What are, and what should be, Labour's five missions?
(Yestersay (23rd February) Keir Starmer announced the five missions that would characterise his government, if elected. Here I comment.)
Dear Team-at-Labour-Headquarters,
Those are five admirable objectives, so far as they go. But it strikes me that they are likely very similar to the five objectives of the Conservative party.
1. Secure the highest sustained growth in the G7
How? Not by cutting taxes, surely? nearly all voices clamour for growth. Yet I do not seek growth, if it means more-of-the-same, more concrete, more motor cars). Perhaps we should aim for 'productivity' gains (which benefits everyone), and better distribution of wealth (which would benefit nearly everyone).
2. Build an NHS fit for the future.
Even an NHS of the past would be quite good. We should try to re-establish morale, certainly, but also cap spending on e.g. expensive operations and expensive medicines, else the image of a 'bottom-less pit' looms. We suggest (again) the 'health-penny' on income-tax.
3. Make Britain’s streets safe.
I suppose again the task is to try to re-establish morale, and public confidence. Do we need to think seriously about management training? Quality circles? The 'Copper-penny' on tax?
4. Break down the barriers to opportunity at every stage.
Which barriers? And how? (You cannot make people intelligent and innovative by sending them to Oxford.) The Tory idea is competition and laissez faire; what is Labour's idea? Apprenticships?
5. Make Britain a clean energy superpower.
Clean – yes! But Superpower? Citizens are happier (more content) in Finland (7.82) and Denmark (7.64) than in any of the G10 "superpowers". Look at the Happiness indices of the G10.
Switzerland 7.51
Netherlands 7.41
Sweden 7.38
Canada 7.03
Germany 7.03
USA 6.98
UK 6.94
Belgium 6.8
France 6.69
Italy 6.47
Japan 6.04
I would like Britons to be happily honest, happily frugal, happily generous, happily good citizens, happily fair.
I would like to see the voting strength of the MPs in parliament match the voting strengths in the country (e.g. by weighted voting in the Commons.
Labour may be held back by its past, for it cannot easily chuck the 'Labour' tag with its confrontational approach to labour relations. What about "Ordoliberalism" ?
Where are Labour's philosophers? The Fabians? The brains? Where, indeed, is New Labour?
Yours sincerely, Ian West (Comments to cawstein@gmail.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment