David Gauke: Globalisation is far from dead. There’s a strong case in it’s favour and Conservatives should be making it

David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the 2019 general election

There was a time when the most vociferous anti-globalists were on the left.

No gathering of the G7 was complete without a gathering of a radical left-wing rentamob, noisily condemning the Washington consensus of free trade and free movement of capital.  Globalisation was a conspiracy against developing countries as rapacious western multinationals exploited the world’s poor.  Meanwhile, particularly in the US, trade unions would make the case for protectionism as a means of keeping open uncompetitive factories.

The centre right was having none of it.  We believed in free trade and free markets.  We would point out that those developing countries that opened up their markets and traded with the rest of the world were the success stories.  Japan and South Korea led the way; China transformed itself from the late 1970s; India finally got there in the 1990s.  Billions of people were lifted out of poverty.  As for the arguments from the trade unions, it was time to look forward.  It was not the role of the state to keep open uncompetitive factories or mines but to embrace change.  You cannot buck the market.

By the time we had reached the 1990s, this free market realism had been accepted by the leadership of the centre left.  Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were enthusiastic advocates for globalisation.  This left the anti-globalists at the extremes, on the outside, waving placards not wielding power.

The contrast with today is striking.  The word ‘globalist’ is a term of abuse, and one that is used by the right more than the left.  What is more, it is not used by the fringe right, but my members of the most powerful administration in the world.  To the extent that Donald Trump stands for anything, it is his rejection of globalisation.  He is for “America First”, tariffs (at least, most days), and the repudiation of multilateralism and a rules based system.

In the UK, Reform uses similar rhetoric, blaming globalisation for our economic and societal problems.

Meanwhile, Labour does not go so far, but Keir Starmer talks of the era of globalisation having ended.  Rachel Reeves has set out the case for “securonomics” in which economic policy is more closely tied to national security policy.  There is greater emphasis on economic self-reliance and ensuring that supply chains are not vulnerable to disruption from potential adversaries.  Diplomatically, there is a reluctance to criticise Trump’s tariff policies.

This is also an area where the Conservatives fear to tread, even though Oppositions have a little more freedom than Governments.  There is no sign that the Tories want to use it to be critical of the US President.  This might be from a desire to sound statesman-like and responsible, inherent pro-Americanism, a political calculation that arguments for free trade are unfashionable or even sympathy with Trump’s outlook.  Kemi Badenoch, for example, makes the case that we should “buy British”.

Whatever the cause, the case for free markets and free trade is not being made by the party of Margaret Thatcher.

An example of how the debate in the UK has moved is the recent legislation relating to the steelworks in Scunthorpe.  In the 1980s, a loss-making entity such as this would surely have been allowed to close.  Now, there is a near Parliamentary consensus that the Government should intervene to keep it open, taking extraordinary powers to restrict the rights of the owner of the site (my old friend, Daniel Hannan being an honourable exception).  Reform calls for it to be nationalised, as it surely will be in time.

The case for this action is not economic.

This will likely cost the taxpayer a fortune at some point, and sends a negative signal to every foreign entity considering investing in anything that could be described as our critical national infrastructure.

This is about is national prestige (every other G7 economy can produce virgin steel) and, supposedly, national defence.  The latter argument appears to be particularly flaky given that the Scunthorpe site depends upon imported iron ore and coke.  It is hard to envisage the circumstances when we are in a conflict in which we can freely import iron ore and coke but not steel.  It is also, of course, about protecting jobs in a politically contested part of the country.

Tony Blair once described the future of politics as being about open versus closed.  Our politics is becoming more closed – suspicious of abroad, desirous of making more ourselves.  It is an environment in which Government intervention – including nationalisation – is popular.

For those of us who believe in free markets and free trade, it is an unwelcome situation.  Of course, change can be painful but those peddling a return to some mythical golden age are either deluded or appealing to the deluded.  A world of trade protection and wasting money on lame ducks in the hope that they will one day be national champions will only make us poorer.

For some of us on the centre right, it would be refreshing if the Conservative Party could make this case, just as it did in the 1980s.  Others will argue that such a position would be electorally disastrous at a time when the public has turned against globalisation.

Perhaps that is correct, but we should at least question that assumption.

First, as is already evident, the retreat from globalisation comes at a big economic cost.  Just look at the value that has been lost in equities in recent weeks thanks to Trump’s policies and the ongoing damage to business investment.  Anti-globalisation policies may well deliver a recession in the US, UK and across the world.  As the costs of anti- globalisation become clearer, the case for globalisation becomes easier to make.  Conservatives could get in early, anticipating where public opinion is going to go.

Second, here is an opportunity to restore the Conservatives reputation as the party of business, lost since Brexit.  Labour’s business tax rises mean that there is an opportunity.  The Tories could demonstrate that they understand the interconnectedness of the modern business world and the case for lowering, not raising, trade barriers.

Third, Donald Trump is immensely unpopular in the UK.  The Tories should keep their distance.  What is more, they can attack Nigel Farage for being too close to the US President and argue that what Trump is doing to the US economy, Farage would do to the UK’s.  As Janan Ganesh has pointed out, Trump is inadvertently making globalisation popular again.

Fourth, the voters most hostile to free trade and free markets are not going to vote Tory anyway.  Labour is after those voters, as is Reform.  Scunthorpe may have voted Conservative in 2019 but it will not do so again any time soon.

Fundamentally, however, Conservatives should make the case for globalisation because it is the right thing to do.  Globalisation has created enormous wealth as people and economies have been able to specialise, inefficiencies are removed, and choice is widened.  A world in which countries trade more is not more precarious but more secure.  All of this is at risk as populists of the left and the right try to bring the system down.

It is time for the Conservatives to make the case for globalisation.