Why small businesses must be at the centre of Labour's economic strategy

By promoting balanced growth and increasing employment, small businesses exemplify the investment economy Labour wishes to build.

At the recent Progress conference, Ed Miliband gave a speech in which he talked about the need to establish a new political and ideological consensus, different to that of the post-Thatcherite settlement we live in now. But it was in the subsequent Q&A that one of the most interesting points was raised. "Small businesses," Miliband said, "should be a natural constituency for Labour". It is an area of policy and a section of society largely ignored by the party’s dialogue, but it shouldn’t be.

Small businesses represent many of Labour’s economic philosophies: connection with communities, accountability and high-quality work. For a "One Nation" party, with all of its Blue Labour flavourings, the idea of a connection between community and business is has obvious attractions. By employing locals and contributing to regional growth, small businesses exemplify the investment economy Labour aspires to build. 

Those who wish to demonise the British left have long depicted Labour as anti-capitalist, anti-business and narrowly pro-union. As always, the words of Tony Crosland are a great help here. Crosland argued that post-war capitalism is not the impossible framework for pursuing equality that Marxism believes it to be – the Labour Party is fundamentally a parliamentary socialist party, not a revolutionary one. If the 20th century Labour governments taught us nothing else, it is that Labour wants to harness capitalism to achieve greater equality; the minimum wage from New Labour, the technological investment of the Wilson years and the Attlee government's welfare state, are all examples of how the party has sought to curb the destructive tendencies of the modern western economy. If nothing else, this is the pursuit of 2012’s political buzzword, 'responsible capitalism', a progressive agenda within the contemporary socio-economic framework.

Politically and economically, Labour is an anti-monopolistic party. It makes perfect sense for it to support small businesses in the face of large nameless multinational corporations. One of the guiding principles is that of accountability, for which Tony Benn’s five questions of power are always relevant: what power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it? To whom are you accountable? How do we get rid of you? These questions are far more easily answered when asked to a small business than a large multinational; an issue never more relevant than at the moment with the tax-dodging antics of Google and Amazon.

Labour has made its objective clear; to get people into good work and to get the economy moving, both of which are staples of the German business model much feted by the left. This attitude has been personified by the reinstatement of the Small Business taskforce and its resultant policy review report, putting businesses back at the centre of the push for growth and greater economic diverity. The 2008 crash and subsequent recession demonstrated the overdependence of the UK on the City and its lack of economic variation. Businesses, both small and medium-sized, will go some way to addressing this and toward meeting the challenges of regional struggles during austerity, injecting growth back into deeply affected areas such as the north east. The Labour Party is a progressive political force and small businesses should be, and are, a key part of its programme for a better economy. 

Dan Holden is deputy editor of Shifting Grounds

Shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna speaks at last year's Labour conference in Manchester. Photograph: Getty Images.

Dan Holden is deputy editor of Shifting Grounds

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: Trump and an age of disorder

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions.

The US presidency has not always been held by men of distinction and honour, but Donald Trump is by some distance its least qualified occupant. The leader of the world’s sole superpower has no record of political or military service and is ignorant of foreign affairs. Throughout his campaign, he repeatedly showed himself to be a racist, a misogynist, a braggart and a narcissist.

The naive hope that Mr Trump’s victory would herald a great moderation was dispelled by his conduct during the transition. He compared his country’s intelligence services to those of Nazi Germany and repeatedly denied Russian interference in the election. He derided Nato as “obsolete” and predicted the demise of the European Union. He reaffirmed his commitment to dismantling Obamacare and to overturning Roe v Wade. He doled out jobs to white nationalists, protectionists and family members. He denounced US citizens for demonstrating against him. Asked whether he regretted any part of his vulgar campaign, he replied: “No, I won.”

Of all his predilections, Mr Trump’s affection for Vladimir Putin is perhaps the most troubling. When the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, warned that Russia was the “number one geopolitical foe” of the US, he was mocked by Barack Obama. Yet his remark proved prescient. Rather than regarding Mr Putin as a foe, however, Mr Trump fetes him as a friend. The Russian president aims to use the US president’s goodwill to secure the removal of American sanctions, recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and respect for the murderous reign of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. He has a worryingly high chance of success.

Whether or not Mr Trump has personal motives for his fealty (as a lurid security dossier alleges), he and Mr Putin share a political outlook. Both men desire a world in which “strongmen” are free to abuse their citizens’ human rights without fear of external rebuke. Mr Trump’s refusal to commit to Nato’s principle of collective defence provides Mr Putin with every incentive to pursue his expansionist desires. The historic achievement of peace and stability in eastern Europe is in danger.

As he seeks reconciliation with Russia, Mr Trump is simultaneously pursuing conflict with China. He broke with precedent by speaking on the telephone with the Taiwanese president, Tsai Ing-wen, and used Twitter to berate the Chinese government. Rex Tillerson, Mr Trump’s secretary of state nominee, has threatened an American blockade of the South China Sea islands.

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions. The US constitution, with its separation of powers, was designed to restrain autocrats such as the new president. Yet, in addition to the White House, the Republicans also control Congress and two-thirds of governorships and state houses. Mr Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment will ensure a conservative judicial majority. The decline of established print titles and the growth of “fake news” weaken another source of accountability.

In these circumstances, there is a heightened responsibility on the US’s allies to challenge, rather than to indulge, Mr Trump. Angela Merkel’s warning that co-operation was conditional on his respect for liberal and democratic values was a model of the former. Michael Gove’s obsequious interview with Mr Trump was a dismal example of the latter.

Theresa May has rightly rebuked the president for his treatment of women and has toughened Britain’s stance against Russian revanchism. Yet, although the UK must maintain working relations with the US, she should not allow the prospect of a future trade deal to skew her attitude towards Mr Trump. Any agreement is years away and the president’s protectionist proclivities could yet thwart British hopes of a beneficial outcome.

The diplomatic and political conventions embodied by the “special relationship” have endured for more than seven decades. However, Mr Trump’s election may necessitate their demise. It was the belief that the UK must stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the US that led Tony Blair into the ruinous Iraq War. In this new age of disorder, Western leaders must avoid being willing accomplices to Mr Trump’s agenda. Intense scepticism, rather than sycophancy, should define their response.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era