Growing cities: invest now or pay later

Towns which were doing well in 1901 are still the best now; lack of progress is hard to turn around.

Investment in skills and infrastructure has a crucial bearing on the long run growth prospects of city economies. It did in the 20th century and it will in the 21st century. But the UK still falls well behind other countries, particularly the Nordic ones, when it comes to investment in education, and spend on transport has fallen sharply in recent years.

Centre for Cities latest report Cities Outlook 1901 provides new insight into urban economies at the beginning of the 20th century to understand how and why cities have changed, and crucially what policy makers can do to improve the prospects of cities for the future.

It tells us that history matters. Over the course of the 20th century the importance of major ports and manufacturing centres declined as the economy shifted towards services. Liverpool, once the UK’s second city, now ranks in the bottom 20 per cent for overall economic performance.

Cities are not prisoners of their past; urban economies evolve and adapt to changing economic circumstances. But this change often takes decades. Economic outcomes are the result of the complex interaction of many factors, from a city’s skills base and industrial profile to its links with other cities and the nature of global economic change.

Policy nevertheless has an important role to play. One of the most important factors in determining economic success of a city since 1901 was its skills base: towns and cities with higher level skills in 1901 have tended to do much better over the long run. This highlights that government needs to ensure the skills system is fit for purpose and continues to adapt to the needs of a rapidly changing global economy.

Whilst overall the gap has widened between the North and South over the 20th century, several cities have bucked wide spatial trends. Preston, Warrington and Swindon have seen their relative position improve dramatically. Investment in roads, railways, new homes and business premises facilitated the growth and diversification of these economies. And today these cities are some of the best performing in the country.

The overly centralised nature of governance in the UK further compounds the problem as cities have limited ability to respond in ways that reflect their economic history and unique circumstances today. The latest City Deals marks one of the biggest shifts towards greater devolution to cities but there’s still a long way to go.

The findings reinforce the importance of investing in the fundamental drivers of growth to get the UK firmly on the road to economic recovery and growth. The sad fact is though, while it has long been recognised, the UK falls well behind international economies when it comes to investment in these areas. Relative to GDP, Denmark invests 1.5 times more in education than the UK.

In the short-term, spending cuts on these key drivers of urban growth will stifle the UK recovery and cost more in the long run. The UK must invest now or it will pay later.

Tower Bridge, circa 1900. Photograph: Getty Images

Naomi Clayton is a senior analyst at Centre for Cities

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour will soon be forced to make clear its stance on Brexit

The Great Repeal Bill will force the party to make a choice on who has the final say on a deal withg Europe.

A Party Manifesto has many functions. But rarely is it called upon to paper over the cracks between a party and its supporters. But Labour’s was – between its Eurosceptic leadership and its pro-EU support base. Bad news for those who prefer their political parties to face at any given moment in only one direction. But a forthcoming parliamentary vote will force the party to make its position clear.

The piece of legislation that makes us members of the EU is the European Communities Act 1972. “Very soon” – says the House of Commons Library – we will see a Repeal Bill that will, according to the Queen’s Speech, “repeal the European Communities Act.” It will be repealed, says the White Paper for the Repeal Bill, “on the day we leave the EU.”

It will contain a clause stating that the bit of the bill that repeals the European Communities Act will come into force on a date of the Prime Minister's choosing. But MPs will have to choose whether to vote for that clause. And this is where Labour’s dilemma comes into play.

In her Lancaster House speech Theresa May said:

“I can confirm today that the Government will put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament, before it comes into force.”

Later that day David Davis clarified May’s position, saying, of a vote against the final deal:

“The referendum last year set in motion a circumstance where the UK is going to leave the European Union, and it won’t change that.” 

So. The choice the Tories will give to Parliament is between accepting whatever deal is negotiated or leaving without a deal. Not a meaningful choice at all given that (as even Hammond now accepts): “No deal would be a very, very bad outcome for Britain.”

But what about Labour’s position? Labour’s Manifesto says:

“Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option.”

So, it has taken that option off the table. But it also says:

“A Labour approach to Brexit also means legislating to guarantee that Parliament has a truly meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal (my emphasis).”

Most Brexit commentators would read that phrase – a meaningful vote – as drawing an implicit contrast with the meaningless vote offered by Theresa May at Lancaster House. They read it, in other words, as a vote between accepting the final deal or remaining in the EU.

But even were they wrong, the consequence of Labour taking “no deal” off the table is that there are only two options: leaving on the terms of the deal or remaining. Labour’s Manifesto explicitly guarantees that choice to Parliament. And guarantees it at a time when the final deal is known.

But here’s the thing. If Parliament chooses to allow Theresa May to repeal the European Communities Act when she wants, Parliament is depriving itself of a choice when the result of the deal is known. It is depriving itself of the vote Labour’s Manifesto promises. And not only that - by handing over to the Prime Minister the decision whether to repeal the European Communities Act, Parliament is voluntarily depriving itself of the power to supervise the Brexit negotiations. Theresa May will be able to repeat the Act whatever the outcome of those negotiations. She won’t be accountable to Parliament for the result of her negotiations – and so Parliament will have deprived itself of the ability to control them. A weakened Prime Minister, without a mandate, will have taken back control. But our elected Parliament will not.

If Labour wants to make good on its manifesto promise, if Labour wants to control the shape of Brexit, it must vote against that provision of the Repeal Bill.

That doesn’t put Labour in the position of ignoring the referendum vote. There will be ample time, from October next year when the final deal is known, for Labour to look at the Final Deal and have a meaningful vote on it.

But if Labour supports the Repeal Bill it will be breaching a clear manifesto promise.

Jolyon Maugham is a barrister who advised Ed Miliband on tax policy. He blogs at Waiting for Tax, and writes for the NS on tax and legal issues. 

0800 7318496