Picking winners
Thursday night's BBC2 Newsnight featured a piece on Britain's "lopsided low-productivity economy" and what to do about it. How to get skills and pay and tax take up? Train the people and wait for the jobs, or create the jobs and they will come?
And our national imbalances are closely related to the productivity gap.
And all the parties agree that we have to do something about it. As they have done for many years. So when might something happen?
David Gauke for the Tories and Labour's Peter Dowd, who face each other as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and shadow Chief Secretary, spouted mostly the same words: infrastructure, fiscal credibility (Gauke), Northern Powerhouse, transport, innovative, forward-looking, role for government, R&D, skills, innovation, training, qualifiation, no austerity (Dowd), investment (in capital and labour), education from cradle to grave (Dowd), private investment (Gauke) but there was too much of a feeling that they were just words.
The Tories ran a consultation on industrial strategy earlier this year and presumably the results would be available from 9 June. Labour's work is unpublished, as far as I know, but Mariana Mazzucato's name is thrown in quite frequently, and her work on the entrepreneurial state is well known. The two parties' ideas are not a million miles apart in presentation.
Three observations:
- Even if it's done perfectly from 9 June onwards, can a significant difference be made within two years?
- We should and could have been doing it for decades. Brexit is utterly irrelevant to making these plans.
- But the idiocy of Brexit makes it even more vital that we succeed and even more likely that we fail in the short term.
****
Then to York on Friday for a launch of the Labour industrial strategy with Jeremy Corbyn, Rebecca Long-Bailey and Chi Onwurah.
We know from the work they've done since Corbyn took the reins that Labour has been talking to a lot of people - companies, academics, like-minded parties in other countries - about running an economy.
And occasionally it showed. The new emphasis on the self-employed (with a political foot in both the gig economy and small business) was hardly in evidence here, but two small business people asked questions and those on the stage showed a reasonable grasp of what's going on in research and industrial parks around the country.
But then they had to turn it all into campaigning language and the eyes glazed over a bit. Like the Tories, Labour are too fond of talking about the UK at the forefront of this and that, or leading the world. A bit more humility would be justified. We do well in some industries but we have a lot of ground to make up in general approach.
Phrases that would need a lot of fleshing out by a Labour government are "bringing back supply chains", "action on excessive energy prices" and "decarbonisation as an enabler". "Superfast" broadband is not a convincing label after the Tories' pain of the last few years, even with a universal service obligation of three times the Tories' current promised speed (remote areas? urban canyons? really?). Long-Bailey seemed quite bullish on easing the pressure of business rates, to enable companies to install solar generation farms or incorporate a supply chain company for example.
They all spoke in formulaic language (can you really be surprised that people start repeating themselves after a few weeks on the road?) with Long-Bailey a particular offender, but they all showed a familiarity with the subject.
Corbyn finished with an invitation to Donald Trump to come over for a cup of Yorkshire tea so that he could be persuaded to get back on the Paris accord bus.
Premature reshuffling
After the brief speculation about whether Philip Hammond still enjoys #MrsME's favour (has anyone seen Hammond by the way?) comes a new rumour. Would Ben Gummer replace David Davis as Secretary of State for Exiting the EU in a new #MrsME administration?
 |
| Ben Gummer knows how to point - cabinet potential. |
Gummer is one of the children of then Environment Secretary John Selwyn Gummer who wasn't filmed being force-fed a burger during the BSE scare. He held several junior minister jobs under Cameron and was promoted to the Cabinet Office by #MrsME when she took over. That makes him a second ranker who attends cabinet (not that there's much of that going on at the moment).
He's tough and the prime minister thinks highly of him. Davis on the other hand, who's said some very silly thing about negotiations recently, has had rumours swirling about him for a while. “The thinking is that Ben is the brightest she’s got and Brexit is the biggest issue, so why wouldn’t you put him in there?” a "senior Tory" told Francis Elliott of the Times (£).
Two problems. Gummer was a Remainer, so the hardline Eurosceptics in the new Tory crop might put their little feet down. And giving the poor sod little more than a week to get his feet under the table and read the product of the last ten months of DExEU research and policy formation wouldn't look very impressive to those fearsome EU27 negotiators. Maybe if #MrsME could give him a bottle of whatever she's on...
Oh, a third problem: Davis would go to the foreign office under this plan, which would leave a certain Boris Johnson unattended to.
Contempt of court corner
Craig Mackinlay, elected as MP for South Thanet with a majority of 2,812 votes over one Nigel Farage in 2015, is to face charges under the Representation of the People Act 1983 with two others. They are due to appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 4 July 2017.
Any comment on the matter might be deemed to prejudice a fair trial, so I'm going to leave it there, apart from the detail below.
*OBLIGATORY LEGAL WARNING THAT WILL BE IGNORED* If you have a hot take on this subject, keep it to yourself. Contempt of court can = prison. https://t.co/AdugalJfY1— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) June 2, 2017
Here are the detailed charges from the CPS press release:
Craig Mackinlay
That on 11 June 2015, being a candidate at the UK General Election on 7 May 2015, you knowingly made the declaration accompanying the return for the regulated period from 19 December 2014 to 29 March 2015, delivered under Section 81(1) of the Representation of People Act 1983, required by Section 82(1) of the same Act, falsely, contrary to Section 82(6) of the same Act.
That on 11 June 2015, being a candidate at the UK General Election on 7 May 2015, you knowingly made the declaration accompanying the return for the regulated period from 30 March 2015 to 7 May 2015, delivered under Section 81(1) of the Representation of People Act 1983, required by Section 82(1) of the same Act, falsely, contrary to Section 82(6) of the same Act.
Nathan Gray
That on 11 June 2015, being an election agent at the UK General Election on 7 May 2015, you failed to deliver a true return containing a statement of all election expenses in the regulated period from 19 December 2014 to 29 March 2015 as required by Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, contrary to Section 84 of the same Act.
That on 11 June 2015, being the election agent at the UK General Election on 7 May 2015, you failed to deliver a true return containing a statement of all election expenses in the regulated period from 30 March 2015 to 7 May 2015 as required by Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, contrary to Section 84 of the same Act.
That on 11 June 2015, being the election agent at the UK General Election on 7 May 2015, you knowingly made the declaration accompanying the return for the regulated period from 30 March 2015 to 7 May 2015, delivered under Section 81(1) of the Representation of People Act 1983, required by Section 82(1) of the same Act, falsely, contrary to Section 82(6) of the same Act.
Marion Little
That you did aid, abet, counsel and procure Craig Mackinlay, a candidate at the UK General Election on 7 May 2015, to knowingly make the declaration accompanying the return for the regulated period from 19 December 2014 to 29 March 2015, delivered under Section 81(1) of the Representation of People Act 1983, required by Section 82(1) of the same Act, falsely, contrary to Section 82(6) of the same Act.
That you did aid, abet, counsel and procure Craig Mackinlay, a candidate at the UK General Election on 7 May 2015, to knowingly make the declaration accompanying the return for the regulated period from 30 March 2015 to 7 May 2015, delivered under Section 81(1) of the Representation of People Act 1983, required by Section 82(1) of the same Act, falsely, contrary to Section 82(6) of the same Act.
That you did aid, abet, counsel and procure Nathan Gray, an election agent at the UK General Election on 7 May 2015, to fail to deliver a true return on 11 June 2015 containing a statement of all election expenses in the regulated period from 19 December 2014 to 29 March 2015 as required by Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, contrary to Section 84 of the same Act.
That you did aid, abet, counsel and procure Nathan Gray, an election agent at the UK General Election on 7 May 2015, to fail to deliver a true return on 11 June 2015 containing a statement of all election expenses in the regulated period from 30 March 2015 to 7 May 2015 as required by Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, contrary to Section 84 of the same Act.
That you did aid, abet, counsel and procure Nathan Gray, an election agent at the UK General Election on 7 May 2015, to knowingly make the declaration accompanying the return for the regulated period from 30 March 2015 to 7 May 2015, delivered under Section 81(1) of the Representation of People Act 1983, required by Section 82(1) of the same Act, falsely, contrary to Section 82(6) of the same Act.
That on 11 June 2015, being a candidate at the UK General Election on 7 May 2015, you knowingly made the declaration accompanying the return for the regulated period from 19 December 2014 to 29 March 2015, delivered under Section 81(1) of the Representation of People Act 1983, required by Section 82(1) of the same Act, falsely, contrary to Section 82(6) of the same Act.
That on 11 June 2015, being a candidate at the UK General Election on 7 May 2015, you knowingly made the declaration accompanying the return for the regulated period from 30 March 2015 to 7 May 2015, delivered under Section 81(1) of the Representation of People Act 1983, required by Section 82(1) of the same Act, falsely, contrary to Section 82(6) of the same Act.
Nathan Gray
That on 11 June 2015, being an election agent at the UK General Election on 7 May 2015, you failed to deliver a true return containing a statement of all election expenses in the regulated period from 19 December 2014 to 29 March 2015 as required by Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, contrary to Section 84 of the same Act.
That on 11 June 2015, being the election agent at the UK General Election on 7 May 2015, you failed to deliver a true return containing a statement of all election expenses in the regulated period from 30 March 2015 to 7 May 2015 as required by Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, contrary to Section 84 of the same Act.
That on 11 June 2015, being the election agent at the UK General Election on 7 May 2015, you knowingly made the declaration accompanying the return for the regulated period from 30 March 2015 to 7 May 2015, delivered under Section 81(1) of the Representation of People Act 1983, required by Section 82(1) of the same Act, falsely, contrary to Section 82(6) of the same Act.
Marion Little
That you did aid, abet, counsel and procure Craig Mackinlay, a candidate at the UK General Election on 7 May 2015, to knowingly make the declaration accompanying the return for the regulated period from 19 December 2014 to 29 March 2015, delivered under Section 81(1) of the Representation of People Act 1983, required by Section 82(1) of the same Act, falsely, contrary to Section 82(6) of the same Act.
That you did aid, abet, counsel and procure Craig Mackinlay, a candidate at the UK General Election on 7 May 2015, to knowingly make the declaration accompanying the return for the regulated period from 30 March 2015 to 7 May 2015, delivered under Section 81(1) of the Representation of People Act 1983, required by Section 82(1) of the same Act, falsely, contrary to Section 82(6) of the same Act.
That you did aid, abet, counsel and procure Nathan Gray, an election agent at the UK General Election on 7 May 2015, to fail to deliver a true return on 11 June 2015 containing a statement of all election expenses in the regulated period from 19 December 2014 to 29 March 2015 as required by Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, contrary to Section 84 of the same Act.
That you did aid, abet, counsel and procure Nathan Gray, an election agent at the UK General Election on 7 May 2015, to fail to deliver a true return on 11 June 2015 containing a statement of all election expenses in the regulated period from 30 March 2015 to 7 May 2015 as required by Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, contrary to Section 84 of the same Act.
That you did aid, abet, counsel and procure Nathan Gray, an election agent at the UK General Election on 7 May 2015, to knowingly make the declaration accompanying the return for the regulated period from 30 March 2015 to 7 May 2015, delivered under Section 81(1) of the Representation of People Act 1983, required by Section 82(1) of the same Act, falsely, contrary to Section 82(6) of the same Act.
In the tens of thousands
We've heard a lot over the years about the Tories reducing net migration into the UK to a "sustainable level", which is interpreted as being "in the tens of thousands" per year. Once a rhetorical contrast with "the hundreds of thousands", this phrase is now often a rather clunky slogan in itself. Why not just say "below one hundred thousand"?
In 2010 the Conservative manifesto told us "we will take steps to take net migration back to the levels of the 1990s – tens of thousands a year, not hundreds of thousands", which sounds like a pledge to me. Five years later they said they'd "keep our ambition of delivering annual net migration in the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands" and this year it's "our objective to reduce immigration to sustainable levels, by which we mean annual net migration in the tens of thousands, rather than the hundreds of thousands we have seen over the last two decades".
Whatever your opinion about migration and levels of population growth, you would have to admit that neither the Cameron nor the May governments have shown any likelihood, or indeed ability to approach that target, or aspiration, or pious hope, despite "shutting down dozens of bogus colleges", hiking up visa charges and making the UK less desirable to students from India.
But they're trying it all again, and somebody's getting impatient, so #MrsME (or maybe Brandon Lewis) has said they'll achieve their objective, dream or inclination by the end of the next parliament (which might be 2022 if the next prime minister doesn't get itchy feet again) but David Davis (or #MrsME, or Brandon Lewis) has been much more careful, reminding us that it's only a yearning, inclination or something that David Cameron always hankered after.
Just believe
After Thursday's major speech, which I found so disheartening that I threw away a thousand words, I was pleased to see some smaller items. Apparently..."You can only deliver Brexit if you believe in Brexit," says Theresa May pic.twitter.com/dDgK4plbkE— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) June 1, 2017
Yet Jeremy Paxman couldn't get #MrsME to say that she believes in Brexit. She only believed in "making a success of Brexit". It was also disturbing that she had decided to lift long passages from one of last year's naive pro-Leave speeches.
Not all of her no-shows this week have been reprehensible. After all, not even a #StrongAndStable™ leader of a team can be in two places at once, but once she had chickened out of the seven-way leaders' debate, any substitute on Mumsnet or Woman's Hour would be seized on as a sign of weakness.
Lawyer Schona Jolly found the words: "May said this was the most important election of her lifetime, but she has treated it like a game of hide and seek."
Debate - not debate
May was back to being coherent - not so many empty phrases - but she was more ordinary as well. She dealt with every question, but she wasn't often human. I don't think she mentioned a single one of her fabled team, though she lampooned a few of Labour's, and the magic money tree she'd like to give them for Christmas.
Corbyn had the expected problems with "past indiscriminate extensions of fraternal solidarity", but he's grown into a pretty good campaigner. He knows his prospectus and can call up examples, but he was stuck between his normal personal approach and the high stakes of a Question Time interrogation.
Neither of them showed a grasp of the enormity of Brexit and how hard it could hit their own programme. I don't think May even mentioned "dire consequences" this time.
My summary of #bbcqt— Mike Galsworthy (@mikegalsworthy) June 2, 2017
Both May & Corbyn came across strong. Both pedal delusions about access to EU trade without engaging any EU rules.
The Magic Money Tree has given us wars, bailouts and tax breaks in the past. Why not use it to do something good for once?— Arun Mehta (@ArunMehtaShow) June 2, 2017
#MrsME's staff were up late.
Thank you to everyone who put their questions to me tonight on #bbcqt. Good debate on important topics like who can get the best Brexit deal— Theresa May (@theresa_may) June 2, 2017
