A recipe for a U-turn

Government should talk to experts earlier.

This morning the CBI boss John Cridland has moaned to the Financial Times that the government’s growth plans have fallen into something of an implementation black hole. Having announced major plans to get the economy back on track last November the plans are now, says Cridland, mired in bureaucracy and sitting gathering dust on ministers’ and civil servants’ desks.

While this is not a new problem, the time lag between announcement and action does seem to have worsened under the current government. Some observers put this down to cuts in departmental budgets, with fewer civil servants able to jump to it and get new initiatives moving. Others claim its down to a lack of joined-up thinking across government departments.

In particular, the growth plan is apparently suffering from the emasculation of business secretary Vince Cable, since BIS should be a key co-ordinating ministry in this area. Whatever the cause, the outcome is the same. Months have passed without, as Cridland puts it, us seeing “diggers on the ground”. Cridland’s own view is that members of the government appear to be “dazzled in the headlights”.

I wonder if the reality might be something simpler. This expectation of early action has been caused by a tendency to rush into making announcements for political expediency, rather than weighing up the practical considerations.

A senior banker told me last week that following George Osborne’s Mansion House speech the week before, at which several key new policies around stimulating lending to small businesses were announced, his firm received a flurry of phone calls from Treasury officials asking exactly what those policies might mean in practice and how they might be implemented. To re-cap, that’s officials working out the practical details of implementing policies after they have been announced.

If nothing else that sounds like a recipe for a series of sudden and unexplained policy U-turns. As the omnishambles budget unfolded, George Osborne told the Today programme that the only worse than listening was not listening.

I’d suggest that it would make more sense to do that listening – to professionals and industry experts in particular – before announcing key policies rather than after.

This article originally appeared in economia.

Photograph: Getty Images

Richard Cree is the Editor of Economia.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Tory Brexiter Daniel Hannan: Leave campaign never promised "radical decline" in immigration

The voters might not agree...

BBC Newsnight on Twitter

It was the Leave campaign's pledge to reduce EU immigration that won it the referendum. But Daniel Hannan struck a rather different tone on last night's Newsnight. "It means free movement of labour," the Conservative MEP said of the post-Brexit model he envisaged. An exasperated Evan Davis replied: “I’m sorry we’ve just been through three months of agony on the issue of immigration. The public have been led to believe that what they have voted for is an end to free movement." 

Hannan protested that EU migrants would lose "legal entitlements to live in other countries, to vote in other countries and to claim welfare and to have the same university tuition". But Davis wasn't backing down. "Why didn't you say this in the campaign? Why didn't you say in the campaign that you were wanting a scheme where we have free movement of labour? Come on, that's completely at odds with what the public think they have just voted for." 

Hannan concluded: "We never said there was going to be some radical decline ... we want a measure of control". Your Mole suspects many voters assumed otherwise. If immigration is barely changed, Hannan and others will soon be burned by the very fires they stoked. 

I'm a mole, innit.