This week’s media picks: infrastructure, Bangladesh safety, fracking, climate change, bioscience

FT (23/4/14): Leading article: Time to invest in Britain’s future

As the Prime Minister, David Cameron, and Chancellor, George Osborne, welcomed £36 billion investment in infrastructure projects, the Financial Times, remained to be impressed. In a leader, it said that one of the biggest and most persistent questions facing the UK economy is the worryingly low level of investment in infrastructure. Despite fine words, the government’s record is decidedly mixed, and the new set of initiatives may not match the scale needed to raise infrastructure spending to the level required. The FT outlines three areas of weakness in policy: 1) Spending is not high enough, and is persistently less than many of our competitors; 2) Given low interest rates, the government should borrow more to finance big projects; and 3) the government needs to establish a more stable and clearer framework for private sector investment.

Fibre2Fashion (24/4/14) Bangladesh Safety Accord on course, says UNI official

A year after the tragic collapse of the Rana Plaza factory building in Bangladesh, a demonstration of corporate social responsibility in action, rather than just words, is making progress towards improving the safety, prospects and lives of the country’s garment workers. Despite the many barriers to progress imposed by the political, social and commercial cultures of Bangladesh, the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh can be proud of its progress when it marks its own one year anniversary next month.

An official from, UNI Global, one of the two global union bodies that negotiated the Bangladesh Accord, Alke Boessiger, said: “The inspection program is in full operation. There is a strong team of more than more than 100 technical experts and engineers in Bangladesh who are conducting 45 inspections per week, with the aim to inspect 1500 factories by October.  More than 280 factories have been inspected for fire and electrical issues and 240 for structural safety.  Every inspection has revealed critical issues which must be repaired as a condition of doing business with signatory brands in the future. These issues include, for example, the absence of fire doors to separate the work area from the fire exit.  Brands are responsible to ensure that sufficient financial resources are available for the renovations and improvements.”

FT (24/4/14): Shale gas a multi-billion-pound opportunity for UK business

A report by EY, commissioned by the UKOOG, the shale-gas trade body, said that fracking shale gas could potentially generate 64,000 jobs in the oil and gas supply chain. It said that over the next 15 years, the UK would need to invest £17 billion on specialised fracking equipment and skills. This won’t mollify fracking’s opponents, but does at least show that the industry is seeking to make a positive, factually-based case for its development.

The Guardian (25/4/14): Kingfisher CEO warns on underestimating impact of climate change on business

In an opinion piece, Kingfisher plc CEO, Ian Cheshire urged business to sign a communiqué aimed at policymakers gathering in Paris next year for the UN Climate Change Conference. He warned that resource scarcity, energy price increases and extreme weather are real and growing threats to the long-term viability of business. That’s why hesigned the Trillion Tonne Communique, drawn up by the Prince of Wales’ Corporate Leaders Group, and is encouraging other business leaders to do so too. Adverse climate events are increasing costs for business, Kingfisher’s alone, were tens of millions of pounds, and as business doesn’t have a seat at the table, it needs more of them to sign the Trillion Tonne Communique to ensure that its voice is heard. 103 businesses world wide have signed so far, but it will require quite a few more to overcome the political resistance that clearly exists in some quarters.

FT (25/4/14): UK medical science drive shaken by US takeover fears

News that AstraZeneca was approached by Pfizer about a £60 billion takeover, has called into question the UK’s ambition to remain a leading global player in life sciences. AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline are the only large companies with research and development operations in the UK. Oxford University’s Professor John Bell said: “If we were to lose one of them it would be a real blow to our capabilities. It’s a sector that is crucial to our future economic success. The news prompted Andrew Miller MP, Chairman of the House of Commons science committee to call for tougher standards to protect strategic UK assets, such as considering the national interest when looking at takeovers. Steve Bates, chief executive of the UK Bioindustry Association, pointed to successful smaller biotech companies, but said: “It is important to have whales in the ecosystems around which minnows can flourish.”

This week’s media picks worth a read

We found these articles worth reading, you might too depending on your interests.

FT: Criticism of energy groups overshadows good news in [wind] sector

The changing view of the “big six” energy companies is symbolized by a recent Mirror front page headline that showed Centrica CEO, Sam Laidlaw as the “blackout blackmailer”. Commons energy select committee chairman, Tim Yeo, cannot remember energy being such a high-profile issue in his 30 years as MP. The CMA referral and the Tories proposed block on onshore wind farms have exacerbated fear in the sector. But Siemens’ Yorkshire wind turbine factory and the investment push by Dong, Statoil, Statkraft and Vattenfall show that “the big six are not the only game in town.”

FT:Labour vows to spread wealth away from London

In a little-noticed speech Ed Miliband confirmed Labour’s move away from the old regional development agencies as a means of generating growth in the English regions. Instead, the new local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) would be retained and the focus would be on cities, city-regions and partnerships of councils.

The Guardian:Government contractors begin to realise public trust is an end in itself
Jim Bligh, head of public services at the CBI, writes that the private sector is starting to recognise that building public trust is a worthy end in itself. The risks of not being transparent – of hiding behind bureaucracy or commercial confidentiality – far outweigh the risks of the alternative. Transparency ultimately shines a light on good performance and bad performance alike, which means that it can greatly improve the competitive dynamic. The losers will be companies and public bodies which simply aren’t performing well enough.

The New Yorker: Heartbleed: an example of ungovernability

You may not yet have heard of Heartbleed, the latest cyber-threat, but you are probably already a victim of it. The New Yorker reports on why one respected cryptography expert describes the threat of Heartbleed as 11 on a scale of one to ten. Was it on the Government’s cyber-crime radar? And even if it was, what can one Government do to tackle what is a global threat?

The Independent: Over here for the beer

A bevy of brewers is increasingly flocking to London from overseas. Discover why the English beer regulations make the capital the place to be for German and US brewers thirsty for innovation

The Independent: Erdogan: from model strongman to tinpot dictator

The Turkish premier’s decline into authoritarianism has dangerous geopolitical consequences.

This week’s media picks

From a selection of media stories: Labour gives itself a little bit more definition. Do senior Tories think they will fail to win the next election? Here comes the Budget…

FT: Political risk rises high up the agenda in boardrooms

Business leaders are feeling under pressure on a range of political/policy issues, eg energy prices, immigration, Scottish independence, EU membership, the “debacle” over airport development, or the “complete failure to deal with planning”. As one FTSE chairman put it: “It is so difficult to know whether the rhetoric is reality.” (A perennial problem when it comes to politics.)

FT: City on alert for Labour’s political reckoning

Recent bank bonuses seem to have emboldened shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, to tolerate, or is that, promise, a bank bonus tax. Labour is hoping to raise up to £2 billion, which would be used to fund its job guarantee for the young jobless. This may harm Labour’s business credentials, but will it be a vote winner?

FT: Ed Miliband: Europe needs reform but Britain belongs at its heart

In a further attempt this week by Labour to define its political positioning, its leader, Ed Miliband outlined his stance on the EU. He committed Labour to holding an in-out referendum, were there to be a further transfer of powers from the UK to the EU, something which is unlikely in the next Parliament. He conceded that the EU’s reputation is at a low ebb, and that “if Britain’s future in Europe is to be secured, Europe needs to work better for Britain.” To this end, a Labour government would seek tougher EU rules on immigration and foreign benefits claimants.

Guardian: Have Boris, Gove and Osborne written off the 2015 election?

Conservative Home editor, and former Tory MP, Paul Goodman, argues that the outbreak of infighting among senior Tories over the future leadership of the party betrays a lack of confidence in David Cameron’s ability to pull off a majority election win in 2015. By contrast, whatever the views of senior Labour politicians on Ed Miliband’s leadership, they are doing a good job at keeping them private. The more that Conservatives ventilate their problems publicly, the more likely that they will help Ed Miliband win.

 

Daily Telegraph: Budget 2014 announcement: What to expect

George Osborne will deliver the 2014 Budget at 12.30 Wednesday March 19. Here are some of the things to look out for, not that any of this has been pre-briefed, of course…

Do me a favour, don’t do me a favour

Just days before the latest lobbying scandal that didn’t involve lobbyists broke, the Financial Times, expressed concern about the so-called revolving door through which civil servants and ministers pass to join companies as lobbyists. The drift of it’s columnist, John Gapper, was that we should be worried that decisions could thus, be made on the basis of favours.

We should certainly concern ourselves with how government decisions are made, but as I argued in a letter to the FT earlier this week; if you want to influence government effectively, there is no substitute for having a credible, well-argued and factually-based proposal.

In case you missed it, here is the text of my letter:

“Sir, I don’t doubt that former civil servants, ex-ministers, or even the occasional former prime minister can help businesses to influence government policy (“We should worry about the revolving door for jobs”, Comment, May 30). However, regardless of the status of such advisers, government policy is not decided on the basis of “special favours”. If government policy or procurement decisions cannot be justified on policy or financial grounds, or for meeting stated political objectives, then the dispensers of these favours would very quickly be found out.

John Gapper’s lobbyist informant is perfectly correct; large businesses do not need favours, as they will be listened to anyway. I was a special adviser for seven years, and I would never have risked my position by giving out favours to anyone.

Any business, large or small, that wants to influence government decisions will find that there is no substitute for having a credible, well-argued and factually-based proposal. There is no mystery or black arts involved. Advisers add value by helping businesses to articulate their case clearly and effectively. If they do that, then there is no need for favours.”

In other words: “Do me a favour; don’t do me a favour”.

A house divided can stand

Abraham Lincoln quoted scripture when he said of the young United States, as it faced threats of seccession by southern slave-owning states, that a divided house cannot stand. He went on to defeat these threats in the bloodiest war the United States has ever endured.

The British government doesn’t face quite the same existential threat, thankfully. But the steady occurrence of divisive political issues keeps raising the spectre of the Coalition’s collapse.

Yesterday in Parliament we were treated to the bizarre spectacle of the Prime Minister, David Cameron’s, statement opposing much of the Leveson report on the press, being starkly contradicted by his Deputy, Nick Clegg, who supports it. Also in Parliament yesterday, we saw the Lib Dem energy secretary, Ed Davey, present his battle-scarred Energy Bill, with his wind-sceptic Tory junior, John Hayes, sitting behind him, glowering supportively.

We’ve also had, recently, the unceremonious ditching by the Conservatives of Lords reform advocated by the Lib Dems. As an eye for an eye, the Lib Dems have said that they will oppose the re-drawing of Parliamentary boundary changes that would have benefited their coalition partners.

Opposition MPs’ criticism that Lib Dem ministers who can’t abide by collective responsibility should resign is an obvious debating point. This ignores the fact that it is in the nature of governments to set precedents. And with the first peacetime coalition formed purely as a result of Parliament being hung, the nature of the government itself is unprecedented.

The rules of collective responsibility have been re-written. There will no doubt be more intra-Coalition spats in the months to come, but none of them will bring down the Coalition until one, or both, parties decides that it’s time to pull down the temple.

The Coalition may eventually reach the point where it falls apart, but my hunch is that this won’t happen until well into 2014 at the earliest. The reason is that both parties are wedded to austerity and need to be able to demonstrate that it has worked. The economy will need to have returned clearly to growth, or be showing credible signs that it will do so. Only then can they face the electorate and be able to tell them that the pain has been worth it.

We will then face the delicious irony that as soon as the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats can demonstrate that the Coalition has been successful, they might then decide to terminate it. Quite what the electorate will make of that, we will have to wait and see.

In praise of special advisers

Special advisers have never exactly been viewed with affection. In the first episode of Yes Minister, Jim Hacker arrives in the Department for Administrative Affairs for the first time accompanied by his special adviser, but before they even reach his office, the adviser is bundled off unceremoniously into a cupboard. Oh, how we laughed.

We also laughed long and hard at the absurdities of Malcolm Tucker et al in The Thick of It. As a former special adviser myself across six different Whitehall departments I thought it was hilarious. On occasions, some of the scenarios were eerily familiar in spirit, if not in fact.

Of course, the truth is much more mundane. Real special advisers are not out of central casting, nor are they all in the mould of Alistair Campbell, Charlie Whelan or Andy Coulson. Clare Short, who had two special advisers of her own, famously described them as the “people who live in the dark”. I took that as a compliment, as special advisers should usually be invisible to the public.

But they also are serious and conscientious providers of political, policy and communications support to ministers. And with the exception of the occasional Sir Humphrey, they are welcomed by civil servants. They are a valuable means for handling the more overtly political aspects of modern government and can help guide, though not instruct, civil servants on a minister’s thinking. As Sir John Elvidge former permanent secretary of the Scottish Executive, quoted in Civil Service Live Network, put it: “special advisers who genuinely know the minds of their ministers – rather than those who ascribe their own thoughts to a minister – are invaluable, because ministerial time is one of the scarcest commodities.”

The origins of the special adviser role are opaque but arguably started to take form during Harold Wilson’s first premiership in the 1960s. He appointed Marcia Williams as his political secretary and complained later how the civil servants tried to marginalise her and keep her in an office far from his. No wonder she was rumoured to have been a source for some of the scenes from Yes Minister. He also sought independent advice on the economy from two Hungarian émigrés, Nicholas Kaldor and Tommy Balogh – referred to unaffectionately by civil servants at the time as Buda and Pest.

Gradually the use of special advisers became more established with codes of conduct and formal appointment as temporary civil servants. Their numbers grew steadily under the Major, Blair and Brown premierships. Although there was some carping at this, they are now a fact of political life.

David Cameron pledged opportunistically to reduce the number of special advisers but now that he is in government he may appreciate that they have their uses after all. He has now had to face this reality and sanction the appointment of an additional seven to serve junior Liberal Democrat ministers. This is another evolution, as previously they only served Cabinet ministers.

Perhaps now we can have a more mature discussion on the role and number of special advisers. If No 10 had had a stronger team of political and policy advisers, it might have avoided some of the damaging retreats and uncertainties on issues like NHS reform, sentencing policy and the stewardship of public forests. We may be a long way from the US where an incoming President brings in a top echelon of 2,000 appointees to run the government, but our system of government and policy making might just benefit from a little more light being shed on its inner workings.

Social care reform – the next great health debate?

Amid the furore surrounding the Government’s legislation on NHS reform, the wheels have slowly been turning on reform in the social care sector.

At last week’s seminar on the future of social care held at The Care Show in London, the chief executive of the English Community Care Association, Martin Green, said that engaging with government policy makers had never been more important. Peter Hay, President of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, and a member of the Department of Health’s listening exercise, NHS Future Forum echoed that sentiment.

It is no wonder that leading figures in social care are urging organisations and the wider public to engage. Social care is under huge strain and faces potentially huge changes in policy, particularly on funding and care home regulation.

The Dilnot Commission on the funding of social care has reported and its findings are being digested within the Department of Health. Local authority funding of social care was already being squeezed, but following the Budget, this is now being done with thumbscrews.

The sorry saga of the collapse of Southern Cross, in part a consequence of reduced local authority funding, has tainted politicians’ perceptions of care home providers. It has also prompted the House of Commons Health Select Committee to widen its inquiry into social care to examine the regulation of care homes in addition to future funding and personalisation. It will look into how to protect against the consequences of operators going bust, and we can expect some very public grilling of care home providers over the coming months.

The DoH published a discussion paper last week on the regulation of the social care market. It examines issues surrounding the risk of financial failure of large care home operators.

There is no guarantee that every care home will always remain open. Nor is the DoH looking to protect care home businesses. There will be no “moral hazard” of the sort that surrounds banks. If a care home operator becomes unviable as a business, it will ultimately be allowed to fail.

What the DH is groping for is a system that will help prevent failures like that of Southern Cross and allow for the orderly transition of care homes to new operators. It is looking for feedback on suggestions such as tougher regulation, more rigorous financial checks, or requiring operators to post bonds to cover for financial failure.

This is just to scratch the surface; the options for reform could reach into every aspect of social care and there is no shortage of contentious issues. Just when the Government gets its NHS reforms enacted (or ditched?), it will set itself up for another round of reform, policy proposals and, no doubt some heavy-duty controversy along the way.

There will be some serious policy boxing over the coming months, with round one commencing with publication of the social care White Paper next spring. Anyone with an interest in the future of social care should answer the calls to engage. Let’s just hope that the ring is big enough to hold us all.

Justice is justice, whatever the political climate

One of the Altitude directors recently came across the Labour Party’s 1990 policy programme and searched for the party’s policy on Cyprus:

“Labour believes that Turkish troops must withdraw from the island and that Cyprus should be reunited on a federal basis which restores the unity of the island with full safeguards for the Turkish minority.

“A Labour government, as one of the guarantor powers, will use its influence at the United Nations and elsewhere to help bring this about. Meanwhile, Britain should not agree to Turkish membership of the European Community.”

An easy bit of internet searching brought up the Conservative manifesto pledge on Cyprus from 1992, which reads:

“We seek a solution to the dispute which has divided Cyprus since 1974. A settlement must recognise that Cyprus is indivisible and that the rights of both communities must be assured. We will support the UN’s efforts to secure a fair and lasting solution.”

Of course, we now view things in the context of a world changed by the horrors of 11 September 2001 but should our principles as an international force really have changed so much to have diluted these stances down to what is now essentially a state of political ambivalence on Cyprus?

I think not. Justice is justice, and we should seek to impose it constantly and without wavering. Tell your MP.

From zero emissions to zero debate

The irony of the 2010 General Election campaign is that it is the most unpredictable for a generation, yet there has been little serious policy debate apart from on the financial crisis and National Insurance. Even the arch spin doctor, Alastair Campbell, is calling for more media coverage of policy.

There has been massive interest in the leaders’ debates, which has blown away all the early predictions of the likely result. It has also nullified the parties’ best efforts to devote discussion to specific policy areas on particular days.

So it should come as no surprise that polling by Ipsos Mori should show that, for the first time since 1987 (when the question was first asked), party leaders are as important as policies in deciding voters’ choice of party. The gap in favour of policies over leaders widened from 1997 to 2005, but narrowed dramatically by summer 2008 and is now level.

I know it’s the economy, stupid, so it is entirely appropriate for the level of public borrowing and the fragile nature of the economic recovery to dominate what little policy discussion there is. But there has been virtually no discussion of other issues such as transport, crime, health or education, education, education.

Does anyone recall being told that tackling climate change was the number one issue facing, not just the country, but the whole world? True, this and the related issue of future energy supplies, came up in last night’s leaders’ debate. But there has otherwise been virtually no mention of the subject.

The Guardian did at least host a debate between Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband and his Conservative and Liberal Democrat shadows, Greg Clark and Simon Hughes. After 36 hours, the paper’s online report had attracted 52 comments. By contrast, just one of its comment articles on last night’s leaders’ debate received 281 comments in half that time.

There is no shortage of policy or initiatives on energy, climate change or reducing carbon emissions. We are told that so-called green industries have the potential to create up to half a million jobs. Yesterday, I attended the 2010 Sustainability Live exhibition in the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham. This brought together hundreds of exhibitors, from renewable energy equipment manufacturers to sustainable waste disposal and water treatment specialists, university research departments, trade associations and professional bodies.

There is huge commercial and academic interest in developing the means to reduce harmful emissions, and to develop a more sustainable economy based on innovative and more secure energy supplies. Yet none of the exhibitors that I spoke to were aware of any discussion in the election campaign that is relevant to this burgeoning sector.

When it comes to climate change, we seem to have gone from zero emissions to zero debate. There will, eventually, be plenty of discussion on the policies that the new Government should pursue, but not till after the election.

X Factor politics, Hammer Horror policies

I attended a Conservative Party business event this morning, addressed by David Cameron. It was billed as Supporting Small Business and Building the Big Society. Unfortunately, the clamour from the media throng for his answer to the X Factor-like surge from the Liberal Democrats, meant that there was precious little space for him to say much about business.

But beyond the brouhaha surrounding National Insurance Contributions, you will learn little from the media on what each of the parties are offering business. The curse of reality TV politics, is that there is now even less space for policy debate in any area, let alone on business issues.

True, David Cameron did mention cutting Corporation Tax and exempting new businesses from paying National Insurance on the first 10 new jobs. But it was hard to get away from hung parliaments and attitudes to Nick Clegg.

Each of the parties has dedicated sections in their manifestos and websites on policies for business. The Conservatives will reduce red tape and form filling, simplify business taxes and make rates relief automatic for small business. Labour’s proposals include cutting regulatory costs, doubling the capital gains allowable under Entrepreneur’s Relief and temporarily increasing small business rate relief. Like the two main parties, the Liberal Democrats say that they will remove unnecessary regulations. They will also establish local enterprise funds, stimulate bank lending to business and part-privatise the Royal Mail.

As with manifestos as a whole, the wording can often be couched in such general terms that the promises can, sometimes, mean anything to anyone. People running businesses will make their own judgements on which party they would prefer in power. But regardless of which party wins, scrutinising manifestos will not be enough for business to ensure that the new Government implements policies that enable them to flourish. Businesses, whether individually or through trade associations, will need to engage with policy makers as soon as possible after the election. The purpose is not just to anticipate policy but to try and shape it before it is finalised.

Forecasting the election result has now got a lot more complicated. We may even be facing the prospect of a hung Parliament, with either a minority Government or a coalition. In these circumstances, and especially in the latter, manifestos go out the window to be replaced by policy programmes based on political horse-trading.

Businesses, as well as the financial markets, don’t like uncertainty. But post-election uncertainty is also an opportunity for business to exert its influence on future policy. But they must engage proactively with policy makers, be they ministers, advisers or officials if they want to see a policy mix that enables British business to thrive and expand. Failure to do so could result in the X Factor politics being generated by the leaders’ television debates, producing a Hammer Horror for business.