I noted this morning the importance of the word 'nuance'. I wrote that before seeing Ed Miliband's speech this morning, which I now have.
If you'd have believed the headlines you'd have thought this was a speech to appease big business. And there is no doubt that some of the rhetoric makes clear that Labour does just that. This is an example:
Labour will build a prosperity in which all can share fairly, right across Britain. And, in so doing, we can rebuild faith in business and in politics in Britain for the future.
That is the central mission for the government I want to lead in ten months' time. We cannot succeed by carrying on as we are or with big spending by government. But with reform - reform of the way governments work and reform of the way markets work. It is the way people will succeed. It is the way business will succeed. It is the way Britain succeeds.
And the only way we can realise this mission is through your success. The great, dynamic businesses of our country being enabled to build the wealth, create the jobs and make the profits that will help them succeed. A clear mission for the country, a mission we can share, a One Nation mission which can tackle the big problems we face.
Would I have put things like that? Probably not. For a start I am not quite sure what the big spending by government is. And what I do know is that government spending is not going to change much, whatever is said. I have explained why on this blog, but I equally know that the Labour Party is not convinced on that point, and has not convinced the electorate of it either.
But then get beyond that, and this is not about keeping big business happy. It is actually saying it is as tainted as politics is, which may well be true. And that it also needs to change as much as politics does - and maybe even more so.
So this is definitely not about business as usual, although of course, to succeed business must make profits and no one - not least me given my past business career - is going to say otherwise. This speech does not, and it's right to do so.
But it is saying that reform will happen in markets - and business had better expect it, just as it has said reform will happen in tax, and markets had better expect that too. Temper the flattery - or plain straightforward statements of fact, which is what they are - with these comments and this is not an appeasing speech at all.
Nor is it when it comes to what needs to be done where I think the key elements look something like this:
Nowhere is the failure of the ability to plan for the long-term clearer than in our infrastructure where Britain lags far behind other countries.
[T]he UK needs affordable clean energy, modern communication systems, flood defences that can cope with the effects of climate change and a transport system that can cope with ever growing demand and which links business with markets and people with families, leisure and job opportunities. If we fail to meet these challenges, we will fail to grow our economy and fail to provide the quality of life that we would want for our children and our grandchildren.
Today I am accepting Sir John [Armitt]'s recommendation that we establish an independent National Infrastructure Commission to identify the UK's long-term infrastructure needs and hold governments to account.
And I am calling on the other political parties to join us in accepting his recommendation because agreement is vital to delivering the long-term infrastructure business needs to succeed.
Now, that's open to interpretation. But it may be that's not far from adopting, if house building is thrown into the mix, the prescription of the Green New Deal group, of which I am a part. The willingness to be creative to fund this will, of course, be key. I believe such creativity is possible. It's there I have to hope for the nuance.
And there's quite a lot else in the speech that appears welcome, like training, bank reform and energy market reform (both of which link back to past announcements) that appear to be on the right track.
If this is appeasement then it is well dressed up. If so, that's successful. But the reality is that the narrative Labour has so long needed is beginning to come into place with this speech. Of course, as with tax, I'd like more detail and a greater depth to the message but the basis for policy debate is, once again, being laid and on this occasion it is being done with open recognition that business is fundamental to Britain but is not all Britain is and that it cannot deliver solutions alone and that government has a role to play in its success, and vice versa. If that means this is a statement in support of the mixed economy, then that's very welcome, at least to me. That is, after all, what I argued for in The Courageous State.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I inherently distrust these ‘independent’ commissions. Much like the OBR, I greatly suspect that they simply provide mock legitimacy for existing government trends and preferences.
I’d much rather the government and an effectively-funded civil service was held accountable for its own decisions, rather than being able to defend themselves by pointing and saying ‘but the OBR says…’ etc.
These bodies are meant to increase the trust that the public has in the process of government, but actually they cement the fact that trust has already been undermined – Milliband is effectively saying “We know that you don’t trust politicians to manage national infrastructure, so we’re setting up an independent commission to do it for us”. Once the commission is set up, the government and civil service have thus removed any way they had of ‘winning back’ that trust. And who is on the unelected board of these commissions? Austrian economists, ex-bankers, chairmen of FTSE-500s, and all the other usual suspects.
Fair point
The point of an independent commission is to try and create long-term consensus over infrastructure planning to prevent cyclical disturbance. This is why Labour have asked John Armitt to oversee it because he is arguably the most highly respected engineer currently working in the UK. The intention is to take politics out of it so that the plans aren’t derailed by a dispute between red and blue teams.
Would this be the same John Armitt that was responsible for the OG build? A build that originally was budgeted at £2.5bn and yet the final finished cost was somewhere near £11bn – something as Chair of the ODA, he was partly responsible for.
Yes
Within the austerity framework no regeneration and increase in wealth distribution can happen. labour has signed up to austerity….complete the syllogism.
I thought I made my concern on that point clear in the blog
Mr. M., doubt you’ll publish but here goes….
Honestly, this drivel….
“Today I am accepting Sir John [Armitt]‘s recommendation that we establish an independent National Infrastructure Commission to identify the UK’s long-term infrastructure needs and hold governments to account.”
Strikes me, that’s code for, “I’m having nothing to do with any major decisions because building stuff means hacking down peoples houses and concreting over green bits and making leafy areas less nice….and that means losing the votes of white collar Guardianista’s and the middle classes who quite like their lifestyles…..”
If Ed is unwilling to make decisions he shouldn’t be in HMG.
“T]he UK needs affordable clean energy”
No such thing – all ‘clean energy’ is wickedly expensive and needs to be underpinned by conventional generation – just look at diesel powered STOR.
Germany makes most of its energy from renewable resources
It may well never make all of it that way (although I do not think that implausible)
But by your logic we’d still be burning coal for it all
“But by your logic we’d still be burning coal for it all…”
And keeping thousands gainfully employed – probably cheaper than the entire social and financial costs of closing the pits.
Incidentally, German heavy industry gets huge, eyewateringly large, subsidies to offset the astronomic cost of ‘green energy’. Would you be happy to see UK taxpayers do the same thing? –
Yes
It’s the price for my children having a future
There is in one part of Germany that now produces 100% of the needs the state by renewable energy. The state authorities have the stated ambition of generating 300% of the needs of the state so that it can sell the energy to other parts of Germany. http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=15903
To some extent I agree that we could have built our energy development around a core of indigenous coal, but only if 20 years ago we had made serious investment in carbon capture and/or carbon cleaning technology. But the laissez-faire government of the day was not in favour of intervening in the private energy markets. The people that scornfully say, oh but China is burning coal at a far greater rate than we (in the west) are cutting back on carbon emissions, fail to recognise the enormous strides that the Chinese have taken in cutting carbon emissions from their power stations. It is too late for us to invest in that technology now. The way forward is for us to build a rewnweable energy network based on wave, tidal and wind and make best use of our island status.
In my opinion this means making ports like Barrow, Liverpool, Portsmouth, Hull, Middlesborough, Leith and Glasgow renewable energy centres and using the existing skills and infrastructure to manufacture turbines, installation and maintenance equipment. The large industrial unit and dry-docks are perfect for the manufacturing the larger off-shore wind turbines.
PLaces like the Severn and Swansea are perfect for wave or tidal barrages, as could parts of northern Ireland. While we’re at it why not collaborate with Ireland in investing in the future and a shared energy network. The future of energy security is going to be multi-national and multi-continent links. Solar from the mediterranean, wind from noorthern europe and wave from the coastal regions.
I agree
This is vital
“To some extent I agree that we could have built our energy development around a core of indigenous coal, but only if 20 years ago we had made serious investment in carbon capture and/or carbon cleaning technology. But the laissez-faire government of the day was not in favour of intervening in the private energy markets………”
Excellent point Robin, but I’d go further; let’s not forget that the British coal industry was closed down for purely political reasons by the Thatcher government, as part of its ‘war’ against the trade unions. Quite apart from the social and economic price paid by Britain, we lost the chance to develop clean burn and carbon capture technologies which could help us with energy security and, I would argue, prove very profitable.
Just think of the money to be made selling this kind of technology to the Chinese! But no, the party of ‘wealth creation’ and ‘patriots’ was much more interested in getting rid of a nationalised industry and its internal political opponents. So here we are 30 years later with a privatised energy industry dominated by the Big Six firms, dependent on imported gas and relying on foreign companies to build new nuclear power stations, with the result that the British state ends up, as in the case of Hinkley C, by guaranteeing the French and Chinese power companies building it an extortionate price for the power that will be generated.
And the supreme joke is, behind the French and Chinese power companies stand their respective governments! Having got rid of our own state power generators we end up relying on those of foriegn governments. How about that for a loss of national sovereignty, all you Europhobes and Eurosceptics?
You are absolutely correct to say we should be building our own renewable energy network, which sounds very much like Richard’s suggestion for a Green New Deal. Fat chance of that while we have these right wing idiots in charge, whining about windfarms and insisting that we must have austerity, to pay for the mess caused by an out of control finance sector created by their own ideology.
Thanks
An appreciated comment
You do realise that Labour governments of Wilson closed more pits than the Conservative government of Thatcher.
Yes. – but they were almost entirely worked out
Please get real
“with the result that the British state ends up, as in the case of Hinkley C, by guaranteeing the French and Chinese power companies building it an extortionate price for the power that will be generated.”
And that subsidy argument is also true of ‘green energy’ – take the subsidies away and there is no green power. Plus of course n-power generation isn’t dependent on the weather.
That is no longer true
Costs have now almost converged and could swap over soon
In the meantime you want us to fry the planet and our children
Two points Allan:
a) From your comment, can I take it you agree with me that it is ridiculous that the UK now depends on foreign companies and governments to build and run one of the cornerstones of any modern economy? If the UK hadn’t privatised the CEGB, as a country we could still build and run nuclear power stations.
b) Are you saying, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that global warming isn’t happening and that there’s no need to develop green energy? If not, how do you suggest we build a decarbonised (ugly phrase I know) energy infrastructure?
“So here we are 30 years later with a privatised energy industry dominated by the Big Six firms….”
Hate to be boring but there is a HoC briefing note that shows – lo and behold – up until a Labour govt. decided to ‘reform the market’, the energy market was quite stable and prices were as well. Then along came Ed. and his chums and started allowing even more consolidation and vertical integration.
Yes
Mistakes were made
I hope Labour say so
I think they already have