A tale of two Eds.

Photograph: Jonathan Straight

Recently I attended the Inclusive Prosperity Conference at the Science Museum in London. The invite came from The Labour Party and the conference was presented by Policy Network, a think tank with an obvious lean to the left.


I'm not a Labour supporter - at the moment I don't think I'm actually a supporter of anyone - but I was interested in the parts of the conference about fairness in business. One thing I passionately believe in is that business should be a force for good in society and I was keen to hear what was being proposed.

The venue was a interesting choice. I must have walked two miles to the pre-conference refreshments. Water was strangely kept hidden under the table - God only knows what else was secreted under there - and we ate and drank in almost complete darkness. Soon we were ushered in. It struck me that no one had asked who I was or even if I was registered to attend. No one checked that I had left my weapons at home. Very trusting the opposition party!


In we went. And there he was. Ed Balls. I like Ed Balls although his politics scare me a little ... well a lot actually. Ed is the only Leeds MP who replies to invitations, generally to decline, but at least he replies. Whenever I see Ed Balls I still hear Eamon Holmes' voice saying those classic words once uttered on Sky News, "Ed Balls, a man who sometimes talks what his name says."


Ed made no grand entrance, he just appeared and introduced Lord David Sainsbury. Sainsbury stood looking down and read from a script. Industry knows nothing about the Labour Party, he claimed. Possibly true, but then perhaps the Labour Party known nothing about industry either. There was a lot of rambling about the lack of infrastructure and a need to move to the supply of higher value goods (but one has to assume that these goods will not find their way into his supermarkets). He said that entrepreneurs should be "applauded and richly rewarded." We should be considered heroes, not like the "exploiting investors" who were "rigging the market". Wow.  


Having set the tone, Ed returned to introduce the first of several panels to present that day. Maggie Philbin, yes her off the Multi Coloured Swap Shop, her who used to be married to Cheggers and now telling us that eleven million people can't send an email. Probably around the same number who can't read. Balls stood to the side looking on, his left hand deep in his pocket. Yes, you know what I was thinking...


We then had Lord Adonis tell us that the Science Museum had been built in 1857 with the profits from the Great Exhibition, "so we can do it!" he quipped. But that was more than 150 years ago and certainly wasn't under a Labour government, now was it?


The debate continued. We need more maths and science teachers, enterprise and employment directors in schools, more apprenticeships, more universities, more innovation centres. And all of this would be achieved by a "strong collaborative effort".  Quite a shopping list, but what exactly is the "collaborative" bit all about? Who is going to pay for all of this? Well, you and me of course. By "collaborating".


Balls then introduced what he called the "Highlight of the Day" and we hadn't even had lunch yet. It was Labour leader Ed Milliband. He did make an entrance, at least from the front row where he was sitting. Bless him, he looked so young, so earnest, a bit like he was making his Barmitzvah speech. He had been to an air conditioning factory in Leeds which had burned down, the irony completely lost on him. He could have done us all a favour perhaps and brought some air conditioning back with him - it was a hot day. 

So, here it came. There was a crisis of trust, there was a cost of living crisis, there were deep challenges, the financial crisis had exposed problems and the solutions were not going to come from the recovery alone. No, we had to create highly skilled, high paying jobs. We had to reform government and the market. We had to win the "race to the top". 

Still with me? Here is some more detail. 

The 50% who currently do not go into higher education will have that education. Everyone will study English and Maths to age 18 and employers will decide how the money (what money?) is spent.

Budgets will be decentralized with £30 billion moved to the regions. (Hang on that is less than 5% of spending ...)

Short termism will be outlawed with the abolition of quarterly reporting and a change (unspecified) to the rules on takeovers. A Labour Government would be pro-competition, would stay in the EU and would be pro immigration - but not where this would lead to a race to the bottom for wages. (No need, they did that last time).

He spoke with confidence and conviction. He walked the walk, he talked the talk. But he never said how he would pay for any of this, yet alone all of it. This was playing on my mind thoughout.

He then took questions confidently and adeptly from the audience but studiously ignored me despite the fact I was sitting directly in front of him. Probably he could smell an infiltrator and left well alone. He claimed that he wanted questions from business owners and entrepreneurs but what he got was questions from people running charities; pressure groups; advisory groups; representative organisations of one kind or another - all trying to push their unique outlook on the world onto the aspiring Prime Minister.

Surprisingly, no one asked how this was going to be paid for. Or maybe this was not so surprising as perhaps it did not need to be discussed. I was in the company of the political left, money no object, especially when it is someone else's money. Just a knowing wink and a tap in the side of the nose. Nothing further needed to be said.

They almost pulled it off, they almost had us all fooled. Then up stepped Lord Liddle, the Chair of Policy Network. (You know what side of the political divide you are on when people start using pieces of furniture for their title). He patiently informed us that if what we were looking for as business  leaders was government off our back and lower taxes then we would not be very interested in what Mr Milliband had to say. 

So there it was, the cat out of the bag. The clear implication being that voting for Mr M will mean government all over our backs and higher taxes all round. 

Same old, same old.