What Adrian Smith got wrong last night

How practical is a cross-party consensus on science?

Last night I was at the Royal Society for an evening of “Labs to Riches”. The theme was the society’s work to support the translation of science into technology. I discovered that, with the help of some Venusian dust, manufacturers could knock £1000 off the price of your next car. Also, Adrian Smith, the president of the society, gave a speech. 

Smith’s short speech was rooted in pragmatism, including a pragmatic acknowledgement of the difficulties the UK has in commercialisation. And it is in terms of pragmatism that I want to consider one of the ideas he endorsed, that of a “cross-party consensus on science”. 

This is an idea that I have seen come from David Willetts and Greg Clarke (both of whom were in the room). I have a lot of time for the two Conservatives. As ministers, both made some positive moves towards the thing whose absence stops the UK from effectively exploiting the kind of brilliant science that makes you an FRS, namely an industrial strategy. Both have stayed in this space years later and made sincere contributions to the debate.

And I can see the attractiveness of the idea. It would be great if we had a cross-party consensus on science, its funding, its priorities and the need for an industrial strategy. Furthermore, there are signs of interest in both parties–witness the lengthy set of proposals jointly brought forward by Tony Blair and William Hague a year ago. The problem is practicality. 

To glimpse the problem, turn to an article by Greg Clarke in the recent special issue of the IPPR Review on industrial strategy. Here he points out that the words “industrial strategy” have yet to pass the lips of the Prime Minister. What is Rishi Sunak’s problem?

Sunak’s problem is politics. While there is a Hague-Willetts-Clarke faction in his party on industrial strategy (call it HWC), there is also a Sajid Javid-Kwasi Kwarteng-Liz Truss faction (JKT). Looking back over the period since 2010 when the Conservatives got back into Number 10, it can be seen that whatever progress HWC made at times towards an industrial strategy was then undone by JKT. 

JKT does not openly declare its opposition to any kind of industrial strategy. And, unlike Willets and Clarke last night, it doesn’t bother going to events at the Royal Society. Such moves would be self-defeating in exposing the intellectual poverty of their position. Instead, through the ministerial merry-go-round, JKT simply undoes any moves towards an industrial strategy from time to time, an approach that for 14 years has proved highly effective in preventing the UK in fact developing such a thing. 

Thus what is on offer is not really a cross-party consensus on science. Rather, it is a consensus between the Labour Party and half of the Conservative Party. And this destroys the key advantage of such an agreement–stability. 

In the circumstances, Peter Kyle (not in the room last night) has already gone a long way to creating stability by committing Labour to 10-year funding plans for science. A cross-party consensus cannot in fact deliver anything more substantial. 

So I understand Adrian Smith’s enthusiasm for the idea. It is seductively attractive. But in the end it is simply impractical.