As if to make up for decades of electoral estrangement from all but the cosiest parts of Coutts and Cartier country Cheshire, the Tories (with the help of Nick Clegg) have announced a series of initiatives to boost the supposedly humdrum economies of our great northern cities.
In this post-indyref political landscape, the party is pursuing the provinces in search of electoral gains; with ‘HS3’ and TechNorth both earmarked as vote-winning peace offerings to the north, it appears that an attempt at reconciliation with the vast expanse between the Mersey and the Tyne is under way.
While seemingly attractive, forward-thinking industrial policies on paper, on closer inspection it is argued that each is as empty and as meaningless as Oasis lyrics – nothing but frothy vanity projects in an age of latte-fuelled capitalism, some might say.
For the north’s economic problems do not stem from a lack of tech-startups or an inability to cross the Pennines at lightning-quick speed; they are borne of successive crises of capitalism, each of which leaving behind their own uncompromising legacy.
Unemployment, underemployment, and falling living standards have been pervasive features of north economic life for decades, and it these three issues that the Tories will be judged on yet again in the polls next year. So while it’s certain that the problems haven’t really changed, nor have the solutions if either of these flagship announcements are anything to go by.
Successive governments have tried to solve the north’s problems through blind, naïve attempts at modernisation, informed by the churlish and discourteous perception of the north as an economic backwater.
Whereas Thatcher defeated the unions and killed traditional industries in order to drag the north kicking and screaming into the new economy, years later Labour rekindled the north’s feelgood factor by establishing it as the capital of Cool Britannia.
By enabling us to consume conspicuously and by introducing café culture to the birthplace of the industrial revolution, it seemed for a while that things could only get better, but of course this proved to be a mere sticking plaster, simply delaying the crisis that loomed on the horizon.
Which brings us to 2014, where tech-clusters and high-speed trains are on the menu, attracting all the cachet associated with dynamic entrepreneurial economies on the up, they are the latest in a long line of optimistic modernising visions for the north.
But will they be successful?
Despite the early optimism, it’s uncertain whether or not TechNorth will actually deliver the prosperity that politicians have promised.
Academic research suggests that it is a fine balancing act, creating a high-growth high-technology cluster that generates large numbers of sustainable, long-term job opportunities. This is because it is common for clusters to experience a rapid growth spurt, followed by steep decline, meaning that any initial economic benefits may be short-lived.
Probably more worrying though is a passage in the proposal’s press release, which describes TechNorth as a ‘virtual’ cluster.
Traditionally, a firm in a cluster is understood as having a ‘competitive advantage’ because physical proximity to other specialist organisations helps it to develop innovative new products. There is disagreement over the distance that the positive effects of clustering actually extend to, however, meaning that the generation of synergetic ‘cluster effects’ (as they are commonly understood) between firms in Manchester and firms in Newcastle for example could prove difficult.
As for HS3, apart from the fact that it doesn’t directly solve common passenger complaints about expensive fares and overcrowding on existing services, it also neglects key academic evidence regarding commuter behaviour.
When justifying a longer or more expensive commute, workers will generally seek higher wages in order to compensate for their loss of leisure time. This means that the government’s hope of significantly increasing commuter numbers between Manchester and Leeds is only realistic if wages rise in accordance.
All things considered, it seems a risk that both HS3 and TechNorth should be pursued in light of these potentialities. And given the infrastructure costs involved in the former and the loss of tax revenues needed to get the latter off the ground, you cant help but think that less glamorous options which don’t rely so heavily on trickle down economics might’ve been a better bet.
Oh well, at least train journeys through the beautiful backbone of England will pass us by in a flash!
- Kye Parkin is a PhD candidate at the University of Bath School of Management
