts.

He then attempts to explain what an active government should be doing. But, unable to announce policies or commit any spending before the party’s policy review is complete, his answer is somewhat vague. "It is about government using all the tools and levers at its disposal to back business as far and as much as possible. Within that there is a debate about how far you go. There are traditional horizontal interventions that government can affect, for example making sure we have a financial services sector that delivers for the real economy, which is why we have been arguing for a British Investment Bank."

It also includes the policies around skills and education that Labour used when they were in power, including setting up Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). Here he gives one firm policy commitment, setting aside the party political in favour of the practical. He says while he disagreed with scrapping the RDAs and replacing them with Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) – "instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, we could have improved the model" – he says he is committed to improving rather than scrapping LEPs.

"There is an inherent problem with LEPs because they are reliant on businesses to make it happen. At a time when 50 businesses are going bust every day, expecting people running struggling SMEs to keep their own business going and run an LEP is a big ask. As a result there is under-representation of SMEs on LEP boards."

Just before we leave his office for the photoshoot there is a moment of comedy as he picks up his jacket and some loose change spills out. As he bends to pick it up I joke it’s typical of a Labour business secretary to throw money everywhere. He looks at me mischievously and hoots with laughter.

This article appeares in full in Economia.

Chuka Umunna. Photograph, Getty Images.

Richard Cree is the Editor of Economia.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.