When Theresa May became prime minister, the tech sector felt a sudden and unexpected chill. Under David Cameron, entrepreneurs had grown used to a fond welcome at Downing Street, where the nation’s leader pondered their thoughts and handed out useful patronage. It was the best kind of tech event: drinks, deals, and a goodie bag came with an MBE.
May and her new team were different. “They’re not interested,” I heard repeatedly after they arrived. In Nick Timothy’s Britain, capitalists were no longer in fashion. Plus, of course, there was Brexit, which left the tech scene shell-shocked and dismayed, not only because of the possible effects on recruitment and investment, but also because, for many who work in tech, what they do is more than just business. In this vision, tech stands for the open, connected future – the precise opposite of Brexit.
Then came the disastrous election of 2017, and once again tech’s most prominent figures found themselves receiving calls from the prime minister’s office. Technology was a key part of the government’s new “industrial strategy”, a centralised push for economic growth. Reports were commissioned, round tables arranged – friendly vibes emanated in the direction of Old Street roundabout.
This week we saw the fruits of that rapprochement. On Wednesday evening, entrepreneurs, investors and advocates were back at Downing Street – queuing to get in, in fact – to celebrate a deal to maintain tech’s vitality after Brexit. As May announced she would increase funding for startups and AI and double the number of visas available for skilled developers and computer scientists, the tech establishment took to Twitter to endorse May’s claim that “I will back our world-class tech sector as we build an economy fit for the future.”
The arrangement comes at a time when the government is desperate for even lukewarm support. So, given that the mere prospect of a hard Brexit is already frightening away employees and investors, you’d imagine tech’s leaders – hardened negotiators prepared to bet millions on an intuition – extracted a hefty price for their support.
But, if you did, you’d be wrong. Instead, the tech sector handed over its leverage for the political equivalent of drinks and nibbles.
Read more: Article 50 and Brexit: tech's leaders have their say
Take the visas, the most important part of this dispiriting bargain. At present, the government allocates 1,000 Exceptional Talent visas for anyone from outside the European Economic Area who is a “leader” or “potential leader” in arts, sciences or digital technology. These visas are being doubled – but, although the announcement strove to give that impression, the extra 1,000 will not go straight to tech.
The visas are doled out by five bodies – Tech City UK; Arts Council England; the British Academy; the Royal Society; and the Royal Academy of Engineering – which each hands out between 200 and 250. Assuming tech’s endorsing body maintains its allocation – not guaranteed, for as recently as 2015 it only managed to give out seven – then the visas secured for tech will be closer to 500.
The UK digital sector comprises around 1.7 million people, including over 220,000 non-UK nationals, so the numbers involved are so miniscule as to be hardly worth disputing. Even so, it’s useful to follow through the reasoning, just to see the twisted logic at work.
What could make a difference to tech's total visas is the change in the way the extra 1,000 are unallocated. Under the new arrangement, all the official bodies will be able to compete for the entire allocation – which in theory creates more space for the kind of world-class talent on which success in tech depends. But this means that every time a developer or computer scientist gets a visa, an engineer, neuroscientist or artist has to miss out. Shared prosperity has become a zero sum game. To win, tech has to lose.
May also announced £20 million for cybersecurity training for teenagers, £20 million to help public services adopt AI, and £21 million for Tech City UK, the semi-public body charged with supporting technology in the UK, which was rebranded as Tech Nation under the change.
Under Cameron's cosy London boy's club, the creativity and diversity of UK tech went largely ignored, so it would be a welcome change if Tech Nation represented the entire country. Sadly, as the move is ultimately a centralisation, it wouldn’t be a surprise if it ended up confirming London’s dominance over the regions.
The headline figure is also deceptive. Tech Nation’s £21 million is spread across four years, giving it £5.25 million annually, as part of a £28 million four-year budget. Tech City UK already had a grant of £2 million, as did Tech North, which under the new arrangement will be incorporated into Tech Nation. So UK tech is actually getting an additional £5 million. Again, meaningless in the context of Brexit, but also, frustratingly, less than was promised in the public relations blitz.
Read more: Theresa May: ‘It doesn’t have to be like this. Russia could choose a different path’
You might be thinking, what’s the problem? More is more, after all, and some funding and visas are better than none. But this assumes that nothing was lost in the exchange. In fact, something was sacrificed: the ability to make a principled stand against the inequities of the wider policy.
The tech sector claims to care passionately about openness, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that the only openness they're really interested in is the one that benefits them. Earlier this week David Davis reportedly promised bankers a special exemption for travel post-Brexit. On this evidence, tech would take that disgustingly unfair deal in a heartbeat.
The tech establishment may feel it has only limited influence in the corridors of power. But if that’s the case, then why weren’t artists or engineers – who, by the same rationale, also received “double” the number of visas – being wooed at Downing Street? Rightly or not, tech carries political weight. Unfortunately, the sector’s representatives choose not to use it, while those that disagree, with some honourable exceptions, remain silent.
No doubt the architects of the deal will argue that it’s better to be on the inside, where it’s possible to exercise influence. But when the government's overall direction is so manifestly against your beliefs and the interests of those you represent, engagement is little more than pandering. The operation is not a success if the patient dies.
UPDATE: this piece has been corrected to reflect Tech City's budgetary situation. The organisation's total budget over the next four years is £28 million, which includes the new £21 million grant, an existing grant of four million, and three million net commercial revenue.
This article was originally published by WIRED UK
