The hallmark economic policy of the Johnsonian era was ‘levelling up’ - a bid to reallocate government expenditure to deprived urban areas as a means to reduce regional inequality across the UK. Ostensibly, the policy seems sensible; however, simply funnelling money into poor areas does not address the root cause of why these areas are poor in the first place. After all, austerity wasn’t the primary reason for regional inequities across the UK, despite its role in exacerbating the issue. Moreover, if public money was spent effectively in rebooting left behind towns and cities, said towns would likely be left with a London-style economy, without the finance - that is, an abundance restaurants and retailers, which perpetually go bust, until they are inevitably replaced by stable, low paying, familiar favourites - Nando’s, Costa, McDonalds.
When we move further to scrutinise the semantics of ‘levelling up’, the concept grows more problematic - the phrase would suggest a simple, linear improvement of the current scenario - rather than reimagining our economy, we are doubling down on the current model, improving what we have rather than undergoing a fundamental restructuring and enacting major surgery which our economy requires.
To cut closer to the bone of truth, we must launch a forensic examination into how the re-pivoting of Britain from the ‘post war consensus’ mixed economy into a stagnant, inequitable, lacklustre nation occurred - and it centres around a certain Mrs. Thatcher.
The Iron Lady’s heartless, misguided annihilation of the industrial heartlands of Britain manifested in much more than the simple loss of jobs; oftentimes, the factories which were displaced were institutions, rather than just businesses - a son would follow in his father’s footsteps and join the local working plant, sustaining his family's economic status, whilst ensuring stability. Admittedly, it’s obviously an imperfect cycle, given it’s inherent lack of incentivisation for upwards social mobility, but that equally, doesn’t negate the fact that it would have presumably maintained a degree of pride and communal identity. Moreover, those who possessed a more potent ambition would inevitably migrate to a city, to exploit economic opportunities present in such places. The real issue can be illuminated, rather, in the manner in which Britain neglected suburban towns; a transitory vision was not effectively layed out, a mass retraining programme was not implemented, newer industries did not take shape - both the Blairite and neoliberal governments failed to capitalise on the 90s tech boom, and it’s potential in aiding suffering communities. Unsurprisingly, this negligent, apathetic governance transpired in, not a tech boom, but a crime boom - research conducted by the University of Derby spotlighted that the volume of young people being cautioned was 21% higher in the regions with the highest quantity of job losses, compared to those with the lowest hike. The repercussions transcend just economic and criminological consequences. High streets across Britain, particularly those in destitute quarters, are almost ubiquitously indistinguishable and soulless - all having been weighed down by economic misery and dereliction of duty. The 99p store performs as a drab symbol of Thatcherite induced decline. With the exception of quaint, idyllic, and mostly inaccessible to the everyday, pockets of the UK, Britain has lost its swagger.
Debunking the myths
To move forward, it is necessary to, firstly, refute the common arguments made in favour of unchecked free trade:
Claim: comparative advantage means that free trade is beneficial to everybody.
Firstly, comparative advantage is very much manmade - of course, Brazil will specialise in the production of cocoa beans. However, the Germans weren’t born efficient; China wasn’t made into the industrial hub of the world through natural selection. Rather, purposeful policy measures were introduced by both countries in order to overcome a trade deficit.
Claim: it opens industries up to competition, in turn improving consumer products
In reality, the world market is profoundly uneven, due to disparities in wage and labour regulations. Moreover, industries first have an opportunity to develop before being thrust into global markets. If we apply the logic made by the claim, throwing a baby into the labour market would render that baby more skilled, seeing as said infant would be forced to compete with others. Clearly, first the creature must be shielded and insulated from competition, so it can build a base to move forward.
Moving forward
The German model offers a compelling falsification of the case that modern, developed, western economies cannot manufacture products. In order to help rebuild Britain we must Build in Britain! Utilising education and emphasising the value of practical skills, pivoted around vocation would be a meaningful stride in the right direction. Additionally, protectionist trade measures, tax breaks for companies which deploy a certain percentage of their operations in the UK, a cut in the corporate tax rates, as well as a profound public sector investment in research and development, specifically in the scientific field, would reposition Britain as a global leader in innovation and manufacturing. The environmental gains made by these measures would also pay long run dividends, aiding in our transition to net zero. Purposefully incentivising investment in lost communities would be a no brainer - however, it would be folly to try and restore the blackened, soot-y industrialised areas of old - by a similar token, but through a modern lens, green industries and infrastructure should be generously dispersed.
Adding to the research and development point, any new Government should ditch the mantra that Government is a problem - rather, a harmonious relationship can be fostered between the private sector and the public sector. Take Nasa for example - the Government sponsored research into space technology led to a myriad of other technological advancements which we take for granted in everyday life. Akin to our previous example, Concord was engineered by the UK and France. The economy is not a zero sum game - a healthy public sector does not entail the downturn of private sector performance; the reality is the opposite.
In order to deliver a prosperous, equitable, post Brexit Britain, the Government must directly intervene in order to not merely level up, but metamorphosise the nation, taking the ingredients of the past, and reconstituting them in a progressive manner to a build in Britain, and to build a better future.
Commentaires