As President of the Board of Trade in the 1990s, Michael Heseltine famously declared his intention to intervene "before breakfast, lunch, tea and dinner" to support British business. And this is not a bad description of today's King's Speech, the first under a Labour government for 14 years (technically, the first since 1950).
From energy policy (establishing Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power company) to trains (renationalisation) and planning reform (build, build, build), this is a government seeking to pull all the levers available to it in pursuit of economic growth. Well, all except one.
Now, in case you couldn't tell by the horse drawn carriage, shiny crown and door slammed shut in Black Rod's face, the State Opening of Parliament is high on theatrics. It is not a Budget, nor an exhaustive list of what the government will and will not do. But it does provide a window into a government's priorities. And this new administration desires — at the very least — to look busy.
And that means banning exploitative zero hour contracts. Restricting advertising of junk food to children. Establishing an Industrial Strategy Council. Removing the right of the last remaining hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. Legislating on artificial intelligence. Devolving power. Even buses got a mention!
What we did not get, nor did we expect, was a turning on of the money taps. First, because as stated previously, this is not a budget or spending review. But second, because this is not 1997. As Theo Bertram, director at the Social Market Foundation (and former advisor to New Labour) put it:
"This is a markedly different way of sharing the proceeds of growth than the Labour governments of Tony Blair or Gordon Brown. This is partly forced upon the government by economic circumstance: Chancellor Rachel Reeves simply does not have money to spend. But this is also partly a clear choice. Not only are Starmer and Reeves determined to show they are serious about fiscal discipline, they also believe that growth - and the fair distribution of that growth - will solve the challenges of poverty and inequality."
The question is, will it? Will building 1.5 million homes in five years, even if achieved, really precipitate a return to pre-2008 levels of GDP and productivity growth? And in doing so, generate the tax receipts the Exchequer requires to reinvest into creaking public services?
Writing in the Financial Times last week, the economist Daniel Susskind suggested that it is not simply big shiny infrastructure projects — important as they are — that deliver sustainable economic growth. I mean, see China's recent economic difficulties for evidence of that. Instead, Susskind suggests it is intangible ideas and relentless technological progress that is the better bet. Unfortunately, these are also much harder to direct from Whitehall.
This is not a reason to give up on building the new homes, reservoirs and train lines this country clearly needs. Just that it may not do as much to boost growth and ultimately living standards as less heralded ventures such as R&D and investment in new technologies. Still, it's a start.
