View from City Road: Whitehall could do better
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.There is always a sneaking suspicion that the reason Whitehall is so keen on secrecy is that it is worried its work would not stand up to serious analysis. Certainly, the Department of Trade and Industry's memorandum on competitiveness is disappointing. It would be reassuring to think that its problems were caused by censorship. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests otherwise.
The DTI paper for its Commons select commitee rounds up useful information about the British record on research and development (poor), education (lamentable), management skills (not sure), and rates of return on investment (still too low).
But it also commits GCSE economics howlers: surely GDP per head is not so much a measure of competitiveness as of activity or living standards. Moreover, the pupil oddly fails to mention the level of the pound (either in nominal or real terms), which might have a little bearing on competitiveness. All in all, gamma minus. Must try harder.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments