The two minds of Gordon Brown
Town & Country Planning, January 2005
It used to be said, about the old Soviet Union, and similar benighted regimes, that citizens fell into the habit of interpreting their media rather than believing exactly what it said.
It wasn’t that they believed the opposite, as it used to be said. It was just that they asked themselves why the regime wanted them to believe this particular snippet at this time, and drew conclusions from that.
I find myself using similar skills these days about the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, and – as I write – about the sad affair of Blunkett & Quinn, both the individuals apparently now the helpless victims of the damaging leaks of each other’s ‘friends’.
But how would you read, for example, the front page story about the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s complaints about how other European Union countries are failing to abide by the letter of European procurement rules?
The basics of the speech went like this: while British cities stick to the rules and accept bids from all over the EU for their procurement contracts, Johnny Foreigner does not. Similar stories are trotted out against the EU in most of its member nations, in fact.
Why is this a little strange? Because, on the one hand of course, Brown could do with front page stories in the Times as he achieved with this speech. And, there is no doubt that he would also like ammunition against his EU counterparts, and to appear a little more attractive in the eyes of the beer-gutted – if their party spokespeople are any guide – UKIP voting population.
Yet on the other hand, the Treasury has actually been one of the driving forces of the so-called ‘New Localism’ – backing tax credits for community investment, for example – and there is no doubt that this sudden veering towards the UKIP agenda does fly in the face of one of the central tenets of the new localism.
Because it isn’t just wild green think-tanks these days that believe local procurement is important for cities trying to regenerate themselves, as well as for the environment (less trucking) and for health (more fresh food). In some of its various moods, the Treasury understands the importance of this as well as anybody.
Yet if every European city obsessively sourced their goods and services from right across the EU, none of the benefits of keeping money flowing locally – of import replacement, the way cities have regenerated themselves for centuries – would be possible.
In fact, all the evidence is that it makes sense, economically and environmentally, for cities to source the expertise and goods they need from as near to them as possible.
There may be circumstances where a local authority might want to source expertise from further afield, and that is their right. But a system which denies them the right to give greater weight to local business – and thereby keep money circulating around their local economy – is doomed to unravel in the grossest inequalities.
Of course we also need some kind of mechanism for redistribution to prevent islands of wealth emerging, but still l ocal money flows, and their maintenance, are the key to the revival of failing cities and neighbourhoods.
Or does the Treasury want the alternative, which means that money drains out of failing local economies, leaving no medium of exchange to bring together needs and resources – and increasing the pressure for hefty central government pay-outs.
That is a recipe for poverty and ultimately for the kind of disaffection and cynicism that leads to fascism.
The question of whether local procurement was actually legal under EU rules has been open for some time, but a recent test case in Helsinki over a bus contract shows unambiguously that it is.
So for goodness sake, Gordon: don’t complain when European cities source food or expertise or goods locally when they want to. That is the sustainable way.
