Miliband backs a National Investment Bank

The Labour's leader proposal is good economics and smart politics.

Ed Miliband's speech on banking this morning received little media attention, largely since the main points were previewed in his Mail on Sunday interview. But one story that few have noticed is that the Labour leader has come out in support of a National Investment Bank.

In an interview with the New Statesman last September, Miliband said: "It's an interesting idea. It's something Ed [Balls] and I have talked about. It's definitely an idea worth exploring." He went on to commission Nick Tott, a former partner of Herbert Smith LLP, to examine the case for such an institution. Toot's report has now been published and has concluded that "there is a strong case for a British Investment Bank." In his speech, Miliband said:

Partly because it’s always cheaper for banks to lend to big companies than small ones.

We don’t believe the banks we already have will be equal to the task of lending enough to small businesses.

That’s why we believe there is a case for a British Investment Bank.

Government recognising its role to guarantee lending to small business to provide the long-term finance it needs.

It was a similar institution in the United States which gave a young entrepreneur a loan in the early eighties when nobody else understood his sector.

His name was Steve Jobs.

And he founded Apple.

Every other major country understands that government needs to act to tackle this problem of financing.

It’s time that British business stopped having to compete with one hand tied behind its back.

As Robert Skidelsky argued in our special "plan B" issue last year, a National Investment Bank, with the power to borrow [unlike the coalition's Green Bank], and a mandate to invest in infrastructure, would both stimulate recovery and support long-term growth.

Miliband's decision to support the proposal is also smart politics. Vince Cable, who called for part of RBS to be converted into a National Investment Bank in a private letter to David Cameron, is growing increasingly frustrated with the coalition's failure to stimulate growth. In his interview with Andrew Marr yesterday, he accused the banks of "throttling the recovery" through their obsession with obsession with "short-term trading profits". It is precisely this problem that a National Investment Bank is designed to address. But the constraints of the coalition mean Cable is unable to say so. In coming out for an Investment Bank, Miliband is reminding the Lib Dems that they are, in many respects, closer to Labour on economic policy than the Tories.

Labour leader Ed Miliband said a National Investment Bank would provide "long-term finance". Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

@Simon_Cullen via Twitter
Show Hide image

All 27 things wrong with today’s Daily Mail front cover

Where do I even start?

Hello. Have you seen today’s Daily Mail cover? It is wrong. Very wrong. So wrong that if you have seen today’s Daily Mail cover, you no doubt immediately turned to the person nearest to you to ask: “Have you seen today’s Daily Mail cover? It is wrong.”

But just how wrong is the wrong Mail cover? Let me count the ways.

  1. Why does it say “web” and not “the web”?
  2. Perhaps they were looking on a spider’s web and to be honest that makes more sense because
  3. How does it take TWO MINUTES to use a search engine to find out that cars can kill people?
  4. Are the Mail team like your Year 8 Geography teacher, stuck in an infinite loop of typing G o o g l e . c o m into the Google search bar, the search bar that they could’ve just used to search for the thing they want?
  5. And then when they finally typed G o o g l e . c o m, did they laboriously fill in their search term and drag the cursor to click “Search” instead of just pressing Enter?
  6. The Daily Mail just won Newspaper of the Year at the Press Awards
  7. Are the Daily Mail – Newspaper of the Year – saying that Google should be banned?
  8. If so, do they think we should ban libraries, primary education, and the written word?
  9. Sadly, we know the answer to this
  10. Google – the greatest source of information in the history of human civilisation – is not a friend to terrorists; it is a friend to teachers, doctors, students, journalists, and teenage girls who aren’t quite sure how to put a tampon in for the first time
  11. Upon first look, this cover seemed so obviously, very clearly fake
  12. Yet it’s not fake
  13. It’s real
  14. More than Google, the Mail are aiding terrorists by pointing out how to find “manuals” online
  15. While subsets of Google (most notably AdSense) can be legitimately criticised for profiting from terrorism, the Mail is specifically going at Google dot com
  16. Again, do they want to ban Google dot com?
  17. Do they want to ban cars?
  18. Do they want to ban search results about cars?
  19. Because if so, where will that one guy from primary school get his latest profile picture from?
  20. Are they suggesting we use Bing?
  21. Why are they, once again, focusing on the perpetrator instead of the victims?
  22. The Mail is 65p
  23. It is hard to believe that there is a single person alive, Mail reader or not, that can agree with this headline
  24. Three people wrote this article
  25. Three people took two minutes to find out cars can drive into people
  26. Trees had to die for this to be printed
  27. It is the front cover of the Mail

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.