Economics – Croydon Constitutionalists

How we can really revive British industry

Sam Bidwell on how we can really revive British industry.

“By the late 19th century, Britain was falling behind the United States and Germany. GDP growth slowed to less than 1% between 1899 and 1914”

People across the political spectrum say that the UK needs an industrial strategy. In fact, it was industrial strategy that killed our industry in the first place – Attlee is more to blame than Thatcher.

According to the popular narrative, British industrial decline started in the 1970s and 1980s, as free trade and neoliberalism shifted us towards a more globalised economy. Today, advocates of industrial strategy argue that Government needs to intervene to redress the balance.

In fact, Britain’s relative industrial decline starts much earlier. By the late 19th century, Britain was falling behind the United States and Germany. GDP growth slowed to less than 1% between 1899 and 1914, while productivity growth fell by two-thirds between 1871 and 1914.

Though it had led the way on industrialisation (more on this later), the UK couldn’t compete with the mass production of the US and Germany. Britain had fewer natural resources and a more skilled workforce, while American firms could rely on cheap resources and cheap labour.

Britain’s relative industrial slowdown was accelerated by the Great Depression. Heavy industry declined by a third between 1929 and 1930, with unemployment doubling from 1 million to 2.5 million. In cities like Glasgow, unemployment rose as high as 30 percent.

“In the Midlands and parts of the south, industry boomed in the 1930s – with specialisms in automobiles and household electrical goods. In 1936, Leicester was actually the second-richest city in Europe”

The decline was particularly acute in the industrial areas of Britain’s Victorian heyday, such as Lancashire, Yorkshire, South Wales, and Scotland. Coal production in Lancashire fell by 43%. Ship production in the north-east of England fell by 90% between 1929 and 1932.

But that didn’t mean that industry was declining everywhere. In the Midlands and parts of the south, industry boomed in the 1930s – with specialisms in automobiles and household electrical goods. In 1936, Leicester was actually the second-richest city in Europe.

It was true that Britain couldn’t compete with the mass production of the US and Germany – but it could lead the way again on high-quality, high-skilled industry. The social effects were incredible – between 1923 and 1937, Birmingham’s workforce grew at double the national rate.

“The Attlee government saw the success of the Midlands as damaging to traditional industrial regions. In 1945, it passed the Distribution of Industry Act”

From 1911-1954, the West Midlands grew its economic output faster than any other region of the country – by the 1960s, Birmingham wages were higher than in London. Nearby Coventry fared similarly – in 1953, it had an unemployment rate of 0.8%. British industry was back.

And then came the industrial strategists. The Attlee government saw the success of the Midlands as damaging to traditional industrial regions. In 1945, it passed the Distribution of Industry Act, which aimed to push development away from ‘congested’ areas like the Midlands.

The Government required that any factory set to be opened or expanded in a ‘congested’ area would be reviewed by the Board of Trade – which would aim to push industrial development back to places like Lancashire and South Wales. The results were predictable – and depressing.

“In 1946, the West Midlands Plan set Birmingham a population target lower than its current population. In 1964, Harold Wilson restricted the development of office space in Birmingham for 20 years”

Of the ‘Industrial Development Certificates’ rejected by the Board of Trade, just 18% actually relocated to declining industrial areas. 49% of refused projects downsized their ambition to avoid government oversight. 31% of projects were scrapped entirely.

For every job re-directed to old industrial areas, several more were prevented. In 1946, the West Midlands Plan set Birmingham a population target lower than its current population. In 1964, Harold Wilson restricted the development of office space in Birmingham for 20 years.

“Forcible relocation of growth, and subsidy for declining industries, left British industry inefficient and uncompetitive”

Industrial strategy also meant subsidising inefficient ‘old’ industries, such as coal and steel, at the expense of new industries, such as cars and household electrical products. The nationalisations of the 1940s and 1960s were designed to preserve old industry at all costs.

Forcible relocation of growth, and subsidy for declining industries, left British industry inefficient and uncompetitive. The burgeoning ‘advanced manufacturing’ boom of the 1930s was killed by the nostalgic, backwards-looking industrial strategy of the late 1940s.

These inefficient and expensive controls were eventually lifted by the Thatcher governments. Yes, British industry did shrink in the 1980s. But if it had been allowed to adapt, improve, and emerge organically in the previous decades, it would have remained competitive.

“we shouldn’t try to decide where industry ought to be based on pre-conceived ideas about where growth “should” happen. Industrialisation completely changed Britain’s economic geography”

If we actually want British industry to succeed, we shouldn’t follow in the footsteps of the 20th century industrial strategists. We should learn from the conditions which birthed British industry in the first place – which actually means less government control, not more.

First, we shouldn’t try to decide where industry ought to be based on pre-conceived ideas about where growth “should” happen. Industrialisation completely changed Britain’s economic geography – cities like Liverpool and Manchester barely existed before the 18th century.

People were able to move to where economic opportunity emerged – and the we didn’t try to direct that growth. Today, that means liberalising our housing market – allowing housing supply to emerge where people want to live, not where the Government thinks that they should live.

“Our current regulatory environment punishes companies that trial new products here, with lengthy processes of consultation, review, and assessment. Instead, we should be removing regulatory blockers”

Second, we should embrace and encourage investment in innovation. The Industrial Revolution was driven by investment in new technologies designed to reduce dependence on high-cost labour – such as Watt’s steam engine, which could do the work of 21 manual labourers.

Our current regulatory environment punishes companies that trial new products here, with lengthy processes of consultation, review, and assessment. Instead, we should be removing regulatory blockers – and reducing tax on innovative firms in cutting-edge fields.

Third, we should make it easier to build the infrastructure that powers industrial growth. In 1846 alone, Parliament approved around 9,500 miles of private railway construction, the equivalent of 63 HS2s. We must relax planning rules around major infrastructure projects.

Fourth, we must address energy costs. The Industrial Revolution was powered by cheap coal – low energy costs kept industry competitive. Today, the UK has the highest industrial energy costs in the developed world – killing businesses in energy-intensive sectors such as steel.

“The Industrial Revolution was powered by cheap coal – low energy costs kept industry competitive. Today, the UK has the highest industrial energy costs in the developed world”

This also has enormous implications for our ability to host AI infrastructure, which is similarly energy-intensive. If it wants British industry to compete, the Government should make energy cheap – particularly by bringing down construction costs for nuclear energy.

Finally, we should not try to direct the economy based on what we think industry “should look like”. We should not be picking winners – whether sectors, businesses, or regions of the country. This will be expensive, and it won’t work – as 20th century industrial decline shows.

Reproduced with kind permission of Sam Bidwell, Director of the Next Generation Centre at the Adam Smith Institute, Associate Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, although views are his own. Sam can be found on X/Twitter, on Substack, and can be contacted at [email protected]. This article was originally published as a X/Twitter Thread at https://x.com/sam_bidwell/status/1859560533608874311

How capitalism built Manchester

Sam Bidwell on how capitalism built Manchester.

“In c. 79AD, a Roman fort was constructed on the banks of the River Medlock, the first settlement in modern Manchester. The area remained largely depopulated and impoverished throughout the medieval period”

I\n 1700, Manchester was an obscure village of fewer than 10,000 people – by 1900, it was a metropolis, the world’s first industrial city. Its remarkable growth is testament to the power of trade, industry, and British ingenuity.

For most of its early history, Manchester was entirely unremarkable. In c. 79AD, a Roman fort was constructed on the banks of the River Medlock, the first settlement in modern Manchester. The area remained largely depopulated and impoverished throughout the medieval period. The one exception to this trend came in 1363, when a small community of Flemish weavers, from modern-day Belgium, settled in Manchester. These weavers helped to establish Manchester as a local centre for textile production – which would one day power the city’s growth.

Under Queen Elizabeth I (1553-1603), the Crown began supporting the English wool trade. The Queen’s support for the trade was so fervent that, from the 1570s until the 1590s, Englishmen were required to wear woollen caps to church on Sunday, in order to support the industry. With its existing tradition of textile production, Manchester benefitted from this support – and began exporting cloth to Europe, via London. Nevertheless, it was still an obscure Lancashire village – paling in comparison to its counterparts in neighbouring Yorkshire.

During the English Civil War (1642-1651), Manchester was a hotbed of support for the Parliament. On the Restoration of the Monarchy in 1660, Manchester lost Parliamentary representation, as a reprisal for its support for Cromwell. No MP was to sit for Manchester until 1832. And so, without any local government or representation in Parliament, Manchester looked set to fade into obscurity as a textiles-oriented market town. In the 1720s, Daniel Defoe described Manchester as “the greatest mere village in England”. But change was afoot.

“With its history of textile production, Manchester was well-placed to turn these raw imports into high-quality material exports. It also had ideal geography, with canals connecting the city”

By the early 18th century, Britain was in the midst of a revolution. Developments in agricultural technology meant that more food was being produced than ever before – with fewer people needed to work in farming. As a result, more people moved to the country’s urban centres. At the same time, Britain’s trade with the outside world was expanding rapidly – including in places such as India. This meant that the country had more access to new raw materials than ever before – and more markets for the export of consumer goods. Enter Manchester.

With its history of textile production, Manchester was well-placed to turn these raw imports into high-quality material exports. It also had ideal geography, with canals connecting the city to the port at Liverpool, and to the coalfields of Lancashire.

Raw goods could be imported to Manchester, processed, and then sent elsewhere for sale. The city began to boom, growing from 9,000 people in 1717 to 25,000 people in 1773. In 1781, Richard Arkwright opened the first steam-powered textile mill in the city. Throughout this period, Manchester and the surrounding towns in Lancashire were responsible for processing 32% of cotton produced globally. And the need to sell finished textile goods prompted the creation of new transport infrastructure, which connected the city to the world.

In 1761, the world’s first industrial canal opened, connecting Manchester to the coalfields at Worsley. In 1824, one of the world’s first public bus services opened in Manchester. And in 1830, the world’s first passenger railway connected Liverpool to Manchester. Canals and railways transported Manchester textiles to the port of Liverpool, allowing them to be exported. Meanwhile buses and trams enabled the city’s workforce to reach their workplaces. By 1930, Manchester Corporation Tramways operated the 3rd largest tramway in the UK.

The city also came to be known as a commercial hub, with warehouses and markets springing up across the city. In 1815, Manchester had 1,819 distinct warehouses, housing both raw materials and goods for sale. Many of these warehouses still dominate the city’s skyline today.

The jewel in Manchester’s crown was the Cotton Exchange, first opened in 1727. This vast building was the beating commercial heart of the city, a site for the sale of textiles and the financing of new industrial businesses. In 1851, it was granted the “Royal Exchange” title. In 1867, the Royal Exchange was rebuilt, with funding provided by a consortium of notable Manchester industrialists. The Exchange which still stands today began construction in 1867, and was finished in 1921 – financed, start to finish, by private donors.

“Manchester became the hub of the Anti-Corn Law League in 1839, which argued for the removal of protectionist tariffs on food”

More than almost any other city in Britain, Manchester’s urban landscape was shaped by industry, trade, and private finance. This wasn’t just the product of textile wealth. This building, on Mosley Street, was built in 1880, to house the Manchester and Salford Bank.

The city didn’t just benefit from trade liberalisation – it exported it, too. Manchester was a hub of 19th century economic liberalism. Prominent advocates of free trade, such as Richard Cobden and John Bright, were based in the city. Indeed, Manchester became the hub of the Anti-Corn Law League in 1839, which argued for the removal of protectionist tariffs on food. The Corn Laws were eventually repealed in 1846 by Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel, partly thanks to the League’s campaigning.

“It’s also testament to the ways in which private sector growth can improve public space and enhance civil society. The city’s University, for example, was founded as a private institute”

As Manchester develops today, it’s worth remembering how the city came to exist in the first place. From obscure market town to global metropolis, Manchester’s growth was powered by building, growth, and private industry. Manchester exists because of business and capitalism. It’s also testament to the ways in which private sector growth can improve public space and enhance civil society. The city’s University, for example, was founded as a private institute in 1824, and expanded in 1846 on the basis of a bequest from textile merchant John Owens.

Rather than rejecting development, we should recognise the opportunities that change can bring. Just as our ancestors pursued growth and change, so should we. Our cities used to some of the greatest in the world – they can be again

The British invented the modern world

“Englishman Jethro Tull developed a horse-drawn seed drill, which allowed seeds to be sowed in neat rows Tull’s drill laid the foundations for modern mechanised agriculture”

Few other countries can boast such a proud legacy of innovation and invention – for centuries, we have led the way on the development of new technologies. Some of the world-changing innovations birthed here in Britain.

In 1668, Englishman Sir Isaac Newton built the world’s first reflecting telescope Newton’s discovery was based on his understanding of prisms and optics. It allowed scientists to develop a sophisticated theory of colour, and paved the way for the modern telescope.

In 1701, Englishman Jethro Tull developed a horse-drawn seed drill, which allowed seeds to be sowed in neat rows Tull’s drill laid the foundations for modern mechanised agriculture, allowing farmers to plant more crops with fewer men – which increased productivity steeply.

In 1761, Englishman John Harrison invented the marine chronometer, a device which allowed sailors to accurately calculate longitude while at sea Harrison’s chronometer revolutionised navigation, and made long-distance sea travel much safer.

In 1764, James Hargreaves invented the ‘spinning jenny’, a textiles-weaving frame The spinning jenny allowed workers to produce cloth on an industrial scale, producing 8 times as much as an individual worker. This laid the foundations for industrial mass-production.

In 1776, Scotsman James Watt launched a new design for a steam engine Watt’s design built on earlier steam engines – but was far more efficient, both in terms of power produced and fuel consumption. Watt’s engine powered the industrial expansion of the 19th century.

In 1798, Englishman Edward Jenner pioneered the concept of the vaccine, producing an effective smallpox vaccination In Jenner’s time, smallpox killed around 10% of the global population. Jenner’s work has probably saved more lives than the work of any other individual.

In 1804, Cornishman Richard Trevithick invented the first working steam locomotive, which he tested in Merthyr Tydfil, Wales Trevithick’s locomotive was later improved upon by Robert Stephenson. Stephenson’s 1829 ‘Rocket’ formed the basis of the modern steam locomotive.

In 1807, Scotsman Alexander Forsyth pioneered the process of ‘percussion ignition’, the basis for modern firearms Forsyth’s work allowed weaponry to progress from the flintlock mechanisms of the 18th century – resulting in faster-firing and more effective guns.

In 1824, Englishman Joseph Aspdin patented the process of modern cement-mixing Aspdin’s patent made it far easier to build at-scale. His initial process was later improved upon by his son, William Aspdin, who created a product more akin to today’s ‘Portland cement’.

In 1841, Scotsman Alexander Bain patented the first ever electric clock Bain’s electrical clock enabled more accurate timekeeping – as, unlike older models, his clock did not require consistent adjustment. Bain also worked on an early fax machine, from 1843 to 1846.

In 1876, Scotsman Alexander Graham Bell received a patent for the first modern telephone On 10th March 1876, the first intelligible telephone call was made. On 10th August 1876, Bell made the first long-distance call, from Brantford, Ontario to Paris, Ontario.

“Welshman Edgar Purnell Hooley patented tarmac Hooley’s design combined tar and macadam, a paving material invented in the 1820s by Scotsman John McAdam. Today, about 70% of the world’s paved roads are made of tarmac”

In 1878, Englishman Joseph Swan produced the first successful lightbulb Swan’s bulbs were the first used to illuminate homes and public buildings – including London’s Savoy Theatre, in 1881. Swan was also responsible for producing early electric safety lamps for miners.

In 1902, Welshman Edgar Purnell Hooley patented tarmac Hooley’s design combined tar and macadam, a paving material invented in the 1820s by Scotsman John McAdam. Today, about 70% of the world’s paved roads are made of tarmac.

In 1928, penicillin was discovered by Scotsman Alexander Fleming Penicillin was the world’s first antibiotic, and was critical in the development of modern anti-bacterial medicine. An estimated 500 million lives have been saved by Fleming’s invention.

In 1926, the first working television was invented by Scotsman John Logie Baird Baird also achieved the first trans-Atlantic TV transmission in 1928, and the first colour TV in 1944. Baird’s work was also instrumental in the development of modern fibre-optics.

In 1930, Englishman Frank Whittle invented the first modern jet engine, patenting his design in 1932 Whittle was an RAF pilot officer, with a knack for engineering. His engine first flew in 1941 – and would go on to revolutionise air travel.

“Englishman Tim Berners-Lee developed the World Wide Web While WWW was not the first ‘internet’, it did allow the internet to go global”

In 1943, a team of British codebreakers designed the ‘Colossus’ computer, the world’s first programmable digital computer Colossus was initially designed a codebreaking tool – but it would serve as the foundation for modern computing in the post-war years.

In 1952, British aviation firm de Havilland flew the world’s first commercial jet liner, the Comet The Comet had first flown in 1949, but debuted commercially three years later. This marked a new era in civil aviation, and birthed modern air travel.

And in 1989, Englishman Tim Berners-Lee developed the World Wide Web While WWW was not the first ‘internet’, it did allow the internet to go global. Today, around 5.3 billion people use the internet, a development which has totally revolutionised how we live and work.

“Our energy policy makes it impossible to develop energy-intensive industries like AI. Our regulatory policy stifles innovation and creativity”

For literally centuries, the British have been at the cutting-edge of innovation and technology. From modern transportation to modern medicine, the British built the world that we live in today. Given the quality of our human capital, we should still be leading the way…

…but thanks to policy, we risk falling behind. Our planning system makes it impossible to build anything, including new lab space. Our energy policy makes it impossible to develop energy-intensive industries like AI. Our regulatory policy stifles innovation and creativity.

Many of the great innovations in this thread would have been impossible to develop today. Most importantly, we shouldn’t shy away from technological progress. Our greatness was largely the result of our willingness to embrace and advance change, innovation, and modernity.

If we want to be great again, we must embrace the future – and allow the natural quality of our people to flourish. That means less regulation, cheaper energy, and more enthusiasm for change. We’ve built the modern world before – and we can do it again

Argentina’s nascent recovery

Sam Bidwell writes on Argentina’s nascent recovery.

“Milei promised to cut tax and spending, fire government employees, and get the economy moving again. 1 year on, it seems to be working”

In 2023, after decades of turmoil, Argentinians elected maverick libertarian Javier Milei as President. Milei promised to cut tax and spending, fire government employees, and get the economy moving again. 1 year on, it seems to be working.

But first, some context. In the early 20th century, Argentina had one of the highest per capita GDPs in the world – ahead of countries like France and Italy. Thanks to decades of mismanagement, the economy is now in turmoil – in relative terms, it has declined steeply.

In January, year-on-year inflation had soared to an incredible 211 percent. The country’s rapid inflation is largely the result of public spending. For years, the country has run large deficits, despite sluggish growth, in order to appease the public.

When the Government has been unable to cover the costs of this spending, it has borrowed or printed more money – resulting in inflation. For ordinary Argentinians, this has driven up the cost of essential goods and created an environment in which businesses struggle to grow.

Because of this borrowing and printing, the country has entered into a vicious cycle of debt defaults. Since 1980, it has defaulted on its debt five times – with the latest default coming in 2020. This is an incredible decline for one of the world’s most promising economies.

“When the Government has been unable to cover the costs of this spending, it has borrowed or printed more money – resulting in inflation”

Enter Javier Milei.

Milei is an economics professor, and a self-described anarcho-capitalist, who was first elected to Congress in 2021. He is known for his combative style, and for his contempt for the state. Incredibly, he also owns four clones of his beloved dog, Conan.

Milei emerged as a surprise candidate in the October 2023 Presidential race. After a close first-round, Milei beat establishment politician Sergio Massa to triumph in the final ballot, on 19th November 2023. So what has the maverick libertarian achieved so far?

First, he has cut state spending – aggressively.
He has reduced the number of government departments in the country from 19 to 10.
His new Ministry of Human Capital merges the previous departments of Social Development, Education, Culture, and Labour.
He’s also fired thousands of government workers.

“He’s ending provision of free healthcare to immigrants in Argentina and introduced new fees for foreign university students”

When he took office, the Argentinian state had about 341,000 employees – today, that figure stands at 317,000, with thousands more cuts to come in the next few years. Retained employees have seen pay freezes or cuts.

He’s ended costly subsidies for energy, rent, and transport, while cutting non-essential local government funding. He’s vetoed Congressional plans to introduce an ‘inflation lock’ on pensions in the country, and to increase funding for public universities. And he’s also taken action on immigration.

He’s ending provision of free healthcare to immigrants in Argentina and introduced new fees for foreign university students. He has also proposed plans to automatically deport foreign criminals from the country.

For Milei, Argentina is a country that needs to learn to live within its means, after decades of inflationary borrowing and spending. With inflation under control, the country should be able to win back international investors, and grow the economy.

“For international investors, falling inflation is a sign that Argentina can once again be trusted as a place to spend money and grow businesses”

But is it working?

Well, the country’s budget deficit has finally turned into a surplus – meaning that Argentina has begun to get its debt repayments under control. Month-to-month, the Argentinian government now spends less than its earns, setting the country back on the road to recovery.

As a result, inflation has started to fall. For ordinary Argentinians, the price of everyday goods has begun to stabilise. For international investors, falling inflation is a sign that Argentina can once again be trusted as a place to spend money and grow businesses.

The country’s most important stock index, the S&P MERVAL, tracks the performance of major Argentinian companies. Since Milei took office, the MERVAL has reached record highs – indicating that investors are beginning to return to Argentina.

Meanwhile, the country’s risk profile has begun to fall, meaning that it could soon enjoy the same premiums as its South American neighbours. The country’s bonds have also hit record highs on international markets, again signalling growing investor confidence in the country.

“Milei ended rent controls across the country early in his tenure – and since that time, the supply of apartments in Buenos Aires has risen by 170%, while rents have fallen by 40%”

According to the IMF, Argentina is projected to grow 5% in 2025 and 4.7% in 2026. That’s compared to 3% in neighbouring Brazil, and 2.1% in Chile – signalling that Argentina could truly be about to fulfil its enormous economic potential.

For many ordinary Argentinians, life is beginning to improve. Milei ended rent controls across the country early in his tenure – and since that time, the supply of apartments in Buenos Aires has risen by 170%, while rents have fallen by 40%. As a result, Milei is popular.

Despite his ‘shock therapy’, his party is leading in the polls for the 2025 legislative elections – and his approval rating stands at around 48%. Economic optimism is also on the rise and stands at the highest level since 2015.

Of course, with three years left as President, Milei still has significant challenges ahead of him. Argentina’s incredible “Milei boom” shows what politicians can achieve with sufficient commitment. It also shows us what can happen when the state gets out of the way.

By cutting burdensome regulations, reducing unnecessary spending, and challenging political orthodoxy, Milei looks set to turn around Argentina’s ailing economy. Politicians across the world could learn from Milei’s example – we should all dare to challenge received wisdom.

Singapore: reasons for the Lion City’s remarkable success

Sam Bidwell writes on the success of Singapore.

“Singapore was born – a poor city state, surrounded by enemies, and with no natural resources of its own. Yet today, Singapore is one of the world’s richest and most successful nations”

Today, Singapore is: – the safest city in the world – the world’s freest economy – #1 in the Ease of Doing Business Index But why has Singapore been so successful, and why is it such a great place for businesses? A on the reasons for the Lion City’s remarkable success.

First, some history. In 1819, Singapore was founded by Sir Stamford Raffles, a British official who believed that the site was perfect for a trading post. The city grew quickly, attracting traders from across the region who were drawn to the city’s ‘free port’ status.

Singapore was governed by the British until 1963, when the city became independent as part of the ‘Federation of Malaya’. However, the union was not a harmonious one. Due to political disputes – including race riots in 1964 -, Singapore was expelled from Malaya in 1965.

And so, Singapore was born – a poor city state, surrounded by enemies, and with no natural resources of its own. Yet today, Singapore is one of the world’s richest and most successful nations, thanks largely to the work of its visionary founding father, Lee Kuan Yew.

A graduate of the University of Cambridge, Lee had initially tried to make a success of Singapore’s position within Malaya. But with independence forced upon him, he worked to build the ideal “start-up” nation in Singapore, using the city’s natural strengths to his advantage.

“Over 99 percent of all imports to Singapore are duty free. Corporation tax is charged at a flat rate of 17%, and the city has no capital gains tax.”

He was ruthlessly pragmatic in pursuit of his vision. His decisions were guided by empiricism rather than ideology. As a result, Singapore grew from an obscure post-colonial backwater into a world-leading city. What exactly did Lee do?

First, he recognised that Singapore’s openness to business and trade could be one of its greatest strengths. Over 99 percent of all imports to Singapore are duty free. Corporation tax is charged at a flat rate of 17%, and the city has no capital gains tax.

Thanks to efficient processes, it takes an average of 1.5 days to set up a business in Singapore, and just 15 minutes to register a company online. That’s alongside strong IP protections and light-touch regulation – many businesses have their Asia-Pacific hub in Singapore.

In order to make Singapore attractive to global businesses, Lee Kuan Yew insisted that English would be the main language of administration in the city. Alongside English, Singaporeans also learn a ‘mother tongue’ – Mandarin, Malay, or Tamil – depending on their heritage.

But low taxes and English proficiency alone would not be enough to guarantee Singapore’s success. The city also has world-leading infrastructure, designed with comfort and ease in mind. Singapore’s port is the second busiest in the world in terms of total shipping tonnage.

Meanwhile the city’s airport, Changi, is consistently rated as one of the best in the world. Changi Airport serves more than 100 airlines flying to more than 400 cities worldwide. It is clean, comfortable, and modern, designed to ensure efficient layovers and speedy boarding.

“One of the tragic illusions that many countries of the Third World entertain is the notion that politicians and civil servants can perform entrepreneurial functions.”

Within the city itself, travellers can get around using the fully automated Mass Rapid Transit network – a clean and comprehensive urban transit system, complete with functional Wi-Fi. Meanwhile the city’s roads are rated as amongst the best in the world.

Much of this infrastructure is funded and maintained by Temasek, an investment firm owned by the Singapore Government. Alongside GIC, Singapore’s other sovereign wealth fund, Temasek operates like a private company, managing many of the Government’s assets.

Temasek uses private sector incentives in the public interest. “One of the tragic illusions that many countries of the Third World entertain is the notion that politicians and civil servants can perform entrepreneurial functions.” – Dr Goh Keng Swee, 1st Finance Minister

Singapore also has a zero-tolerance approach to crime, with impartial and efficient enforcement of strict laws. Chewing gum is banned in the country, and littering can result in an on-the-spot fine. Vandalism and drug use can result in harsh penalties, including caning.

These laws, alongside an efficient system of municipal government, makes Singapore the world’s cleanest and safest city. Singaporeans regularly leave their phones as placeholders in public places – a civic culture of cleanliness and orderliness is extolled at every level.

Singapore also invests in its people and maintains genuinely meritocratic systems for hiring and firing. The Government consistently invests in education. At schools, at universities, and in public life, Singaporeans venerate intellectual ability and promote those who succeed.

Its political system is meritocratic too, prizing stability and talent. Though Singapore holds free multiparty elections, the Government maintains control over the political process. Protest is strictly controlled, and the press is regulated to prevent seditious acts and speech.

“Stability, low taxes, an efficient state, and an uncompromising approach to public order. These are the roots of Singapore’s success”

The result is the most stable political system in Asia, and amongst the most stable countries in the world. The People’s Action Party, founded by Lee Kuan Yew, has led Singapore since 1965, ensuring stability and continuity across the decades.

Public figures – civil servants and politicians – are paid well, to ensure that the best and brightest are attracted into Government. The Prime Minister of Singapore earns about ten times more than the UK’s Prime Minister, and about four times as much as the US President.

But Singapore also has a zero-tolerance approach to corruption. Public officials who take bribes while in office are removed from their post, fined, and often jailed. Just this week, the country’s former Transport Minister has been convicted of receiving gifts while in office.

Stability, low taxes, an efficient state, and an uncompromising approach to public order. These are the roots of Singapore’s success. In building Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew was not guided by ideology, but by what works. He was a pragmatic empiricist through and through.

Lee’s story is a reminder that national success is largely the product of pragmatism, competence, and vision. By studying what works in practice and implementing it, we can change society for the better. No obstacle is too big if we set our minds to the task of national revival.

The great man himself puts it best: The lessons of Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew should inspire us all.

UK stagnation: countries which have overtaken the UK since 2007.

The UK’s economy has stagnated since 2008. In terms of GDP per capita – economic output divided by the number of people in a country – we’ve actually gone backwards. Sam Bidwell gives an overview of the countries that the UK was richer than in 2007, but which have since overtaken us…

“None of this was inevitable. Our economic stagnation was the result of policy choices made by successive governments”

UK GDP per Capita, 2007: $50,397
Singapore GDP per Capita, 2007: $39,432
UK GDP per Capita, 2023: $48,866
Singapore GDP per Capita, 2023: $84,734

In 2007, the UK was richer than Singapore, southeast Asia’s Lion City – today, it is much, much poorer.

UK GDP per Capita, 2007: $50,397
USA GDP per Capita, 2007: $48,050
UK GDP per Capita, 2023: $48,866
USA GDP per Capita, 2023: $81,695

In 2007, the UK was (slightly) richer than the United States, the world’s economic superpower. Today, it is far poorer.

UK GDP per Capita, 2007: $50,397
Australia GDP per Capita, 2007: $41,051
UK GDP per Capita, 2023: $48,866
Australia GDP per Capita, 2023: $64,711

In 2007, the UK was richer than Australia, a world-leading mining economy. Today, it is much poorer.

UK GDP per Capita, 2007: $50,397
Austria GDP per Capita, 2007: $46,915
UK GDP per Capita, 2023: $48,866
Austria GDP per Capita, 2023: $56,506

In 2007, the UK was richer than Austria, a highly developed social market economy. Today, it is poorer.

UK GDP per Capita, 2007: $50,397
Belgium GDP per Capita, 2007: $44,319
UK GDP per Capita, 2023: $48,866
Belgium GDP per Capita, 2023: $53,475

“When you see crumbling infrastructure, poor public services, or stagnant job opportunities, you’re seeing these two lost decades of growth”

In 2007, the UK was richer than Belgium, a developed services economy and home of the EU. Today, it is poorer. {Editors note: Taking money from hard working citizens of the EU does help}.

UK GDP per Capita, 2007: $50,397
Finland GDP per Capita, 2007: $48,467
UK GDP per Capita, 2023: $48,866
Finland GDP per Capita, 2023: $53,755

In 2007, the UK was richer than Finland, a powerhouse in electronics manufacturing. Today, it is poorer.

UK GDP per Capita, 2007: $50,397
Canada GDP per Capita, 2007: $44,659
UK GDP per Capita, 2023: $48,866
Canada GDP per Capita, 2023: $53,371

In 2007, the UK was richer than Canada, our oil-producing cousins across the Atlantic. Today, it is poorer.

UK GDP per Capita, 2007: $50,397
Germany GDP per Capita, 2007: $41,640
UK GDP per Capita, 2023: $48,866
Germany GDP per Capita, 2023: $52,745

In 2007, the UK was richer than Germany, Europe’s manufacturing powerhouse. Today, it is poorer.

UK GDP per Capita, 2007: $50,397
UAE GDP per Capita, 2007: $43,918
UK GDP per Capita, 2023: $48,866
UAE GDP per Capita, 2023: $52,976

In 2007, the UK was richer than the UAE, the Gulf state which plays host to futuristic cities like Dubai. Today, it is poorer.

UK GDP per Capita, 2007: $50,397
Hong Kong GDP per Capita, 2007: $30,593
UK GDP per Capita, 2023: $48,866
Hong Kong GDP per Capita, 2023: $50,696

“it doesn’t have to be this way. We were richer than these world-leading economies before, and we can do it again”

In 2007, the UK was much richer than Hong Kong, East Asia’s financial services superpower. Today, it is poorer.

UK GDP per Capita, 2007: $50,397
Israel GDP per Capita, 2007: $25,633
UK GDP per Capita, 2023: $48,866
Israel GDP per Capita, 2023: $52,261

In 2007, the UK was much richer than Israel, the Middle East’s high-tech hub. Today, it is poorer.

None of this was inevitable. Our economic stagnation was the result of policy choices made by successive governments since 2008. Our broken planning system, expensive energy, and a risk-averse regulatory culture have all contributed to nearly two lost decades of growth.

When you see crumbling infrastructure, poor public services, or stagnant job opportunities, you’re seeing these two lost decades of growth. The point is that it doesn’t have to be this way. We were richer than these world-leading economies before, and we can do it again.

Principally, this requires two things from our politicians. Honesty – about why we are where we are, and how we got here. And ambition – about what Britain can, and should, be. We deserve to be a high-tech, high-growth, high-powered economy again.

That means getting the basics right – housing, energy, infrastructure, public order, migration. Let’s start building things again and stop relying on low-skilled labour. Dare to dream. We built the modern world before, and we can do it again. Anglofuturism now.

Dubai’s transformation: shrewd investments and a business-friendly environment

“Dubai’s remarkable growth is the product of shrewd investments, business-friendly tax and regulatory rules”

In just fifty years, Dubai has transformed from an obscure fishing village into a city of global significance.

Despite popular misconceptions, oil revenues contribute less than 1% of Dubai’s GDP today. You read that right – unlike nearby Abu Dhabi, Dubai’s economy is not powered by oil revenues. In fact, Dubai’s remarkable growth is the product of shrewd investments, business-friendly tax and regulatory rules, and an uncompromising approach to political stability.

Modern Dubai was founded as a fishing village on the Persian Gulf at some point in the 18th century. Throughout the early 19th century, Dubai – as well as other neighbouring Gulf states – fell under British influence. In 1820, these small Gulf states fell under a British protectorate.

“In 1901, Sheikh Makhtoum bin Hasher Al Makhtoum established Dubai as a free port, with no tariffs on imports or exports”

As early as 1900, Dubai began to emerge as an important port. Its location at the mouth of the Persian Gulf made it ideal for trading into the Middle East, India, and East Africa. This geographic advantage, and its openness to commerce, has been the secret to Dubai’s success.

In 1901, Sheikh Makhtoum bin Hasher Al Makhtoum established Dubai as a free port, with no tariffs on imports or exports. Merchants, particularly those working in the pearl industry, were given parcels of land, guarantees of protection, and religious toleration.

In the first half of the 20th century, Dubai grew in importance as a hub for trade with Persia and India. However, the city’s position was supercharged with the emergence of a new leader. In 1957, Rashid bin Saeed Al Makhtoum succeeded his father to become ruler of Dubai.

Sheikh Rashid understood the young city’s potential. He set about transforming Dubai from a small coastal settlement into a modern port city. He also understood the keys to Dubai’s success – openness to trade, infrastructure investments, stability and order.

“In 1966, more gold was shipped from London to Dubai than almost anywhere in the world”

He set about creating private companies to build and operate infrastructure. In 1959, he established Dubai’s first telephone company; by 1961, it had rolled out an operational network. The city’s private water company established a regular supply of piped water by 1968.

By 1960, the city’s airport had opened, with flights operating across the Middle East. In 1963, the Sheikh opened the first bridge across Dubai Creek, paid for by tolls. The airport was expanded in 1965 to enable long-haul flights and was expanded again in 1970.

By the late 1960s, Dubai was also a hub for the global gold trade – much of which was based on the illegal sale of gold to India. In 1966, more gold was shipped from London to Dubai than almost anywhere in the world (only France and Switzerland took more).

And again, this is all before the discovery of oil. By the time that Dubai struck it rich in 1966, it was already a growing port, with a solid base of infrastructure and a low-tax, pro-business environment. Of course, the discovery of oil supercharged Sheikh Rashid’s vision.

“Roads, bridges, hospitals, and schools were constructed in a construction glut which propelled Dubai’s economy through the 1980s. As the old saying goes, build it and they will come”

But Sheikh Rashid had the foresight to know that one day, the oil would run out. He understood that one day, the city would need to survive without oil – and so set about making Dubai a world-leading hub for regional and international commerce.

In 1972, Port Rashid was constructed and in 1979, it was followed by the Port of Jebel Ali, today the busiest in the Middle East. In 1978, Sheikh Rashid opened the Dubai World Trade Centre. Dubai Creek was dredged and widened in the early 1970s. In 1983, Dubai Drydocks opened.

Meanwhile the city’s airport was expanded, and hotels were opened for business travellers. Roads, bridges, hospitals, and schools were constructed in a construction glut which propelled Dubai’s economy through the 1980s. As the old saying goes, build it and they will come.

This infrastructure-first approach was the foundational principle of Dubai’s pro-business policy environment. By leveraging the city’s geography and encouraging businesses to invest, Dubai made itself into one of the Middle East’s leading trade entrepôts.

The city sits at the mouth of the oil-rich Persian Gulf, with convenient maritime connections to Asia, Europe, and Africa. By air, more than 50% of the world’s population is 7 hours or less from Dubai – again, ideal geography for an international business hub.

“26 free trade zones, companies enjoy a 50-year corporation tax exemption, and no international tariffs. Many of these free trade zones use English common law”

However, it’s not just geography and infrastructure. Dubai has no income tax. Corporation tax is low at 9% – and in 26 free trade zones, companies enjoy a 50-year corporation tax exemption, and no international tariffs. Many of these free trade zones use English common law.

These zones create an extremely business-friendly environment – many international businesses have their regional or global HQs in Dubai. At the same time, the state invests in the infrastructure – roads, schools, hospitals – needed to keep business travellers coming.

And speaking of business travellers, Dubai – and the rest of the United Arab Emirates – is home to a large number of foreigners. In fact, 88% of the UAE’s population are expats. The territory’s tax-free status and world-leading infrastructure attracts high net-worth individuals.

However, unlike in Europe, immigrants in Dubai live under strict conditions. They do not benefit from state welfare and can be deported at any time. It is almost impossible to become a naturalised citizen. In return, migrants get to make far more money than they would at home.

This is particularly true for low-skilled migrants, often from South Asia, who come to the country under the so-called ‘kafala system’. Under the kafala system, all migrant workers need to have an Emirati sponsor – if their employment ends, so does their residence.

Which brings me onto the final aspect of Dubai’s success – law and order. The city has a zero-tolerance approach to crime and public disorder. The Dubai Police employs drones and has an average emergency response time of 2 minutes and 24 seconds, as of Q3 2023.

“Despite popular misconceptions, its rapid rise owes just as much to sensible policymaking as to oil. Not everybody can turn a patch of desert into a global megacity!”

Sheikh Rashid passed away in 1990. He was succeeded by his son, Maktoum, who ruled until 2006. In turn, Maktoum was succeeded by his brother Mohammed, who rules Dubai to this day. Though Dubai has grown considerably since Sheikh Rashid’s time, the basic principles are the same.

In many ways, the principles that built modern Dubai are the same as those that built Hong Kong, Singapore – or even, historically, London.

Openness to business
Ideal strategic positioning
Shrewd investments in infrastructure
Pragmatic governance
Law and order

Whatever you think of Dubai, the city’s growth is one of the most incredible stories of the 20th century. Despite popular misconceptions, its rapid rise owes just as much to sensible policymaking as to oil. Not everybody can turn a patch of desert into a global megacity!

Yes, it really is true – as of today, less than 1% of Dubai’s GDP is generated by oil revenues. In fact, it’s commerce, financial services, real estate, and transportation that are the biggest drivers. The ultimate service economy!

Hong Kong, from small port to global finance centre

“Hong Kong transformed from a second-rate port city into a global centre of finance and commerce. But how did it achieve this?”

In the 20th century, Hong Kong transformed from a second-rate port city into a global centre of finance and commerce. But how did it achieve this? An overview of the use of ‘positive non-interventionism’, the economic philosophy which powered Hong Kong’s rise to greatness.

Hong Kong Island was ceded to Britain in 1842, in the wake of the First Opium War. Its strategic location was ideal for projecting British military and economic power into south China. At the time, it was home to around 5,000 people, spread across several small fishing villages.

The city grew quickly, powered by trade with China and British financial interests in East Asia. By 1859, the island was home to some 85,000 Chinese residents, alongside 1,600 foreigners. In 1865, the now world-famous HSBC was founded in Hong Kong.

The Kowloon Peninsula was added to the territory in 1860, and the so-called ‘New Territories’ were obtained in 1898 under a 99-year lease. Thanks to the legal and political stability offered by the British, Hong Kong’s role as a trade entrepot continued to grow.

By the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, Hong Kong was central to British interests in East Asia. The territory operated as a free port, with no tariffs on imports, which attracted merchants from China and Europe alike. And then came the Japanese.

In 1941, Hong Kong was occupied by the Japanese after eighteen days of fierce fighting. Japanese occupation was brutal. Civilians were regularly targeted for mass execution, banking assets and factories were seized, and a harsh rationing regime was imposed on the territory.

“he ensured that Hong Kong was granted financial autonomy from the UK, giving HK more freedom to make its own policy. He also resisted calls for a centrally planned industrial strategy”

On August 30th 1945, Hong Kong was liberated, and British control was restored. This is where Hong Kong’s remarkable rise really begins. In 1946, Sir Geoffrey Follows was appointed as the territory’s Financial Secretary and charged with recovering from the occupation.

Follows oversaw a rapid short-term recovery of Hong Kong’s fortunes. In October 1948, he ensured that Hong Kong was granted financial autonomy from the UK, giving HK more freedom to make its own policy. He also resisted calls for a centrally planned industrial strategy.

In 1949, the Communist Party of China emerged victorious from the Chinese Civil War. Capitalists, Chinese nationalists, and political dissidents who feared communist rule fled to Hong Kong. From 1945 to 1951, the territory’s population increased from 600,000 to 2.1 million. Follows’ emphasis on free trade and stability, alongside the cheap labour and expertise of these new migrants, laid the groundwork for Hong Kong’s economic miracle.

What was the ‘positive non-interventionism’ which shaped the approach of the next three Financial Secretaries? In short, ‘positive non-interventionism’ starts from the observation that Government efforts to shape resource allocation are usually damaging to growth, particularly in the private sector.

That’s the ‘non-interventionism’ – but what about the ‘positive’? Successive Hong Kong Governments recognised that the state can take positive steps to ensure improved market function – such as investing in infrastructure, maintaining law and order, and providing legal and political stability. That’s the ‘positive’ part.

“The territory had no income tax, and instead raised revenue through land value capture”

What did this look like in practice?

The territory’s next Financial Secretary was Arthur Grenfell Clarke (1952-61). Clarke refused to introduce regulation of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, and the territory operated without a central bank or monetary policy.

The territory had no income tax, and instead raised revenue through land value capture.

At the same time, Clarke worked with his colleagues in Government to expand Kai Tak Airport, improve the Hong Kong Police Force, and crack down on triad-led gang crime.

“From 1961 to 1971, Government spending as a percentage of GDP fell from 7.5% to 6.5%. At the same time, real wages rose by 50% and acute poverty fell from 50% to 15%”

Yet the real star of the show is John James Cowperthwaite, the city’s Financial Secretary from 1961 to 1971. From 1961 to 1971, Government spending as a percentage of GDP fell from 7.5% to 6.5%. At the same time, real wages rose by 50% and acute poverty fell from 50% to 15%.

Under Cowperthwaite, the territory imposed no controls at all on international capital flows. He refused to collect GDP statistics, fearing that these would only be used to enable economic planning. Taxes were kept low, and Government focused on basic infrastructure delivery.

Hong Kong grew rapidly, powered by manufacturing, shipping, finance, and construction. The number of factories in the territory increased from 3,000 to 10,000 over Cowperthwaite’s tenure, while the number of foreign companies registered in HK almost doubled.

This approach was continued by Cowperthwaite’s successor, Philip Haddon-Cave. Indeed, Haddon-Cave coined the term ‘positive non-interventionism’ in 1980. In 1975, Hong Kong emerged as the world’s freest economy, a position that it held continually in 2019.

Haddon-Cave worked with Governor Murray MacLehose to improve services without increasing taxes, tariffs, or regulation. The pair agreed that Government should focus on delivering a few basic services, and should draw on private sector expertise for delivery of major projects.

With this approach, the duo clamped down on corruption and launched the famous Mass Transit Railway. They also managed Hong Kong’s rapid transition from a manufacturing economy to a services economy – prompted, in large part, by a major change just over the border.

In 1978, Chinese premier Deng Xiaoping launched the Open Door Policy, which saw China open up to foreign businesses. In 1980, Deng designated the small city of Shenzhen, just across the border from Hong Kong, as a ‘Special Economic Zone’, in order to encourage foreign trade. Like Hong Kong, Shenzhen would boom in the coming decades.

“Rather than damaging Hong Kong, the growth of cheap manufacturing in China allowed the territory to transform into a hub for financial and legal services”

In the 1980s, its growth was powered by manufacturing. The city’s low labour costs and high regulatory flexibility made it attractive for businesses looking to reduce their costs – including firms in Hong Kong.

Rather than damaging Hong Kong, the growth of cheap manufacturing in China allowed the territory to transform into a hub for financial and legal services, with immediate access to cheap goods and cheap labour from China. Costs remained low and growth remained steady.

“Hong Kong’s remarkable growth continued throughout the 1980s and 1990s, guided by positive non-interventionism”

For those wanting to access the lucrative Chinese market, Hong Kong was a perfect entry-point. The stability of Britain’s common law system and HK’s light touch regulation gave foreign businesses confidence that their investments would be protected.

Hong Kong’s remarkable growth continued throughout the 1980s and 1990s, guided by positive non-interventionism. In 1997, HK was returned to China, after more than 150 years of British rule. Nevertheless, positive non-interventionism has continued to shape HK’s economic policies.

Though HK faces challenges today, it continues to stand as a global hub for financial and legal services. Its remarkable story is testament to the power of free markets – but also to the importance of limited, effective government which focuses on stability and order.

PopCon conversation with Dr. Arthur Laffer

On the 22^nd July PopCon’s Mark Littlewood spoke with Dr. Arthur Laffer who influenced the economic thinking of great leaders including Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and the man who the “Laffer curve” is named after.

The Laffer curve illustrates the relationship between the rate of taxation and the resulting government revenue. We’ve written about the curve as it related to events after Liz Trust and Kwasi Kwarteng were ousted in the autumn of 2022, and as part of a debate in Coulsdon in 2019. The curve shows how lower tax rates can result in higher tax revenue. The Tax Reform Council have a useful page displaying Global evidence: cutting income tax brings in more revenue.

A funny, enjoyable and fascinating interview that discusses the curve, many of Dr. Laffer’s experiences with major political figures and a history of economic changes. Watch the video below:

You can find out more about the event at https://www.popularconservatism.com/popconversation_with_art_laffer and POPCON at https://www.popularconservatism.com/.

How London’s Docklands were saved

“Ships with goods from around the world, particularly from across the British Empire, were onshored and processed here. By 1900, London’s docks were the busiest in the world”

Once home to the largest port in the world, London’s Docklands had fallen into disrepair by the 1970s. Today, the Docklands is one of London’s most modern, attractive areas, home to a leading financial district and even an airport.

Throughout the 19th century, London’s Docklands grew rapidly, starting with West India Docks in 1802. Ships with goods from around the world, particularly from across the British Empire, were onshored and processed here. By 1900, London’s docks were the busiest in the world.

In March 1909, the separate docks were consolidated under the control of the Port of London Authority, which was responsible for management of the docks. Tens of thousands of people were employed here, and at nearby mills and factories which depended on the Docklands.

During the Second World War, the Docklands were heavily bombed in an effort to cripple Britain’s international supply chains. Much of the area’s infrastructure was destroyed, including almost 1/3 of the area’s housing. Still, the Docklands saw a brief resurgence in the 1950s.

“London’s docks were unable to accommodate the larger vessels needed for modern container shipping, and the shipping industry moved to deep-water ports like Tilbury”

Then came the shipping containers.

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, shipping companies came to rely on a standardised system of shipping containers, which could be loaded and unloaded at most major global ports. This new system relied on larger vessels, and fewer human labourers.

While containerisation made international shipping cheaper and more efficient, it was terrible for the Docklands. London’s docks were unable to accommodate the larger vessels needed for modern container shipping, and the shipping industry moved to deep-water ports like Tilbury.

Between 1961 and 1971, almost 83,000 jobs were lost in the Docklands. By 1980, all of London’s docks had finally closed, leaving behind about 8 square miles of derelict land in East London. Almost all housing in the area was council owned, and crime grew rapidly.

“Ward claimed not to have a master plan – “instead, we have gone for an organic, market-driven approach, responding pragmatically to each situation.”

In 1979, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher came to power. She charged her Environment Secretary, Michael Heseltine, with addressing the decline of Britain’s post-industrial urban areas, including Docklands. Some members of her cabinet proposed to abandon the Docklands entirely.

Instead, Heseltine pursued a radically different approach. In 1981, he created the London Docklands Development Corporation, charged with spearheading a market-led revival of the Docklands. All local planning powers were handed to LDDC, despite protests from local councillors.

Planning decisions in the area would be made by LDDC. It received an initial grant of £80 million p/a, and in 1982, Heseltine created the Isle of Dogs Enterprise Zone, with no land tax, no planning restrictions, a 100% tax write-off on capital costs and a 10-year tax holiday.

The man in charge was Reg Ward, who was appointed CEO by Heseltine. The supremely pragmatic Ward claimed not to have a master plan – “instead, we have gone for an organic, market-driven approach, responding pragmatically to each situation.”

The first few years of LDDC were spent attracting investment for new riverside housing, bringing in small-scale industry (like Billingsgate Market in 1982), and opening up new office space. The proximity of Docklands to the City made it an attractive second site for businesses.

Derelict land was cleaned up and sold to developers, while the absence of local planning hurdles made the area attractive for private businesses looking to invest. By 1986, the LDDC had spent around £300m of public money, but had attracted £1.4 billion in private investment.

“DLR opened in 1987, under-budget and ahead of schedule, with subsequent expansions between 1991 and 1994”

In 1982, Ward commissioned the new Docklands Light Railway (DLR), which would make it easy to get from Docklands to central London. Running mostly on disused railway lines, DLR opened in 1987, under-budget and ahead of schedule, with subsequent expansions between 1991 and 1994.

In 1983, Ward began pushing for an airport on one of the old quays, which would cater to business travellers looking to make short-haul flights between London and Europe. Operations at London City Airport would begin in 1987.

Ward’s greatest success came in 1985, when Ward met for lunch with American-Swiss financier Michael von Clemm. Von Clemm was interested in opening a restaurant in the area – but upon visiting, realised that Docklands would be a prime location for office space.

“Canary Wharf accounts for 67,000 finance sector jobs, putting it ahead of Frankfurt as a banking centre”

Ward worked with Von Clemm to draft a proposal for a new business district, taking advantage of the area’s lack of red tape. In 1988, the project was sold to Canadian developers Olympia & York, with the first buildings finished in 1991. This development is known as Canary Wharf.

Canary Wharf accounts for 67,000 finance sector jobs, putting it ahead of Frankfurt as a banking centre – and it’s no longer an office monoculture. Count in the hotels, shops and restaurants, and Canary Wharf employed around 120,000 people, pre-pandemic.

The LDDC began a staged withdrawal in 1994, and was formally wound up in 1998. Planning powers were handed back to local councils, and the area’s special tax incentives were gradually rolled back. But what Heseltine, Ward, and others had achieved was incredible.

Once-derelict Dockland had been revitalised, with attractive riverside housing, a shining new financial district, an airport, and a local transport system. For most of its history, LDDC managed to do this almost entirely by attracting private investment.

LDDC even managed to reverse a population slump in the area that had begun in the early 1900s, encouraging upwardly mobile ‘yuppies’ to take their first step on the property ladder in the attractive riverside communities of the Docklands.

“decline is not inevitable – with ambitious, pro-growth policies, we can achieve incredible things”

What can we learn from Docklands?

First, that decline is not inevitable – with ambitious, pro-growth policies, we can achieve incredible things.
Second, that areas perform best when govts allow their natural strengths to flourish – such as Docklands’ proximity to London.
Third, LDDC shows us the limits of localism. Local government figures, including Greater London Council Leader Ken Livingstone, hated Docklands. Critics said that LDDC was elitist and undemocratic – after all, it had the power to ignore local wishes entirely.

While the localism of the 1960s and 1970s had created poverty and decline, the efficiency and ambition of LDDC turned Docklands into one of Europe’s leading financial centres. Clean, modern, and full of potential. A sparkling sign of what is possible if we dare to dream.