It’s telling that the chancellor failed to mention ‘manufacturing’ once in his Autumn Statement

The re-balancing of the economy which Osborne promised has been all but abandoned.

The dust is settling on chancellor Osborne’s Autumn Statement. The initial reaction from the right-wing media was that Boy George had set a course for an election victory.

The chancellor himself played up the hype with statements that the economy was on course for sustained growth, good jobs would be created (to reaffirm that a quick photo opportunity was made to JCB where new jobs were being announced – which had been signaled months ago) and that all the pain would be worth it.

It is clear the mantra is being stuck to. Lynton Crosby will no doubt have reminded him to say it often enough and hope people will believe it.

However, a number of things are clear: Austerity is here to stay and it will get tougher; living standards will continue to fall despite upwards revisions to GDP growth; average earnings growth forecasts have been revised down for next year and until 2017 (so the cost of living crisis will get worse); and welfare benefits will be hit.

The Tories will also probably try to introduce policies they never dreamed that they could get away with in the past – all in the name of ‘aiding the recovery’.

Also clear is that the re-balancing of the economy which Osborne said would be a priority –  by strengthening our manufacturing base – has all but been abandoned in favour of growth through credit, the spending of savings and another housing bubble.

The warnings of failing to establish a strong manufacturing base are being ignored. Lord Heseltine’s report on developing a strong industrial policy ‘No Stone Unturned’ appears to remain on a Westminster shelf somewhere.

The chancellor failed to mention the word ‘manufacturing’ once in his entire statement and only mentioned ‘industry’ when referring to the insurance sector.

He also failed to address concerns that the heavy energy-use sectors – which employers and unions have campaigned on, namely high energy costs in steel, paper, ceramics, glass etc. This means these sectors will continue to be disadvantaged against other European countries – for example UK energy prices will remain 50 per cent higher than Germany and France.

And while the commitment to provide funding for around 20,000 apprenticeships and to increase the number of engineering graduates is welcome, this is tinkering with the system. It also remains to be seen how many companies will respond to the initiative of cutting NICs for companies who take on under 21 year olds.

And the chancellor failed to tackle business investment, which remains 24 per cent below 2008 levels.

Overall the Autumn Statement failed to address the underlying need to take concrete steps to re-balance the economy. It was another short-term mixture of halfhearted measures, fingers crossed and hope for the best.

Meanwhile the cost of living escalates, workers face pay freezes, but for the City it is ‘back to the future’. Meanwhile the statement was another missed opportunity for the chancellor to demonstrate that this is a manufacturing-led economic recovery.

Its fine that Labour responded by pointing out that the Statement was all ‘smoke and mirrors’, but Ed Miliband and Ed Balls need to hammer home the need for sustainable manufacturing led growth strategy.

Unite has set out its proposals for re-balancing the economy to develop a strong manufacturing base in our document ‘Made In Britain’, which can be downloaded from the Unite website.

Like this article? Sign up to Left Foot Forward's weekday email for the latest progressive news and comment - and support campaigning journalism by making a donation today.

19 Responses to “It’s telling that the chancellor failed to mention ‘manufacturing’ once in his Autumn Statement”

  1. LB

    It’s even more telling that no Labour party member ever mentions the pensions debts.

  2. blarg1987

    Hard to define what they are when even your own data admits there are to many factors to pension liabilities that any approximation is rough only.

    Also just to clarify state pensions have been around since 1949. So you have had 54 years to raise how unaffordable it is in your view. So why only mention it in the last several years?

  3. LB

    7,000 bn is an underestimate.

    The reason is they assume a 3% discount rate. They apply that to the liabilities.

    That means that they are assuming that the liabilities shrink at 3%.

    Instead the liabilities are subject to the triple lock and are growing at 2.5% at a minimum.

    The reason why its important can be seen in the last week.

    The state is planning on another default by raising the retirement age.

    Ed Balls is planning on a complete default for certain people, people who have saved and for civil servants. Neither group will get a state pension.

    If you think that’s a good idea, you’ll be next.

    Then the poor won’t get a pension.

  4. blarg1987

    Correction 64 years.

  5. LB

    More to the point.

    Why haven’t you said anything about the debt?

    Is it because you are in receipt of the payments?

    For example a civil servant.

    ie. Are you covering up so you can profit.

    Must be the case or you would have said something earlier.

  6. blarg1987

    Simple i have not been alive for 64 years, and no I do not work for the civil service or any goverment department.

    Now your turn, are you in the paymaster of hedge funds or financial institutions who would gain commision if all goverment pensions were put on the stock market as you keep preaching?

    And why have you not said anything?

  7. blarg1987

    I am no genuis but, even if they are growing conservatively at 3% per annum, that is still alot less then 730 bn you keep preaching it has grown by in the last year.

    Also backtracjing the figures would mean it suddenly happeend over the last decade, which I am no genius but does not make sense. So unless we suddenly had an influx of over 65’s in the last decade those figures seem a little questionable.

  8. blarg1987

    Or would any investment you made (not including state pension) in the stock market greatly increase if the goverment invested peoples pensions in the stock market, creating demand and in effect another pnzi scheme just like what happened in 29 or how would you ensure a repeat would not happen?

  9. LB

    Now your turn, are you in the paymaster of hedge funds or financial institutions


    However, would I gain if my money was invested? You bet.

    So would someone on median wage. They would get a fund of 830,000 pounds compared to 150K (before the latest cut).

    Even a min wage earner would be better off.

    So you haven’t answered the question.

    Why have you kept your mouth shut about the debt?

  10. blarg1987

    please fere to note 1 – I have not been alive since the state pension first started, and to expand on it, I can not make a reasonable judgement as the data is not consistant and is questionable.

    So why have you only preached about this for the last few years when the state pension has been around for 64 years and had decades to mention the problem you believe to exist.

  11. swatnan

    In the old days Britain made stuff; These days we just make money, in the City.

  12. LB

    So what evidence do you have that the ONS, IFS and myself are wrong?

    The reason for the large increase is that they changed the rate at which they thought the debts would DECREASE.

    They haven’t DECREASED they have increased at 2.5% minimum.

    So they are still underestimating but by a little less.

    So it still holds, the debt increased by 730 bn a year, 2005 to 2010, according to the ONS.

    So what is your number for the debt and the methodology? Or is it that you realise what the key problem is?

    ie. You’re like those old east German communists who kept claiming that the wall was to protect the citizen from the evil of the west, when we know that they were just oppressing and killing their citizens.

    In the same way you have a desire to stop people knowing that their pensions contributions won’t get them a pension.

    No real difference. In both cases, people are going to be killed. Lack of heating, no food in the case of UK pensioners.

  13. blarg1987

    Well as I said earlier, all methodologies have admitted it is impossible to get an exact number and figure and they are rough estimates at best as their are to many variables to work out the exact figure.

    It still does not hold water that if debts increase at 2.5 % the figure jumps by 10%.

    The difference is in methodolgy then it should be back tracked from the original data e.g. 1949 not 2005, as anyone can simply go right I am doing a new methodology of measurement and deciding to do it from a year ago and then blame whoever was responsible at the time if the figures look bad rather then doing a methodology of going back to the start of a proposed system.

    As a person who complains about facts and figures, I am suprised you have not demanded this to happen in the first instance.

    And again, you did not say why you did not mention this before as you have had 64 years to tell everyone if you believe it is as bad as you believe it to be.

  14. Charlie East-West

    Why another financial crisis is inevitable…

  15. Peter Wild

    He believes in manufacturing:

    manufacturing lies
    manufacturing statistics
    manufacturing consent
    manufacturing party donations
    manufacturing immigration scares

  16. LB

    So go then, answer the question.

    What’s owed to the nearest one trillion?

    ONS put the number to 7 trillion for pensions. From the article you referenced.

    What does the figure in 1949 matter one iota? It matters what the debt is now. It’s 7,000 bn for pensions.

    The past is irrelevant, its what it is now.

    It still does not hold water that if debts increase at 2.5 % the figure jumps by 10%.


    Yes it does. If you assume debts were shrinking at 5%, and then assumed they were shrinking at 3%, the debt reported goes up.

    However, given the debt is increasing at 2.5% min, they are still under reporting like mad the real debt.

    Not that you would get that.

    Not that you get that the consequences are dire. The poor you alledgedly want to help are going to be fucked. It’s started. Bedroom tax? So what? How do you compare that with no bedroom and out on the street. If you can’t pay the rent, then you are out. If you don’t get a pension, what are you going to eat? You’re screwed.

    That’s what a debt at 8,200 bn gets you.

  17. blarg1987

    I have answered your question please see above. Now again you have had 64 years to mention this concern, why do you only mention this is the past several years if it is such a concern to you?

    To say it does not matter what the debt was in 1949 just shows the doublee standards in your argument, as you are monaing about the debt we have now.

  18. Wye Valley

    Good Formation of article to read.. Thanks for the updation

  19. Flexible Ducting

    Good article.. thanks for sharing it..

Leave a Reply