I appreciate this will be considered off the wall bonkers as an opinion, but there are only two arenas that really matter in the 21st century, that the government must ensure true independence in: tech and biotech. The rest is just meh. I mean the tech and biotech with which this country secures itself. And by independence I mean the sea, not a few muddy rivers – everything from chips to systems, full chains from design to create, in all aspects of hardware and software, computers, communication devices, operating systems, databases, cloud infrastructures etc. The minute you buy black boxes from third parties, where you don’t know what the software, hardware or firmware does, no matter how seemingly benign, you are vulnerable. Potentially catastrophically.

Agree that the UK needs an industrial policy. The question is, can it get people to buy into that policy when Big Business is considered to be evil? I have worked in industry for 45 years and I have seen a few disasters in that time.

1) The first was joining the EU. I admit that joining was a boost for the Finance ‘industry’ in the south-east of England but almost everywhere else suffered. Germany was better organised and was central to the market for most goods. In the UK anywhere away from the south-east was too far away from our only container port, Felixstowe. So, raw materials had to be trucked from the east coast to northern England and Wales and products had to be trucked back to Felixstowe before distribution. In a competitive market, this extra cost was the last straw. Since we joined the EU, the difference in prosperity between the South-east and the North and West has become enormous.

2) Any idea of heavy industry today is going to run straight into the environmental lobby. It’s no use having a policy if every move takes 10 years to get through because everybody loses interest. There are many interpretations of the word, ‘environment’ and people use whichever interpretation suits their ideas. Shall we say the environment with a small ‘e’ might be my personal environment, whereas with a capital ‘E’ means the environment of the world. As soon as any local proposals come along, everybody is against them because they don’t personally want the hassle.

3) Allow me to move onto Wales, which is my area. I know of at least four really good schemes which could have employed several thousands of people, which didn’t get off the ground because governments lacked the will to push them forward. In our world every single person has to have a say. It is like a committee meeting of 40 million people. The talking never ends. Think of the years of discussion surrounding the extra runway at Heathrow.

Minor industries employing 10-20 people are the thing of today but don’t expect them to help us in a big way.

I am being very negative but I don’t think that any government will come up with an industrial policy unless there is a reason to push ahead without a long discussion – like a war.

On the eve of WWI, Winston Churchill bought a controlling stake in the struggling Anglo-Persian Oil (later renamed to British Petroleum) on behalf of the UK government, because he wanted to guarantee supplies, to secure national stretegic interests rather than make a profit. The very same British Petroleum that Margret Thatcher re-privatised in the 1980s. EU level playing field rules would prevent any EU nation from doing what Churchill did. Which I guess is the convoluted point – if no EU nation can get a jump on the others, they are less likely to attempt to roll the tanks in on their neighbours.

Which of course, leaves China and the US rubbing their hands with glee in anticipation.

COVID-19 has shown that “national security” in the widest sense of that term needs to be re-examined and an appropriate policy drawn up. However selling off the national infrastructure is not the issue. Railway lines and power stations cannot be packed up and carted offshore by hostile corporations or foreign governments. Short of military submission a nation state is sovereign in its own territory and can do whatever is necessary to ensure its security. Infrastructure assets can be seized and in times of national emergency the British workforce of that infrastructure is unlikely to down tools in support of the hostile foreign entity.

No, the national security concerns are to do with supply. A detailed study will need to be done but the kind of “assets” that need to be secured can be glimpsed by asking the question “what might bring the country to its knees if we had to go without for say 3 months?” Not cars, not avocados, not even toilet paper (though I would make the case for the soft variety!). It is basic food stuffs; wheat, potatoes, fruit, vegetables, salad and meat. It is energy; oil and gas. It is medical supplies; equipment, consumables, drugs and vaccine. Casting the net wider, it is the supply of raw materials and components for the continuation of activities that form a substantial part of the economy (historically vital but less so now because of our largely service based economy).

These are the assets that need to be secured and to do so is not as difficult as it has been regarded historically. Scientific and technological advances should make it possible for even these crowded islands to produce enough basic foodstuffs to feed the population. The “greening” of our economy almost incidentally brings with it energy security . The case for self sufficiency in medical supplies has more than been made and will be demanded by voters. The supply of raw materials and components is more problematic but appropriate policies in this area would help create a much needed true long term international strategy.

Because UK governments have such a fine track record in selecting and backing successful business?

Problem is there are few votes in long term financial planning. When North Sea Oil appeared the Uk should have set up a sovereign wealth fund and taken long term investment strategies.
But explaining why income tax was the same to a voter -despite oil revenues- would have been a hard sell. So the politicians used the Oil money to pay benefits and day to day costs.
The big problem is universities. By the times graduates emerge they have been fed a diet of Business is wicked and the State is benign . We must start to teach grown up thinking – not fifth form marxism in our centres of learning.

One of the selling points of the EU is that industry can be placed in the most efficient geography for the benefit of the whole. However, that means whole industrial sectors are extinguished in uncompetitive areas. So called “big business” has no interest in maintaining inefficiency as it impacts profits. Consequently they will always argue for no borders and cheap locations. One of the underlying trends in modern politics is the resurgence of Nationalism which has arisen to push back against the gutting of domestic industries for multinational profits. However, it is difficult to remain competitive against cheaper locations without Government intervention within a industrial strategy. That is why the EU is keen to stop UK Government subsidising industries. Every action has a reaction and life is the balance between them.

So what the author is saying is just give (throw?) away huge amounts of money to an organisation founded by Oxford University , Imperial College London and London School for Tropical Medicine without any understanding of its cost base or accountability. A quick look at their website and I would question the need for a “Design & Image Consultant” (no doubt highly paid) in the development of vaccines. So what else will the money be squandered on other than lining the pockets of overpaid executives, academics and academia? Unaccountability = inefficiency, waste and corruption. Do organisations such as this ever publish audited accounts

The trouble is that governments are hopeless at running industries, or even knowing which industries to try to run. As a wise old civil servant remarked to me a few years ago: “Sovereigns are not commercial.” The more pertinent question is why British private investors are so reluctant to take risks investing in the real world.

Good grief! U.K. State to take control of commanding heights of the economy??? You must be joking. Take U.K. North Sea oil and gas – fully developed entirely by private capital – and returned well in excess of £340 billion in production and corporation taxes alone to HMRC. What did our politicians do with that colossal fortune??You think a State monopoly could have done better?? Time to grow up and smell the coffee.

Consider the plight of our under resourced, over stretched, under performing, overly bureaucratic state monopoly of a health service. We need to complement it’s essential
Core functions – but not from the tax base, which is too small, but by opening gates to private industry to grow and compete ( and hence reduce the strain on NHS). Grow the cake for goodness sake don’t shrink it through ridiculous talk of nationalisation.