Five thoughts on John McDonnell’s promise to revive Britain’s manufacturing sector

The AirBus factory in Broughton, north Wales, 2013. Image: Getty.

“We want to rebalance our economy. We need to make sure we invest in our infrastructure. That means making sure we have regional investment right around the country as well. And that means we rebuild our manufacturing base so we balance out our finance sector and our manufacturing sector.”

The shadow chancellor John McDonnell set out his view of what economic policy should aim to do on the Today Programme last July. There’s a lot to unpack in those four sentences and the Labour Party’s ‘Build it in Britain campaign’ – much of which has popular appeal, but would actually do little to support growth across the country.

Here are five issues arising from McDonnell’s comments which are worth reflecting on.

1. We do still make things in the UK, contrary to popular belief

Firstly, despite concerns about the decline of the UK’s manufacturing sector, we do still make a great deal. As Jonathan Portes of King’s College London points out, UK manufacturing output has been fairly stable over the last four decades.

But two things have happened over that period that alter people’s perception. The first is that other parts of the economy have emerged and grown over that period, so we’re not as reliant on manufacturing as we once were – the industry now accounts for 10 per cent of GDP today compared to 31 per cent in 1970.

The second is that the number of people working in manufacturing has fallen sharply, so it is not the source of jobs that it once was (as it has done in other developed economies). Moreover, if it is to remain competitive on the global stage, it will be productivity driven and jobs light.

2. We don’t just export goods

A trap people from across the political spectrum often fall into is assuming that we only export goods. The reality is that services account for 46 per cent of UK exports, and play an even larger role in some cities – in Milton Keynes they account for half of all exports, and in Edinburgh it’s four-fifths.

A focus on exporting industries is important, particularly from a productivity perspective – it is these businesses that drive productivity and wage growth. But it’s wrong to mistake this for being goods producers only, which misleads us into false trade-offs around financial services and manufacturing.

3. London isn’t just finance, and finance isn’t just London

Much is made of the concentration of financial services in London. But it plays an important role in other cities across the UK: for example, it accounts for 58 per cent of exports in Edinburgh, 12 per cent of private sector jobs in Ipswich and is the most productive sector in Cardiff’s economy.

And while finance plays an important role in London’s economy,  it isn’t the capital’s only economic driver. Instead, its success is built off the back of strengths in other areas such as law, media and advertising. These strengths should both be celebrated and understood better – the benefits that London offers to such businesses explains why they have chosen the capital as their location, and other places need to address the barriers which do not make them as attractive.

4. The future for northern cities isn’t manufacturing alone

The big challenge for most cities outside the Greater South East is their ability to attract, retain and grow high-skilled exporting businesses, both in manufacturing and services. Crucially, it is the distinct lack of these businesses in these cities has contributed to the widening divide in terms of wages across the country.

Despite this, term ‘rebalancing the economy’ has been used by Nick Clegg, George Osborne and the current Labour leadership as shorthand for boosting manufacturing in the North as a counterweight to London’s financial specialism. But in the same way that London isn’t about finance alone, the idea that northern cities are where manufacturing happens is an outmoded view based on the politics of nostalgia. The focus needs to be on attracting in higher-skilled work in a number of sectors.

In some instances this may even require an explicit rebalancing away from manufacturing, not towards it, if the fortunes of these cities are to improve. Burnley currently has the highest share of jobs in manufacturing of any British city, with one in five being in this sector. Despite this, it performs poorly on a range of economic indicators, principally because its manufacturing base is relatively low skilled and it has a lack of higher-skilled service exporters. Both issues will need to change if the economic opportunities available to the residents of Burnley are to be greater in the next four decades than they have been in the previous four.

5. Public procurement strategies don’t offer the answer for struggling economies

One of the proposals offered by the shadow chancellor to support manufacturing is for local public bodies to preference local businesses. As I’ve written before, this is a form of protectionism in the same way that tariffs are a form of protectionism. And it raises a number of troubling questions.

For example, if Blackburn or Burnley adopts this approach, how exactly do they distinguish which businesses qualify for a contract? Will a firm respond to having competition restricted by upping its prices, costing the taxpayer? And what will the reaction from places elsewhere in the country – will they start a trade war?

Most cities outside of the Greater South East need to see an upturn in their fortunes if they are going to improve the opportunity available to their residents, make a larger contribution to the national economy and to address the UK’s poor productivity. The politics of populism and nostalgia will fail to deliver this.

Paul Swinney is head of policy & research at the Centre for Cities, on whose blog this article first appeared.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.


The Fire Brigades Union’s statement on Theresa May’s resignation is completely damning

Grenfell Tower. Image: Getty.

Just after 10 this morning, Theresa May announced that she would resign as Britain’s prime minister on 7 June. A mere half an hour later, a statement from Royal Institute of British Architects president Ben Derbyshire arrived in my inbox with a ping:

“The news that Theresa May will step down as Prime Minister leaves the country in limbo while the clock ticks down to the latest deadline of 31 October. While much is uncertain, one thing remains clear – a no deal is no option for architecture or the wider construction sector. Whoever becomes the next Prime Minister must focus on taking the country forward with policies beyond Brexit that tackle the major challenges facing the country such as the housing crisis and climate change emergency.”

I was a bit baffled by this – why would the architecture profession try to get its thoughts into a political story? But then Merlin Fulcher of Architects Journal put me right:

Well you know construction is a larger contributor to GDP than financial services, and most of the work UK architects do is for export, and at least half of the largest practice (Foster + Partners) are EU, so there's a lot at stake

— Merlin Fulcher (@merlinfulcher) May 24, 2019

So, the thoughts of the RIBA president are an entirely legitimate thing to send to any construction sector-adjacent journalists who might be writing about today’s big news, and frankly I felt a little silly.

Someone else who should be feeling more than a little silly, though, is Theresa May herself. When listing her government’s achievements, such as they were, she included, setting up “the independent public inquiry into the tragedy at Grenfell Tower” – a fire in a West London public housing block in June 2017 – “to search for the truth, so nothing like it can ever happen again, and so the people who lost their lives that night are never forgotten”.

Matt Wrack, general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, is having precisely none of this. Here’s his statement:

“Many of the underlying issues at Grenfell were due to unsafe conditions that had been allowed to fester under Tory governments and a council for which Theresa May bears ultimate responsibility. The inquiry she launched has kicked scrutiny of corporate and government interests into the long-grass, denying families and survivors justice, while allowing business as usual to continue for the wealthy. For the outgoing Prime Minister to suggest that her awful response to Grenfell is a proud part of her legacy is, frankly, disgraceful.”

A total of 72 people died in the Grenfell fire. At time of writing, nobody has been prosecuted.

Jonn Elledge is editor of CityMetric and the assistant editor of the New Statesman. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.