THE NEW BRITISH (AND US) ECONOMIC DISEASE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_exports 

The British are fond of blaming Europe for regulations which hamper British competitiveness. Environmental legislation is an increasingly popular target for Conservative politicians, and even more so for the United Kingdom Independence Party. Similarly, I note that there are many in the United States who like to blame increasing regulation to protect the environment for the country's declining status as an exporter. In this context, the above link to Wikipedia's "list of countries by net exports", based on World Trade Organisation data, should help reframe the issue of national export competitiveness. For it is, in fact, the European Union which is the world's largest net exporter, due largely to the success of Germany which comes second, followed by China. The US and the UK, on the other hand, are the first and second largest net importers in the world. From a domestic perspective - I have not visited the US for many years - this status now constitutes a "British Disease" as much as the malady of that name in the 1970s. According to an article on the German www.zum.de website the original "British Disease refers to the low industrial productivity and frequent labor strifes that plagued Britain in the 1960s and 1970s".* This earlier malady required  transformational government, of the kind I do not yet see any prospect of in the UK, or the United States for that matter. This is a real problem because, I would argue, many of the transformations that have occurred since the 1970s now need to be reversed. 

 * Full article http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/changhyun/Thatcher70s2.html

SAVING MONEY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Some recent virtual exchanges have encouraged me to ponder the question: "What 's the point of environmentalism?"; and I shall, hopefully with some humour, post on this subject shortly. In the meantime, I'm going to suggest that one function of environmentalism, based upon my own experience, is to help governments, commercial businesses and individuals save money. Over the nearly 30 years I have been professionally involved with planning and environmental issues, the financial stakes have often been high. As a consequence, I have directly helped save the exchequer at least £0.5 billion, and probably prevented one major corporate bankruptcy. Whilst this may be relatively small beer in an age of "Big Banking" and public sector  profligacy (yes, I'm afraid it still goes on!), for most people and businesses (most being small) this is a very large sum of money.

The much greater sums of public money required for the proposed new HS2 high speed rail link are now increasingly being called in to question, with the Institute of Directors being the latest organisation to challenge the project's economic value and financial viability. However, such objections have been around since the proposal first surfaced under the previous government. That it did so without a full appraisal of possible alternative options for increasing rail capacity and improving the wider UK transport network is simply testimony to the flawed project management culture of many public institutions, in this case the Department for Transport. Again in my experience, environmental objections to major projects, or portfolios, have often served to highlight the weakness of the planning and appraisal process, which frequently overlooks a number of key issues. This has certainly happened with HS2, where those whose objections are primarily environmental have done a sterling job in highlighting other flaws associated with the proposal.

LABOUR'S NEW OUTBREAK OF COMMON SENSE?

I've enjoyed reading the early conspiracy thrillers of Eric Ambler over the summer. A twentieth century novelist of the sensible Left, Ambler writes in straightforward and unpretentious style which may be one of the reasons why his work is experiencing a comeback.

Ambler's novels are full of shysters - defined in the Wikipedia as "someone who acts in a disreputable, unethical, or unscrupulous way, especially in the practice of law, politics or business." This may be another reason why his novels speaks to the present age.

This brings me to the subject of the British Labour Party. The biggest challenges for Ed Miliband, I would suggest, will be to demonstrate that he also belongs to the sensible Left and that he can keep the shysters at bay. Labour also needs to encourage a straightforward and unpretentious public discourse, even if this has become alien to modern British political culture.

Although it is still early days, there seems to be some evidence that the party could renew itself along these lines. On the national scene, recent straight-talking on the proposed high speed rail link between London and the north of England, notwithstanding that Labour came up with this idea in the first place, is to be applauded.

Similarly in my local area of Worcester, a Labour-run coalition involving the Lib-Dems and Greens has started to make sensible-sounding proposals to re-prioritise urban regeneration and sustainable transport planning. Let's just hope the shysters don't derail these!

Returning to the novels of Eric Ambler, these have another lesson for the contemporary British Labour Party: the need for an objective national understanding of international politics, particularly those of Europe. I may be over-optimistic, but it strikes me that this is something which a Labour-led coalition government might just be able to deliver.

PS. Since my posting, a fellow participant in the recent Coursera Introduction to the Law of the EU The Law of the European Union: An Introduction | Coursera has provided the following link to an article in the New York Times about Britain's relationship with Europe: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/opinion/cohen-britains-brussels-syndrome.html?hp&_r=0