This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/12/theresa-may-ambitious-agenda-contradicts-continuity-candidate-label

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Theresa May's ambitious agenda belies billing as continuity candidate Theresa May's ambitious agenda belies billing as continuity candidate
(35 minutes later)
Theresa May is sometimes described as remote. Yet few incoming prime ministers have flagged up their policy priorities more clearly than May did this week. Her contest of ideas with the Thatcherite Tory leadership candidate Andrea Leadsom lasted barely an hour – from the moment May stood up to deliver her keynote speech in Birmingham on Monday morning to Leadsom’s resignation announcement at noon.Theresa May is sometimes described as remote. Yet few incoming prime ministers have flagged up their policy priorities more clearly than May did this week. Her contest of ideas with the Thatcherite Tory leadership candidate Andrea Leadsom lasted barely an hour – from the moment May stood up to deliver her keynote speech in Birmingham on Monday morning to Leadsom’s resignation announcement at noon.
But an hour was time enough for May to reveal a hugely ambitious agenda that she very deliberately described as “a different kind of Conservatism” and “a break with the past”. And the past from which the new prime minister proposes to break is not the distant past but the recent past, when David Cameron and George Osborne set the country’s course in ways of which May revealed herself this week to be a substantial critic, in a speech whose theme was pointedly “an economy that works for everyone”.But an hour was time enough for May to reveal a hugely ambitious agenda that she very deliberately described as “a different kind of Conservatism” and “a break with the past”. And the past from which the new prime minister proposes to break is not the distant past but the recent past, when David Cameron and George Osborne set the country’s course in ways of which May revealed herself this week to be a substantial critic, in a speech whose theme was pointedly “an economy that works for everyone”.
May’s Birmingham speech was supposed to be the first of several. Now it will have to stand alone as the principal signpost to what a May government intends to do. Brexit is naturally front and centre of that. But the meat of the speech was about economic and business policy. And it set the bar for radical change extremely high, drawing on ideas more associated with Ed Miliband than George Osborne, and owing more to German business models than British ones.May’s Birmingham speech was supposed to be the first of several. Now it will have to stand alone as the principal signpost to what a May government intends to do. Brexit is naturally front and centre of that. But the meat of the speech was about economic and business policy. And it set the bar for radical change extremely high, drawing on ideas more associated with Ed Miliband than George Osborne, and owing more to German business models than British ones.
Her proposals were full of echoes from the pre-Thatcher era of the 1960s and 1970s, when May herself was growing up: industrial strategy, government action to defend important UK sectors such as pharmaceuticals, and a regional strategy involving all regions not just some. But the most important test that May set herself was in business strategy, where she pointed her guns at laissez faire corporate governance and business culture in a way that no Thatcherite like Leadsom would do in 100 years.Her proposals were full of echoes from the pre-Thatcher era of the 1960s and 1970s, when May herself was growing up: industrial strategy, government action to defend important UK sectors such as pharmaceuticals, and a regional strategy involving all regions not just some. But the most important test that May set herself was in business strategy, where she pointed her guns at laissez faire corporate governance and business culture in a way that no Thatcherite like Leadsom would do in 100 years.
May spelled out a succession of targets: bosses who are “drawn from the same narrow social and professional circles” as one another; a pay gap between the executive elite and the workforce that is “irrational, unhealthy and growing”; and cartels in highly consolidated markets such as energy.May spelled out a succession of targets: bosses who are “drawn from the same narrow social and professional circles” as one another; a pay gap between the executive elite and the workforce that is “irrational, unhealthy and growing”; and cartels in highly consolidated markets such as energy.
Her solutions ranged from consumer and employee representation on company boards, to encouragement of mutuals in the public services, to binding shareholder votes on executive pay, and full transparency on bonus targets and pay multiples. There was also a more familiar injunction, very well expressed, on the moral case for taxation – “a duty to put something back … a debt to your fellow citizens … a responsibility to pay your taxes.”Her solutions ranged from consumer and employee representation on company boards, to encouragement of mutuals in the public services, to binding shareholder votes on executive pay, and full transparency on bonus targets and pay multiples. There was also a more familiar injunction, very well expressed, on the moral case for taxation – “a duty to put something back … a debt to your fellow citizens … a responsibility to pay your taxes.”
The standout proposal here is employee representation on boards. May sounded genuinely serious. “If we are going to have an economy that works for everyone, we are going to need to give people more control of their lives. And that means cutting out all the political platitudes about ‘stakeholder societies’ and doing something radical.”The standout proposal here is employee representation on boards. May sounded genuinely serious. “If we are going to have an economy that works for everyone, we are going to need to give people more control of their lives. And that means cutting out all the political platitudes about ‘stakeholder societies’ and doing something radical.”
But seriousness, while very welcome, may not be enough. Changes of this sort will be massively resisted by much of business, accustomed to seeing all obligation as red tape that hurts the bottom line. May will have to build a powerful coalition if she is to get this through.But seriousness, while very welcome, may not be enough. Changes of this sort will be massively resisted by much of business, accustomed to seeing all obligation as red tape that hurts the bottom line. May will have to build a powerful coalition if she is to get this through.
This was language that Thatcherism loathed and from which New Labour often shied away. More recently, Osborne was also cagey and inconsistent about putting business reform centre stage. It is, on the other hand, an agenda that Miliband explored in his one-nation speech in 2012.This was language that Thatcherism loathed and from which New Labour often shied away. More recently, Osborne was also cagey and inconsistent about putting business reform centre stage. It is, on the other hand, an agenda that Miliband explored in his one-nation speech in 2012.
This led ITV News’s Robert Peston to blog on Monday that Miliband was suddenly the “guru of the new Tory party”. Was the woman who once talked about the nasty party sounding close to echoing Miliband’s attack on “predatory capitalism”?” Yet even Miliband did not dare to talk about consumer and employee board level representation as explicitly as May did this week. This led ITV News’s Robert Peston to blog on Monday that Miliband was suddenly the “guru of the new Tory party”. Was the woman who once talked about the nasty party sounding close to echoing Miliband’s attack on “predatory capitalism”? Yet even Miliband did not dare to talk about consumer and employee board level representation as explicitly as May did this week.
In setting the goal of “an economy that works for everyone” – easy to say, harder to do – May in fact is reaching back into British history, to the municipal thinking of Joseph Chamberlain, whom she referenced in her speech, to the industrial partnership Mond-Turner talks that followed the 1926 general strike, and to the 1977 Bullock report on industrial democracy.In setting the goal of “an economy that works for everyone” – easy to say, harder to do – May in fact is reaching back into British history, to the municipal thinking of Joseph Chamberlain, whom she referenced in her speech, to the industrial partnership Mond-Turner talks that followed the 1926 general strike, and to the 1977 Bullock report on industrial democracy.
These were ways not taken in late 20th century Britain, opportunities to build a more responsible capitalist model on postwar German lines, where “codetermination” is compulsory for firms employing 500 workers or more. Bullock recommended something very similar in 1977, and was backed by the CBI of the time. So did May this week. If you thought the new prime minister was the continuity candidate in the Tory party, you may have to think again.These were ways not taken in late 20th century Britain, opportunities to build a more responsible capitalist model on postwar German lines, where “codetermination” is compulsory for firms employing 500 workers or more. Bullock recommended something very similar in 1977, and was backed by the CBI of the time. So did May this week. If you thought the new prime minister was the continuity candidate in the Tory party, you may have to think again.