If we score five goals, will we win?
In a set piece speech a couple of weeks ago, the leader of one
of our major political parties set out five goals that would characterise his
party’s economic policy should they win the next election:
·
restore trust in Britain’s institutions
·
create a skilled workforce
·
an industrial policy for good private sector
jobs in every region
·
tackle the culture of short-termism
·
reform financial markets
I have three remarks.
First remark
More of a quiz question actually. Can you guess which leader uttered these
gems?
What does it tell us, even if you already know the answer[1],
that it really could have been any of them?
Second remark
I can’t remember where I first heard or read it, but
somewhere along the line I learned that a useful test of the meaning of a
marketing claim was to consider its negation.
If the negation is clearly ridiculous, then the claim itself is probably
vacuous. Let’s take a look:
“Our future economic policies will be:
·
to develop untrustworthy institutions
·
to reduce the skills and capabilities of the British
workforce
·
to foster meaningless work everywhere except
London
·
to discourage long term thinking and planning
·
to reduce regulation of financial markets and
allow them to do whatever they want”
Which is by way of saying: these goals are meaningless. They are bland truisms uttered in an attempt
to defuse an imagined resistance that serve only to confirm the validity of
public indifference.
Third remark
In any case, what are these goals actually for? Why would we want them? What would they give us?
The probable answer would be something like “to deliver an
efficient and competitive economy” or “to support the economic growth that will
enable us to fund vital public services” or “to put the country on a sustainable
economic footing” or somesuch.
To which my response is, firstly:- see my Second Remark, above.
Secondly, and more substantively – how about setting out (in
simple terms, nothing too complex or technical) what it is you’re aiming for,
what sort of outcome or world you want to head towards; and then set out five
goals that manifestly help to get there.
As in:
We would like an economy that enables all of our citizens to flourish
and feel valued; in which ‘wealth’ is both more broadly defined and more evenly
distributed; that makes a positive contribution to the development of a just
and peaceful world; and that functions in a manner that is consistent with the
realities of living on a single, finite planet
A bit softy liberal eco-utopian, maybe, but you get the
gist: and, from that, we get:-
·
We shall prioritise investment, and encourage
investment, in health and related sectors that contribute to well-being
·
We shall develop and introduce a range of
incentives to encourage the growth of low-environmental impact sectors, and to
encourage other sectors to move rapidly towards peaceful activity that is
consistent with living on a single finite planet
·
We shall reform corporate law so as to oblige
commercial organisations to pursue broader goals of responsibility for, and
care towards, the citizens and locations with which they engage
·
We shall re-orient income-side taxes so as to
raise the value (and thus income) of work that involves providing direct care
for others, and to restrict the earnings available from speculative and/or
casino-style financial activities
·
We shall reform the consumption-side tax system
so as to encourage demand for goods and services that are demonstrably
sustainable and/or healthy, with a view to facilitating a national debate about
a longer term strategy to free us from the debt-based, anxiety-inducing,
divisive and unsustainable strictures of ‘consumerism’
There we go; five goals, with a point.
A flight of pure fancy, obviously, with absolutely no chance
of having traction anywhere ‘serious’.
But that’s not the same as being ‘wrong’.
[If there's a photo down here it was added
August 2017 as part of blog refresh. Photo is either mine or is linked to
where I found it. Make of either what you will.]
Comments