Key figures from industry are urging the next government to remain focused on implementing an industrial strategy and maintaining Britain’s position during Brexit negotiations.
For the second time in seven years, the UK has woken up to the prospect of a hung parliament following the results of yesterday’s general election.
PM Theresa May announced the election on April 18, 2017 when her ruling Conservative Party had an opinion poll lead of 20 points over Labour.
With a small majority in the House of Commons, May sought to reinforce the Conservative Party’s position ahead of Brexit negotiations.
“It was with reluctance that I decided the country needs this election but it is with strong conviction that I say it is necessary to secure the strong and stable leadership the country needs to see us through Brexit and beyond,” May said. “Let us remove the risk of uncertainty and instability and continue to give the country the strong and stable leadership it demands.”
With 318 seats, the Conservatives remain the largest party in Parliament but they don’t have enough seats to form a majority government and must now seek partners to form a coalition, with Northern Ireland’s DUP looking the most likely option.
Alison Carr, IET director of governance and policy, said: “It’s difficult to predict at this stage what the implications of a hung parliament will be for engineering and technology.
“The focus on the industrial strategy throughout the general election campaign has been disappointing. So whatever the outcome now, it’s imperative that we don’t lose the momentum towards creating an industrial strategy – which all political parties have endorsed.
“It’s also vital that any Brexit negotiations ensure we maintain access to skilled labour, sustain UK involvement with pan-national scientific and technical research, and retain and develop a leading role in global technical standards.”
Paul Everitt, ADS Chief Executive added: “The season of electoral surprises continues. The UK faces a period of uncertainty as our politicians reflect on the electorate’s verdict and consider the country’s approach to the political and economic challenges ahead.
“All political parties must now focus on working in the long-term best interests of the people and nations of the UK. Industry will continue to work to secure the best Brexit deal and an industrial strategy that helps to sustain and grow high-value jobs in every part of the country.”
Brexit is a key challenge for the nuclear sector and resolving the Euratom issue should be an immediate priority for incoming ministers, said the Nuclear Industries Association (NIA).
NIA chief executive Tom Greatrex said: “This election was called to resolve the direction of Brexit but its outcome has cast serious doubt over the future. In this situation, industry desperately needs clarity and the new government, whatever form it takes, must resolve the critical and complicated Euratom issue.
“If current policy is maintained, which would see the UK withdraw from Euratom, the new government must, as a matter of urgency, look to ensure alternative arrangements are in place as soon as possible to avoid a damaging cliff edge.
“The clock is ticking towards March 2019, and without equivalent new arrangements, the exponential economic growth potential of the UK’s nuclear programme could well be lost.”
Terry Scuoler, chief executive of EEF, believes the new administration must put industry first and ensure business receives as much support and backing as possible.
“The Brexit negotiating strategy requires a careful rethink,” he said. “Industry should be at the table, alongside whatever administration is formed, to help ensure we have the right negotiating position, which is something that’s been sadly lacking until now.
“The main parties have championed an industrial strategy for Britain and this must not be a casualty of the political turmoil. It is the best blueprint for business in the current circumstances.”
As it stands, the Conservatives have lost 12 seats whilst Labour have gained 29 seats to return 261 MPs to parliament. The Liberal Democrats made a four-seat gain, bringing their numbers up to 12 MPs, whilst the Scottish Nationalists lost 21 seats and have 35 seats in the House of Commons.
Oh well, companies have business contacts. They will keep them regardless of election results. The government is only involved when the company wants to keep staff and the government wants to deport them. Everything else is manageable.
I think it’s great news, the kippers are finished, the nasty party is humiliated and we can all forget about Brexit stupidities until we have another election and a proper government formed.
The great result of the election is the loss of a majority and the establishment of a broader base of opinion advising government will now exist. It is worth pointing out, the DUP are more dedicated to leaving the EU than any other party in Westminster….
The electorate have failed to support what they voted for in the recent Referendum. They asked for Brexit but then when the Government asked for more MPs to help push forward what they had requested the electorate declined. It is our fault not her’s.
With no chance of forcing contentious, right-wing “soak the poor” policies through parliament, perhaps Theresa May’s joke of a government can spend more time thinking about the industrial policy that it shoved on to the backshelf when she was in her “prime”. Come up with ideas that appeal to industry and the workforce and she should be able to lure enough MPs to support her in the lobbies. Then again, she seems to be capable of making a mess of just about anything.
I must say I am delighted that -post the farce- our Editor’s red-pencil and spike seems to have been much less critical of comments that suggest that everything in the garden is not sweetness and light (should that be right?) Even the comments from those who have occasionally in the past suggested that my ‘stance’ on certain issues is less than wholesome, appear to have softened.Wasn’t it Dr J who said “the thought of death in the morning does concentrate the mind wonderfully!” We Engineers know in our bones that a proper ‘industrial policy’ has to be cross-party, and has to take a 20+ year view. I am confident that, perhaps given a lead by our Editor (and incorporating the some ‘good’ ideas from EEF, IEE, I Mech Eng, ICE, RSE RAe -there are more) our illustrious journal and its readers could and should define such a programme: and indeed be amongst those responsible for delivering such. I await the return to sanity, after the advance of the barbarians!