‘Good growth in every postcode’ is a woeful catchphrase

Louise Haigh, the first secretary of state, Andy Burnham's consigliere and viceroy in northern England, recently announced a radical overhaul of the government's public procurement rules. This change is expected to affect £90bn of annual public expenditure and is overseen by eight ministers. Haigh stated that prioritising everything would result in nothing being prioritised, suggesting that the complexities and inefficiencies in the current system need to be addressed.

However, her new policy appears to be more about creating a catchphrase "good growth in every postcode" than promoting genuine economic growth.

The new policy prioritises contracts awarded to domestic suppliers, regardless of whether they offer the best value for money or the best products or services. This approach is based on an inherently absurd premise, as it's unclear what "good growth" even means or how it can be measured. Furthermore, the idea that "every postcode" should experience "good growth" assumes a uniform improvement in economic performance across all regions, which is highly unlikely.

Critics argue that this policy could lead to the protection of outdated or inefficient businesses, as public money might be used to prop up uncompetitive firms rather than encouraging innovation and competition. The potential pitfalls of this nativist approach have been seen before, such as with the three British aircraft manufacturers in the 1950s and 1960s that were supported by the government, eventually leading to their decline and nationalization.

While it's understandable that ministers want to support British industries, it's crucial for them to be honest about the potential drawbacks of this approach. They should not hide behind the "good growth in every postcode" catchphrase, but rather be transparent about their priorities and the implications of favouring domestic suppliers over value for money or superior products.