Anatole Pang: To succeed with China, we must learn to play the underdog once again

Anatole Pang is a former Conservative council candidate for Twickenham, and is resident in Beijing where he has worked for four years. He is currently an active member of Conservatives Abroad there.

In my last piece on this site, I discussed some of the main themes in current Sino-British trade ,and began to look at some remedies needed. In particular, I tackled one great area of complacency: the idea that although Britain's services-focused economic structure was not as strong in the emerging markets as manufacturing powerhouses such as Germany, we would still benefit in the "next cycle", as those economies matured and required services. I pointed out that there are precious few examples of any emerging markets allowing as much foreign presence in services as they do in products - and that this hope was most likely a fallac.

Following on from this, and partly in relation to some of the responses I have had, both to the piece and more generally, I want to tackle the second great area of complacency which I detect in our British mentality: the idea that as long as we keep our own house in order, things will be fine. This school of thought argues in essence that we do not need such a thing as a "China policy", or an "India policy" or anything else. We should remain true to who we are (possibly in conjunction with an exit from Europe), and our patience will be rewarded.

For a start, this way of thinking demonstrates a dangerous parochialism which prevents Britain from taking on the challenges of globalisation head-on. It is instructive to note how far we are from our American cousins for whom "China is an overarching backdrop to almost everything" being discussed on Capitol Hill. Naturally. we do not have their geo-political priorities But, ideally, our own discourse should resemble more closely that description than the sad "black box" which currently exists. We need to talk more at Westminster about China.

Moreover, this attitude does not recognise the realities of our current relative position, or future trajectory. At some point, Britain will have to embrace its position as an underdog rather than a major player, and we have to understand that how we implement and conduct government-to-government trade policy is totally different in each circumstance. The days of corporate imperialism - when Britain could aim to dictate trade with the emerging markets on its own or even equal terms - are long gone. Instead, we must be flexible, and aim to shape ourselves to provide what others need on their terms.

Anatole Pang: Trying to be German - Britain needs a China policy

Anatole Pang is a former Conservative council candidate for Twickenham, and is resident in Beijing where he has worked for four years. He is currently an active member of Conservatives Abroad there.

It has been a cliché for some years now, that Britain needs to find a way to make more of China and its economy if we are going to find our feet in a changing world. The current trade position compared to our nearest peers is startling, with exports to China far below Germany and even France, and with the worst trade deficit amongst all the large European economies.

[1]
As yet however, the UK has not demonstrated a particularly coherent strategy as to how to go about rectifying this – in fact one might argue there has been no real “China policy” at all. Part of this may be due to the structure of our economy, with its focus on services; but another entirely preventable limitation is the mentality which pervades some British business, government and the FCO.

Even for those who are keen on confronting the China dilemma, there is a complacency. For instance one theory prevalent in some circles is that Britain, although disadvantaged in this current cycle of Chinese industrialization, is well poised to make the most of the following phase, where China’s domestic markets will begin to demand services. According to this view, Britain’s time will inevitably come, with a little patience, and the strong position of Germany and others is but temporary.

The problem is this: in the history of post-war development, there has been no example of any country successfully migrating from lower to upper-middle income whilst also maintaining an open-mind towards foreign companies. Typically a developing country will begin to expose its manufacturing base to competition from abroad, but will continue to protect its services. Singapore is an example of this, as is Malaysia; in Japan and Korea foreigners barely get a look in. India is notoriously difficult to enter as a market and vast swathes of South America area as protectionist now as they ever were.

Anatole Pang: The 55% rule is right - not least because the public want fewer, not more, elections

Anatole was a Conservative council candidate in 2006, and continues to actively support the cause. He currently works in political PR and is based in Beijing.

The recent debate which has emerged as to the relative merits and demerits of the 55% rule appears to indicate an early stumbling block for David Cameron. But are David Davis et al right? Having read the various critiques, I feel stronger than ever that many politicians who are objecting in good faith are misreading the electorate on certain key things.

First and foremost is this idea of “wanting more democracy”, which I think is a very typical example of a concept which has its roots in popular sentiment, but which is twisted by those in the Westminster village into something which suits their own agenda. Simply put, I don’t think any member of the public has any desire whatsoever to spend more time at the ballot box under any form. I certainly experienced no enthusiasm for more contact with the electoral process on the doorstep this year. This includes general and local elections of course; but I think also applies to referendums, recalls, primaries or any other form of choice which involves going to cast a piece of paper for one side or another.

The Great British public are cynical, caustic and somewhat lazy. They see elections as little other than a chance for politicians to preen and self-publicise. Of course, once in a while they enjoy the chance to throw out a government and change it for another that might offer something different; but overall, even most of the “in-between” elections are considered totally unnecessary and a waste of time and money – witness 2001, 1987 and so on. Of course I am not arguing for ending the five-year term limits, but what I am saying is that the starting point for considering this issue is that the public regard electioneering as an appalling spectacle, and increasingly with the demise of partisan allegiances, mark down all overt partisanship or tribalism. This, for better or worse, is the world we live in.