|
Bernie Ecclestone, Lakshmi Mittal, Paul Grayson: Labour has been so effective at snuggling up to business since 1997 that it has managed to get itself embroiled in the kinds of cash-for-access scandals that were once the preserve of the Tory party.
Winning over doubters in the business world was key to the long, slow transformation that brought Labour into power: but with another election just months away, the government can no longer take the confidence of the money men for granted.
It started with seafood. 'Never have so many crustaceans died in vain,' Michael Heseltine quipped at the height of then shadow chancellor John Smith's 'prawn cocktail offensive', in which he whirled around the Square Mile trying to convince traditionally Tory-supporting bankers, brokers and directors that he wouldn't threaten their prosperity. Labour went on to lose its fourth successive election in 1992, stung by Tory charges that it was about to drop a 'tax bomb' on middle England.
But that was before Black Wednesday, in September that year, when Norman Lamont ramped up interest rates to 15 per cent in a vain attempt to prop up the pound against the Deutschmark, and wiped out the Tories' hard-won reputation for economic management at a stroke. Labour was handed the opportunity it had longed for, to take over as the party business could trust.
Handing independence to the Bank of England as soon as he arrived in the Treasury in May 1997 is still viewed as Gordon Brown's master-stroke, bringing him an immediate credibility windfall, as the markets bet that borrowing costs would probably be lower once rate-setting was divorced from politics.
Stephen Alambritis, spokesman for the Federation of Small Businesses, says Brown is still reaping the political benefits of that early decision, and the stable economic environment it helped to create. 'There is a concern about the cumulative effects of regulation, but that is being cushioned by the low interest rates,' he says.
Graeme Leach, chief economist at the Institute of Directors, agrees. 'On the economic policy front, his best decision was his first decision,' he says.
Over time, though, businesses have begun to take the more stable macroeconomic framework for granted, and quibbles about Labour's interventionist policies in other areas have begun to get louder. 'It's a very regulating government, it's a very interfering government,' says Digby Jones, director-general of the CBI. 'They regulate first, and they ask questions second. I wish occasionally they would reward ministers for doing nothing. That would be refreshing!'
Leach at the IoD agrees. 'Survey after survey of our members shows that regulation is a major issue. And Brown's tax and spend policy is the wrong way around - you've got to get the system working effectively first; then you put more money in.'
'Tax and spend' is a label the Brown Treasury has fought hard to avoid. It was very proud of the public consensus it consciously tried to build in the run-up to the 2002 Budget - that improving the NHS was a goal worth paying extra for. But the consensus never really stretched as far as businesses.
The CBI and other groups reacted angrily to the announcement that firms' national insurance contributions would rise. They thought they had a close working relationship with the Treasury, and were delighted with measures such as research and development tax credits; but the £4 billion rise in employer NICs came as a bolt from the blue. Iain Vallance, the outgoing CBI president, accused Labour at the time of 'cutting open the goose that lays the golden egg'.
'Too much red tape' has long been a gripe of businesses, but Ruth Lea, of the right-wing Centre for Policy Studies, says firms don't like being used as tools to further other government aims.
She singles out Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt, who mooted the idea of a year's paid statutory maternity leave last Monday. 'The gloves are off,' Lea says. 'Whatever [Hewitt] might have said in the past, what she's really about is social engineering.'
Martin Temple, director-general of the Engineering Employers' Federation, is also concerned about the weight of legislation on his members, many of whom are small businesses. 'The economy has been better than we expected, but the cost of government has been an issue, and remains an issue.' He points to energy costs, employment legislation and pensions as areas for complaint.
Pensions policy has become a political minefield for Brown. With the dotcom boom in full swing, his decision in 1997 to prevent pension funds from claiming back the tax they paid on share dividends elicited barely a whimper from the markets. Its laudable aim was to persuade companies to reinvest their profits, instead of facing pressure from shareholders to pay them out as dividends.
But once the market started to turn down, opening up giant black holes in many corporate pension funds, things looked very different. City investors now blame the £5bn-a-year increase in pen sion funds' tax bills for exacerbating the funding shortfalls in many of Britain's corporate pension funds - and the lacklustre performance of the FTSE in recent years.
Vince Cable, the Lib-Dem Treasury spokesman, says pensions policy, and in particular the removal of tax relief, is at the heart of City suspicions about Labour. 'It was a catalyst,' he says. 'What stuck in the craw was the spectacular naivete that the stock market bubble would go on for ever and they could just take money out of it.'
Now, he says, 'there are massive worries about long-term pensions. I think there's a feeling that the current system isn't working, and can't be made to work.'
The complex system of means-tested benefits for the elderly is aimed at giving most help to the poorest; but the financial institutions complain that it discourages saving, and consumers don't understand how it works.
Beefed-up City regulation, led by the FSA, is another bugbear. When the Bank of England was in charge of banking regulation, it was seen as batting for the City, giving it a voice in government. The FSA is seen as meddling. 'It's a very, very intrusive regime,' says one City analyst. Callum McCarthy, the FSA's chairman, received a less-than-warm reception when he addressed the City banquet at the Mansion House last week.
Notwithstanding the long list of niggles, however, there are still two great bulwarks that have prevented Labour's business support from ebbing away. The first is the strong, stable performance of the economy: unemployment remains at its lowest level for a generation, and Brown avoided the recessions that hit the US and much of the eurozone after the post 11 September stock market crash.
More important, though, is the fact that the Tories still aren't seen as fully credible. Appointing a 'shadow secretary of state for deregulation' is an attempt to tap into business anxieties about Labour; but John Redwood is not the most hard-hitting political performer. And until the Tories can promise business a regime they think would be more to their advantage, they're unlikely to swing their weight - and their cash - behind electing Howard and his team.
As one insider put it when asked about the City's relationship with Labour last week: 'The honeymoon finished long ago. We've had the divorce, but it's being followed by a long period of celibacy.'
How six key Number 11 decisions went down with business
May 1997: Bank of England independence.
Brown hands power to set interest rates to a new
Monetary Policy Committee.
Business verdict: Universal applause. Independent
monetary policy is seen as one of the key factors
that has underpinned the economy since 1997.
July 1997: In his first full Budget, Brown
announces that pension funds will no longer be
able to reclaim tax on share dividends.
Business verdict: At the time, indifference; more
recently, fury. The ?5 billion-a-year extra cost is
blamed for exacerbating what has become
known as the 'pensions crisis'. But the Treasury
points out it was part of a pro-business package
that also included a 2 per cent cut in corporation
tax.
April 1999: National minimum wage comes into
force.
Business verdict: Suspicion, giving way to relief.
Predictions of resultant job losses fail to
materialise, partly because the wage is set lower
than unions had hoped, at ?3.60. The Tories later
drop their opposition to a minimum wage,
underlining the fact that it has been seen as a
success.
April 2000: Firms become responsible for
administering the government's working families
tax credit through the payroll.
Business verdict: Irritation at the extra costs
involved. The Treasury later rescinds the
decision, but the Institute of Directors says: 'It
would have been better if it had never been
introduced in the first place. Employers are going
to have to pay significant amounts of money to
amend their payroll systems yet again.'
April 2002: Employers' national insur ance
contributions increase by 1 per cent as part of a
tax-raising package aimed at pouring more
money into the NHS.
Business verdict: Horror, giving way to
resignation. Companies agree that Britain's
crumbling infrastructure is in need of investment,
but they hadn't planned on paying for it
themselves.
Summer 2004: The government suggests that
Crossrail, the long-delayed transport link through
the centre of London, could finally go ahead - but
only if business will stump up some of the cash.
Business verdict: Sceptical approval. The
overcrowded transport infrastructure is widely
seen as one of the major barriers to running a
business in Britain; London mayor Ken
Livingstone gets a big cheer at the City banquet
for backing the line.
|
Latest press releases 
