The Policy Institute is producing a series of comment pieces analysing election manifesto pledges from the different parties across a range of policy areas. Read the full series  here.  

An Industrial Strategy, although not always described as such, has generated interest over the decades and across the parties. From Harold Wilson to Michael Heseltine, Vince Cable to George Osborne, from the famous “White Heat of Technology” speech to the “March of the Makers” soundbite. 

When Theresa May became Prime Minister in July 2016, the Industrial Strategy was firmly on her agenda – whether as a response to the EU Referendum result or not, the timing seemed right. There was an appetite for such a policy, particularly from business, acknowledging the increased stability and confidence that an Industrial Strategy, however difficult it would be to define, would provide.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills became Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, although it was not until November 2017 that the White Paper: Building a Britain fit for the Future, set out conditions for "an economy that works for everyone".  Interventionist and, in my opinion, a very good attempt at giving vision and objectives to a strategy, this constructive document described the four "Grand Challenges" of AI and Big Data, the Future of Mobility, Ageing Society and Clean Growth, supported by the foundations of ideas, infrastructure, business environment, people and places.

Any strategy will only bear fruit if it is given time to flourish, including through cross-party support. This strategy has already received criticism for not delivering immediate and tangible results (sadly missing the point of what a strategy is about). So, as we find ourselves about to vote in yet another snap election, inevitably framed by Brexit, it begs the question: what will a post-Brexit government look like in terms of its strategic priorities? Do we need to develop something like a Marshall Plan for this generation, which will assist in “unleashing” the nation’s potential?

Let’s consider how industrial strategy policy might evolve over the next parliament according to the different party manifestos, starting with the Conservative Party who created the “Modern Industrial Strategy”.

It is notable that there is no direct mention of the phrase “Industrial Strategy” in the manifesto. However, there are discrete elements which support the intent of the foundations: local industrial strategies, through the continued endorsement of the Northern Powerhouse, the Midlands Engine and Western Gateway among others. The "Towns Fund" will be used to strengthen local economies and support the regeneration of towns through development of infrastructure, with an additional £100 billion spending on road, rail and flood defences. The business environment will be supported by an increase in the R&D tax credit rate to 13 per cent, together with the continuation of the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme and Enterprise Investment Scheme.

Alternatively, the Labour Party plans to start a “Green Industrial Revolution”, hoping to create a million jobs and new industries for those areas which have been “left behind” (similar to the local industrial strategy concept). It also includes a “National Investment Bank”, supported by a network of Regional Banks, that will provide £250 billion of lending for "enterprise, infrastructure and innovation". In addition, the party aims to target three per cent of GDP to be spent on R&D by 2030, with “increased direct support to achieve this”.

Other proposals include the establishment of a “Foundation Industries Sector Council” to provide a “clean and long-term future for existing heavy industries like steel and glass and fund R&D in newer technologies”. This would also support the automotive sector to keep pace with the “electric revolution” and enable the development of a retail sector industrial strategy (similar perhaps to the current Sector Deals’ programme).

Of wider economic impact, and of particular relevance to industrial strategy policy, will be the return to public ownership of the UK’s energy, water and rail infrastructure. The consequences of this policy will be wide-reaching and long-term.

The two main parties appear to have provided a number of eye-catching policies, but not a continuation or development of the current Industrial Strategy. The four “Grand Challenges” still need to be addressed with long-term policy planning. 

So, to their credit, the Liberal Democrats have perhaps been most faithful to the principles of the current Industrial Strategy in their manifesto. They claim to “set an ambitious National Industrial Strategy and develop Local Industrial Strategies within it that incentivise clustering by businesses and universities with particular specialisms”.

Of particular interest is the idea of “improving joint ministerial work on new cross-cutting policies". The traditional lack of joined-up thinking may be a reason why the Industrial Strategy seems to have stalled. Indeed, cross-cutting approaches to delivering a variety of government-led strategies could be useful beyond just policy in this area.

The Liberal Democrats plan to continue increasing spending on R&D to up to three per cent (reaching the Conservatives’ proposed 2.4 per cent by 2027). They are supportive of extending the Catapult Centre initiative, creating a new Green Investment Bank and a £130 billion programme of infrastructure investment which includes HS2, Crossrail 2, Northern Powerhouse Rail and East-West Rail. They also plan national broadband installation, with a focus on connecting rural areas.

Whoever wins the election, innovation, infrastructure, skills, the collaboration between academia and business and more, will all be vital to our economy. The challenge for government will be how it resists the demands of the immediate, with the 24-hour news cycle and the need for positive headlines this entails. An industrial strategy (whether it is called that or not), can prepare for the future, whatever that looks like, helping to address challenges such as AI, automation, productivity, an ageing society and the impact of technology on our way of working and our way of living. This long-term approach may not generate the exciting headlines – but the dividends will be immense – for the population, if not the government.

My concern is that, like a ship, there are only a certain number of times you can launch a strategy. It might be worth putting ideology to one side and giving our current Industrial Strategy another thought.

Chris White is the Former MP for Warwick and Leamington and Director of the Institute for Industrial Strategy, King’s College London.