After years of lukewarm commitment, the emergence of a coherent plan to support long-term economic growth is genuinely good news. But as with any strategy trying to tackle everything, everywhere, all at once, there are layers. And beneath them? A few bubbling policy conundrums we need to talk about. AMION’s Jonathan Guest gives his take on the new Industrial Strategy.
Context: Reindustrialising in a Chaotic World
Let’s start with the big picture. We’re talking about reindustrialising Britain at a time of deep geopolitical uncertainty – a conflict-ridden Middle East, ongoing war in Ukraine and global supply chains under strain.
Finance: Backing Ambition with Capital
One area where the strategy makes real progress is access to finance. Talking with employers – especially in manufacturing and life sciences – the message is clear:
Investment only flows when risk is manageable. This strategy rightly leans on public finance to de-risk private capital, especially in emerging technologies and regions where confidence is uneven. Whether it’s £27.8 billion from the National Wealth Fund or more flexible tools via the British Business Bank, this is exactly the kind of long-term, anchored support businesses have been calling for.
Skills: Economic Infrastructure, Not a Side Note
The commitment to skills is one of the strategy’s strongest points. It places skills at the core – not the periphery – of economic planning. Sectors like clean energy and AI are already facing skills shortages and this strategy treats talent as infrastructure, not an afterthought.
Sector strategies can focus attention and funding, but they also risk being too neat. Take advanced manufacturing – it’s not one thing, it’s a web of technologies, capabilities, and aspirations. And let’s not forget: innovation comes in surprising places.Case in point: one analysis showed the top private R&D investor in a region (in a given year) was… a sandwich manufacturer. If that’s not a reason to broaden our lens, I don’t know what is.
Data: Powerful, But Messy
The strategy rightly backs data for growth, but let’s be real: this is still a work in progress. We’re dealing with inconsistent datasets, unclear classifications, and fuzzy boundaries.
The Conundrum: Too Many Missions?
Mission-led growth? It’s compelling—and the case has been made. But what happens when we have too many missions? Or when they become too broad to guide real decisions? That’s a lot of moving parts. We risk overwhelming delivery teams and underachieving on outcomes.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/industrial-strategy
