AI, employment, and the UK's industrial strategy
Photo by WPA Pool / Getty
AI has emerged as both a panacea and the harbinger of a dystopian future. For policymakers crafting Britain's industrial future, the challenge is fully burnishing one side of that coin, while minimising exposure to the other.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the UK's Invest 2035 strategy, setting out a vision of economic renewal rooted in advanced technologies and regional growth. 'Jobs will be at the heart of our modern industrial strategy,' wrote Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Jonathan Reynolds, Secretary of State for Business and Trade, in their foreword to the strategy's draft consultation. At the same time, it promises 'an ambitious approach to grow the AI sector and drive responsible adoption across the economy'. The question is how, or whether, those two ambitions can fully succeed in tandem.
PwC's latest Global AI Jobs Barometer, published in early June, analysed close to a billion job postings across six continents. It found that demand for roles with high AI exposure expanded at a slower pace than those less affected by AI. The gap between these groups has widened since 2020, with jobs least exposed to AI experiencing a surge in listings.
Invest 2035 focuses on eight 'growth-driving' sectors that are undoubtedly seeing greater AI penetration: advanced manufacturing; clean energy; the creative industries; defence; digital and technologies; financial services; life sciences; and professional and business services. PwC's report also found that roles with substantial AI exposure have undergone significantly more changes in skill requirements over the past five years. If jobs are to be at the heart of this new economy, one major challenge is how the UK equips its current and emerging workforce to fully engage.
The government's primary response to such questions lies with Skills England. Formally launched in 2024, the body is tasked with coordinating a fragmented post-16 skills system, and aligning it more closely with national economic priorities – including, crucially, the opportunities and risks posed by AI. With a mandate to 'drive forward a skills system that meets the needs of employers, learners and the wider economy', it is a key lever in delivering not just more jobs, but better ones.
'Skills England… will ensure that our workforce is equipped with the necessary skills to meet the demands of the modern economy,' Phil Smith, Skills England chair, told MPs in a parliamentary debate in February.
The idea of lifelong learning – once a political platitude – has become a central pillar of this transition. As the economic landscape shifts faster than traditional education systems can keep pace with, workers increasingly need access to flexible, modular training that fits around existing jobs and responsibilities. Yet, as the IPPR has pointed out, the UK's investment in adult skills still lags behind many OECD peers.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
In a widely discussed 2024 report on AI and labour market disruption, the IPPR argued that the UK faces a binary future. 'Already existing generative AI could lead to big labour market disruption or it could hugely boost economic growth. Either way, it is set to be a gamechanger for millions of us,' said senior economist Carsten Jung.
In that sense, industrial strategy cannot be separated from social policy. The government's proposed Advanced British Standard – a unified post-16 qualification intended to replace A-levels and T-levels – must prepare young people not only with subject knowledge but with the adaptability and analytical skills required in a rapidly evolving labour market. As automation touches roles from radiology to retail, the core
employability question shifts from what you know to how quickly you can learn.
That shift is not evenly distributed across society. In towns with industrial legacies or fragile labour markets, AI is more likely to displace than create jobs – unless there is targeted, place-based intervention. Invest 2035 makes regional rebalancing a core ambition. But the delivery depends on ensuring that skills provision reaches not just growing tech clusters but also under-served communities. Community learning providers like the Workers' Educational Association (WEA) have a role not just in teaching but in building confidence and trust – especially for older or insecure workers who may feel alienated by the pace of technological change. WEA chief executive Simon Parkinson has called for long-term policy and funding stability so providers can scale up their work: taking training 'to where people are, not where policy is most comfortable'.
There are, however, lingering gaps between strategy and delivery. While government rhetoric supports 'responsible adoption' of AI, it remains vague on how to mitigate job displacement in sectors most vulnerable to automation. Some analysts argue that Invest 2035, like its predecessors, risks overstating short-term
innovation gains while underestimating longer-term disruption.
Meanwhile, employer responsibility remains a crucial, under-addressed issue. If businesses are to adopt AI in a way that benefits workers, not just bottom lines, they must be incentivised to invest in staff retraining. At present, many treat upskilling as an externality – a public good best delivered by someone else.
Models such as Local Skills Improvement Plans (LSIPs), designed to give employers a greater role in shaping local post-16 training, have potential, but questions have been raised in regards to consistency of ambition and effectiveness. Without stronger national coordination, these initiatives may amount to well-meaning but fragmented efforts, rather than transformative change.
Indeed, the overarching challenge is neither technological nor economic – it is political. AI, like past waves of automation, will not distribute its rewards evenly or inevitably. The outcome will depend on the state's ability to shape markets and institutions in the public interest.
'AI… will transform jobs, destroy old ones, create new ones, trigger the development of new products and services and allow us to do things we could not do before,' Jung writes in 2025's The New Politics of AI: Why Fast Technological Change Requires Bold Policy Targets. 'But given its immense potential for change, it is important to steer it towards helping us solve big societal problems.'
Invest 2035 boasts similarly grandiose ambitions. Its success will not rest on ambition alone, however, but on how convincingly it connects the dots between technology, training and trust. For AI and jobs to serve as dual engines of growth, the UK must resist the temptation to treat them as separate problems. They are, in reality, two faces of the same future.
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
The state spends £24,000 a year for every adult. Something's got to give
It's amazing how things change. Just a few months ago Rachel Reeves told us the financial situation was so grim she had no choice but to take the winter fuel payment from all but the poorest pensioners. And now, thanks to Labour, it's all going so well she can afford to give it back. That was, of course, a lie. But it wasn't the big lie. No, the big lie was that the spending review bore any relation to what we will actually spend. The traditional recipe for political success is simple: scrimp, then splurge. Get the pain out of the way after the election, so you can splash out before the next one. • Jobs market is flashing a warning sign to Rachel Reeves That's not the approach Reeves took. She wanted to show she was ending austerity (such as it was). But the finances were desperately tight. Her solution, apart from raising taxes, was to frontload her spending increases and hope something turned up. The result is a spending profile that resembles a child playing a violin: sharp, then flat. Between 2025-26 and 2028-29, day-to-day departmental spending is to rise from £518 billion to £568 billion. Factoring in inflation, that means budgets in the last two years of the parliament will grow by just 1 per cent a year — and far less for most departments, since the overall figure includes 3 per cent a year for the NHS (which is getting more than half of all the extra cash). Will Labour really go into the election amid more 'Tory austerity'? Well, no. It'll want to spend more. Or need to: Reeves's ferociously tight numbers leave no room for downturns, pay strikes, trade wars or shooting wars. Her plans also depend on £14 billion in hazily detailed 'efficiency savings'. And the hoped-for bailout via a mid-term growth bonanza is less likely than ever. But here's the paradox. From the perspective of the Labour Party, most of those working in public services and her own electoral prospects, Reeves isn't spending nearly enough. But from another perspective, the chancellor is spending far, far too much. Public spending is running at 44 per cent of GDP, a historic high. Taxes, too, are historically high, and universally expected to go higher. Not only have we been spending like crazy, not least because of the pandemic, but we've been spending money we don't have — resulting in an annual bill of more than £100 billion just to cover the interest on our debts. These numbers can be hard to put into context. So our team at the Centre for Policy Studies think tank has come up with a different way of looking at it. We estimate that we are now spending £23,757 for every adult in this country: roughly two thirds of the average full-time salary of £37,500. That includes £3,807 on health, £5,817 on welfare and pensions and a shocking £1,955 for that debt bill. Restrict the calculation to those of working age, and spending is north of £30,000 a head. Factor in economic inactivity, and the state is almost certainly spending more than every worker aged 18 to 65 is earning. This is very obviously not sustainable. So how to square the circle? Given the position we're in, shaving departmental budgets just won't cut it, especially when the chancellor claims to have already ruthlessly reviewed every pound they spend (yet somehow set them all the same target for efficiency savings). We need to accept instead that government cannot actually do all the things it tries to. But we already know how hard that will be. If ministers are going to U-turn on the winter fuel payment and wobble on a set of welfare reforms that barely slow, let alone halt, the rise in disability and incapacity spending, how can they possibly tackle issues like the triple lock, social care or special educational needs and disability (Send) costs for councils? That's before even mentioning the NHS. So here are a couple of heretical thoughts. The first is that rather than guaranteeing the level of any individual benefit, we should think in terms of total spend. Let's say we decide that we can only afford to devote 1.5 per cent of GDP to a particular benefit. If more people claim, the totals go down. If people want more cash, they either have to dob in the fraudsters or accept the kinds of policy likely to swell GDP. A gentler version would be to keep benefits from falling, but ensure that they increase only when we can actually afford it. Revolutionary, I know. The second idea is more fundamental: to accept that government cannot actually move the economic needle. If you were listening to the spending review, you would have heard pledge after pledge: billions spent on this, billions on that. But that is not how you get the economy growing. You do that by creating the conditions for individuals and businesses to boost it for you. This may sound like Thatcherite dogma. But it's simple maths. Investment in the UK is roughly 18 per cent of GDP. But the state is responsible for perhaps a sixth of that. Hence Reeves's talk of 'co-investment': using small amounts of state funding to leverage much larger private sums. Or let's look at affordable housing, one of the few areas that did get some cash at the spending review. The government is promising an extra £39 billion over ten years. That's useful. But housebuilders knocked up £46 billion in private sector housing in just the past year — a pretty slow year, at point is that even small increases, or falls, in private sector activity have a far larger impact on the economy, and balance sheet, than the endless initiatives that pour forth from government. Which is precisely why Reeves's jobs tax was so damaging. Generating those increases, or falls, often isn't about money, but common sense. On housebuilding, for example, our system is based on local plans set out by councils. But loads of councils don't have plans in place. And Labour has embarked on a massive local government reorganisation that will delay their publication still further, dooming any hope of hitting its housing targets. It may be anathema to many on the Labour benches, but if the government is to have any hope of avoiding tax rises not just this autumn but for years to come, it needs to do what it finds hardest: clear the obstacles and let the private sector get on with it. The temptation, instead, will be to hammer work, wealth and business one more time. Which will of course make the task facing the chancellor even harder.
South Wales Guardian
3 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Procurement rules set to be overhauled as ministers lay out infrastructure plans
The strategy to overhaul infrastructure over the next decade comes as Rachel Reeves has said the country's schools and hospitals have been 'left to crumble'. The Treasury has promised hundreds of billions over the next decade for projects such as roads, railways and homes. Under proposals put forward in a Cabinet Office consultation, public bodies would have to give more weight to firms which can prove they will boost British jobs when they are bidding for contracts. The change is set to apply to major projects such as transport, as well as other schemes including hospital and school building. Firms looking to work on public sector projects could also be rewarded if they can show benefits they will bring to a community, such as apprenticeships, opportunities for care leavers, or helping people into work. Pat McFadden, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, has said that the proposals will reward firms that 'put money in working people's pockets'. 'Whether it's building roads, railways or schools, we want to open up opportunities on major infrastructure projects for firms that boost British jobs and skills,' he said. 'The new rules will deliver on our plan for change by rewarding companies that put money in working people's pockets as we invest in the country's future.' According to the Treasury, the infrastructure strategy will lay out Government plans on prioritised policy areas such as upgrading transport networks, building new homes, modernising public services such as hospitals, and assisting the transition to green energy. Ministers are pledging that at least £725 billion will be spent on infrastructure over the next 10 years. The Chancellor outlined a raft of infrastructure investment as part of last week's spending review. According to Wednesday's announcement, there will be £39 billion over the next 10 years to build affordable and social housing, and spending is due to reach £4 billion a year in 2029-30. There was also a £30 billion commitment to nuclear power, including £14.2 billion to build the Sizewell C plant in Suffolk and £2.5 billion for small modular reactors, as well as £15 billion for public transport projects in England's city regions and a four-year settlement for Transport for London worth £2.2 billion. Ms Reeves said: 'The British people voted for change – and this is how we deliver it. For too long, our infrastructure – our schools and hospitals, or our roads and bridges – have been left to crumble, holding back communities and stunting economic growth. 'This was a dereliction of duty by previous governments overseeing an era of managed decline, but it ends with this one. 'We are investing in Britain's future, brick by brick, road by road and track by track.'
North Wales Chronicle
3 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Procurement rules set to be overhauled as ministers lay out infrastructure plans
The strategy to overhaul infrastructure over the next decade comes as Rachel Reeves has said the country's schools and hospitals have been 'left to crumble'. The Treasury has promised hundreds of billions over the next decade for projects such as roads, railways and homes. Under proposals put forward in a Cabinet Office consultation, public bodies would have to give more weight to firms which can prove they will boost British jobs when they are bidding for contracts. The change is set to apply to major projects such as transport, as well as other schemes including hospital and school building. Firms looking to work on public sector projects could also be rewarded if they can show benefits they will bring to a community, such as apprenticeships, opportunities for care leavers, or helping people into work. Pat McFadden, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, has said that the proposals will reward firms that 'put money in working people's pockets'. 'Whether it's building roads, railways or schools, we want to open up opportunities on major infrastructure projects for firms that boost British jobs and skills,' he said. 'The new rules will deliver on our plan for change by rewarding companies that put money in working people's pockets as we invest in the country's future.' According to the Treasury, the infrastructure strategy will lay out Government plans on prioritised policy areas such as upgrading transport networks, building new homes, modernising public services such as hospitals, and assisting the transition to green energy. Ministers are pledging that at least £725 billion will be spent on infrastructure over the next 10 years. The Chancellor outlined a raft of infrastructure investment as part of last week's spending review. According to Wednesday's announcement, there will be £39 billion over the next 10 years to build affordable and social housing, and spending is due to reach £4 billion a year in 2029-30. There was also a £30 billion commitment to nuclear power, including £14.2 billion to build the Sizewell C plant in Suffolk and £2.5 billion for small modular reactors, as well as £15 billion for public transport projects in England's city regions and a four-year settlement for Transport for London worth £2.2 billion. Ms Reeves said: 'The British people voted for change – and this is how we deliver it. For too long, our infrastructure – our schools and hospitals, or our roads and bridges – have been left to crumble, holding back communities and stunting economic growth. 'This was a dereliction of duty by previous governments overseeing an era of managed decline, but it ends with this one. 'We are investing in Britain's future, brick by brick, road by road and track by track.'
