It's time for Osborne to use the I word - 'Intervention'

We need the state to invest in business innovation and infrastructure that commercial investors fear

It's not looking good for Osborne. Output, employment, sectoral data and confidence all point to an economy either on the brink of recession or stuck deep in the doldrums. Inevitably, the debate about how to escape this very nasty patch intensifies and the battle lines dividing fiscal hawks from doves become ever more stark. But it is a debate that masks an even nastier truth for the UK economy. Even when we are through this crisis, we will still be an economy unfit to fight the big global economic battles ahead.

As a new paper published this week by IPPR and written by myself and David Nash shows, the UK is a serial under-performer compared to our competitors on those OECD, IMF and other international economic indicators which are most vital for successful competition in the global market.

On investment in business, on skills, on innovation and productivity, and on presence in emerging markets we are decidedly mediocre and, in some cases, worse than mediocre when compared to similar economies.

This should be troubling at any time but at a point when new, confident players from the East are striding into global markets and as business practices and markets are being turned upside-down by web technologies, fear and trepidation should be stalking Whitehall and the business world.

But because of the intense focus on the short-term crisis there is a real risk that once the economy is growing healthily again, a 'job done' mentality will seize policy-makers. It would hardly be a surprise. There is a long history of complacent back-slapping in British economic policy-making: Macmillan's "never had it so good" as inefficiency ate away at the economy, Nigel Lawson's self-satisfaction at rapid growth in the late 1980s just before the property market crashed under its own weight, and Gordon Brown praising the City to the skies in his 2007 Mansion House Speech while the credit crunch (and worse) rumbled in the distance.

A continuation of this ignoble tradition could prove equally disastrous now.

We can avoid the potential crisis of the future not just by acknowledging the threat but also by moving beyond ideological shibboleths about the state as the enemy of enterprise that has gripped government for too long. Instead we need a new pragmatism that learns from those economies that have long out-performed us on business investment, skills, innovation and exports. These are countries have a hugely healthy respect for the free market and intense competition as the main drivers of growth and innovation but also recognise that the market simply is not very good at delivering some of the fundamentals.

Germany, Japan, the Scandinavian economies and, yes, even the USA use the state to invest in business innovation and infrastructure that commercial investors fear. At their best, they take an active role in predicting skills needs and so can shape their education and training systems to get ahead of the curve. They positively target innovative firms not just with tax breaks but with world class generously funded research. And when firms want to export they get generous credit guarantees plus a whole range of other supports. In short, they intervene. Not out of some ideological love of the state but because it works. Of course, these economies have their own problems and they are far from perfect but on the measures mentioned above, they consistently do better than us.

Intervention has, of course, had a very bad name in the UK. This is partly because the Thatcherite world view became so successfully embedded into Whitehall and into Party political debate (even though Thatcher herself could be quite the intervener when she wanted). But it is also because intervention became confused in the public mind with the economic planning of the 1940s and 1950s when the focus was actually on controlling employment and prices, not on the modernisation of business, as it was in the rest of Europe. The only time when intervention was seriously tried in the 1960s, it was all too late and ill-conceived to save out-dated British business and it degenerated in the 1970s into support for lame duck firms and fading industries.

The intervention we need today should have a very different focus. It is not about predicting the economy of the future and plotting a path there. It needn't even be about identifying high growth sectors and giving them special support. It should focus instead on the very significant long-term weaknesses of the UK economy relative to our competitors by building a bold policy framework to address those weaknesses before it is too late and we find ourselves once again in decline mode. In short, it is the opposite of our tradition of complacency replaced by an embracing of the pragmatism and common sense displayed overseas.

Adam Lent is Associate Fellow at IPPR.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Tony Blair might be a toxic figure - but his influence endures

Politicians at home and abroad are borrowing from the former prime minister's playbook. 

On 24 May at Methodist Central Hall, Westminster, a short distance from where he once governed, Tony Blair resurfaced for a public discussion. Having arrived on an overnight flight, he looked drawn and puffy-eyed but soon warmed to his theme: a robust defence of liberal globalisation. He admitted, however, to bafflement at recent events in the world. "I thought I was pretty good at politics. But I look at politics today and I’m not sure I understand it."

Blair lost power in the summer of 2007. In the ensuing nine years, he lost reputation. His business ventures and alliances with autocrats have made him a pariah among both the public and his party. A YouGov poll published last year found that 61 per cent of voters regarded Blair as an electoral liability, while just 14 per cent viewed him as an asset. In contrast, John Major, whom he defeated by a landslide in 1997, had a neutral net rating of zero. It is ever harder to recall that Blair won not one general election (he is the only living Labour leader to have done so) but three.

His standing is likely to diminish further when the Iraq inquiry report is published on 6 July. Advance leaks to the Sunday Times suggest that he will be censured for allegedly guaranteeing British military support to the US a year before the invasion. Few minds on either side will be changed by the 2.6 million-word document. Yet its publication will help enshrine Iraq as the defining feature of a legacy that also includes the minimum wage, tax credits, Sure Start, devolution and civil partnerships.

Former leaders can ordinarily rely on their parties to act as a last line of defence. In Blair’s case, however, much of the greatest opprobrium comes from his own side. Jeremy Corbyn inclines to the view that Iraq was not merely a blunder but a crime. In last year’s Labour leadership election, Liz Kendall, the most Blair-esque candidate, was rewarded with 4.5 per cent of the vote. The former prime minister’s imprimatur has become the political equivalent of the black spot.

Yet outside of the Labour leadership, Blairism endures in notable and often surprising forms. Sadiq Khan won the party’s London mayoral selection by running to the left of Tessa Jowell, one of Tony Blair’s closest allies. But his successful campaign against Zac Goldsmith drew lessons from Blair’s election triumphs. Khan relentlessly presented himself as “pro-business” and reached out beyond Labour’s core vote. After his victory, he was liberated to use the B-word, contrasting what “Tony Blair did [in opposition]” with Corbyn’s approach.

In their defence of the UK’s EU membership, David Cameron and George Osborne have deployed arguments once advanced by New Labour. The strategically minded Chancellor has forged an unlikely friendship with his former nemesis Peter Mandelson. In the domestic sphere, through equal marriage, the National Living Wage and the 0.7 per cent overseas aid target, the Conservatives have built on, rather than dismantled, significant Labour achievements."They just swallowed the entire manual," Mandelson declared at a recent King’s College seminar. "They didn’t just read the executive summary, they are following the whole thing to the letter."

Among SNP supporters, "Blairite" is the pejorative of choice. But the parallels between their party and New Labour are more suggestive than they would wish. Like Blair, Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon have avoided income tax rises in order to retain the support of middle-class Scottish conservatives. In a speech last August on education, Sturgeon echoed the Blairite mantra that "what matters is what works".

Beyond British shores, political leaders are similarly inspired by Blair – and less reticent about acknowledging as much. Matteo Renzi, the 41-year-old centre-left Italian prime minister, is a long-standing admirer. "I adore one of his sayings,” he remarked in 2013. “I love all the traditions of my party, except one: that of losing elections."

In France, the reform-minded prime minister, Manuel Valls, and the minister of economy, Emmanuel Macron, are also self-described Blairites. Macron, who in April launched his own political movement, En Marche!, will shortly decide whether to challenge for the presidency next year. When he was compared to Blair by the TV presenter Andrew Marr, his response reflected the former prime minister’s diminished domestic reputation: “I don’t know if, in your mouth, that is a promise or a threat.”

The continuing attraction of Blair’s “third way” to European politicians reflects the failure of the project’s social-democratic critics to construct an alternative. Those who have sought to do so have struggled both in office (François Hollande) and out of it (Ed Miliband). The left is increasingly polarised between reformers and radicals (Corbyn, Syriza, Podemos), with those in between straining for relevance.

Despite his long absences from Britain, Blair’s friends say that he remains immersed in the intricacies of Labour politics. He has privately warned MPs that any attempt to keep Corbyn off the ballot in the event of a leadership challenge would be overruled by the National Executive Committee. At Methodist Central Hall, he said of Corbyn’s supporters: “It’s clear they can take over a political party. What’s not clear to me is whether they can take over a country.”

It was Blair’s insufficient devotion to the former task that enabled the revival of the left. As Alastair Campbell recently acknowledged: “We failed to develop talent, failed to cement organisational and cultural change in the party and failed to secure our legacy.” Rather than effecting a permanent realignment, as the right of the party hoped and the left feared, New Labour failed to outlive its creators.

It instead endures in a fragmented form as politicians at home and abroad co-opt its defining features: its pro-business pragmatism, its big-tent electoralism, its presentational nous. Some of Corbyn’s ­allies privately fear that Labour will one day re-embrace Blairism. But its new adherents would never dare to use that name.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 26 May 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Brexit odd squad