Anyone with an actual long term vision/plan for the UK?

[TheCat]

So, as many current 'crises' are making very apparent, it seems Britain has been a victim of endemic short-termism in most of its strategic political decision making over the past 20-odd years. As a result, we seem to lurch from crisis to crisis, as the various governments trying to put out constant fires, and never end up focussing on an industrial and economic vision for the nation.

Sure the tories have been in power for the past 12 years, but I dont think post-2000 blair/brown was really much different in this regard.

I think to some extent, this lack of political vision is now mirrored in much of how the electorate views the government and its political decisions. But to be fair, thats becuase if there was a well communicated, sensible, coherent plan, then voters would likely be more willing to accept nominally unpopular policies if it was clear it was part of a broader strategy to acheive something long term. A good example being brexit (pls, I dont want another brexit debate), where focus on short term hardships is understandable in the absence of a clear strategy. Similar on broader industrial strategy, industrial relations etc....

At this point, I sort of care less what the plan is (I.e left wing vs right wing), as long as there actually is one.

The question is....is there anyone out there on any side of politics with an actual vision for how the country and economy could look....obviously tories are pretty bereft and too focussed on populism to make the hard choices (unless Truss surprises everyone), but is Starmer and Labour actually really any different? Sure, they may have a few random policies that are different from the status quo, plus various press releases which trumpet a few bullet points of vague platitudes about how they will tackle x, y, or z...but dont really say much at all.....

Any up and comers who might be able to shake up this short term disease in Uk politics? Plenty of positive chat about Kemi Badenoch from some conservatives (again, you dont have to like every policy or view of hers, but a plan/vision would be nice). Angela Rayner gets plenty of plaudits on the other side? Anyone else?, with a bit of foresight and the gumption to make the hard decisions to make it happen....?

[Sephiroth]

industrial/economic plans are not nothing, they are important - but I don't think they matter to average voter much

to dismiss post 2000 Labour gov is to ignore things like the massive reduction in NHS waiting lists, improvement in schools (class sizes, repair of neglected buildings - since reversed since 2010) etc

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/general-election-2010/waiting-times

People want things to work/improve - and they were. the global financial crisis of 2008 changed everything but the narrative in this country was "labour's fault" (funny how global crises are labours fault when in power but external events when tories in power etc). In any case - Labour responded well to the 2008 global crisis and the country was recovering (as well as Brown/Darling being recognised globally as instrumental in keeping the cash machines running when other global leaders panicked). Labour were nowhere near perfect but most people's actual lives (the ones complaining loudly now) were ticking along nicely. School worked. NHS worked. Jobs were plentiful. Historically speaking

But - 13 years of government is a long time - and for various reasons the country saw fit to give Cons a fresh start (ish - see libdem coalition). Everything has been pretty much downhill since then. And yet the tories keep getting elected. I don't see Starmer offering much by way of vision - but if I was minded too come to his defence, the country has rejected Brown/Miliband/Corbyn before him so he is being super cautious. Say what you like about the previous 3, but they had wildly differing styles and offerings to each other - so it seems the country wants super safe and Starmer is sticking to that

Interesting that Cat is asking the question about the UK and not other European countries - almost as if the problems he describes are actually UK specific and nothing to do with EU membership. Which he will now deny but has always been the case

UK was a basket case before EU membership and so it is again - there are lessons to be learnt here (humility and reality being just two) but the reason there is no English long term plan is because it is inherently short term and has been for a long time. Pretending Brexit will be great in 50 years isn't "long term planning" - that's just pie in the sky abdication of responsibility

Scotland and Ireland can see all this so the UK isn't a long term thing either. Tories shat the bed in 2010-now and Brexit will cement it all

I know this isn't the positive vibe you were after (and wouldn't expect from me) but if you want to solve a problem you have to recognise the problem. Tory strategy has been toxic, Brexit is astoundingly bad for the UK (economically and culturally) and the long term plan is coordinating with our nearest trading partners around trade, power sources, global headwinds etc

But if you want to pretend the UK can go it alone, asking for a long term vision is fools gold

As one path forward, I would suggest working with EU and not being in reflexive combative mode, see green energy as the future and us UK expertise in that field to export ideas and product. (instead of current and future tories constantly badmouthing the very idea of green energy)

[TheCat]

Fair enough. But I just cant get on board with viewing everything through a brexit lens.

No I did not ask about the EU or other countries. As my question was about short termism in politics in the UK. If you want to discuss politics in the EU, then start a thread on that.

But since you raise it. I feel there are some rose tinted glasses here about the EU. I'll go out on a limb and say that the powerhouse of the EU, Germany, will suffer a massive economic collapse in the next 12 months.....in which case, we might be glad of a little separation....

Seperatley, I get what you're saying about starmer playing it safe. But keeping one's head down so that you appear "less sh!t" than the other guys is hardly a vision or a plan.....very uninspiring all round to be honest.

[malumbu]

Blair got a shock with the 3 Fs, fuel (protests), foot and mouth and flooding. This showed how poor wider planning was across government and understanding of the wider consequences. The Labour government overhauled government's planning and preparations - little is said about gas shortages in winters in the mid 00s (bad weather in the North Sea and loss of long term storage due to an incident) or the threat of renewed fuel protests. That was because they were well managed. Sadly Labour has failed to remind the country of massive imprisonments in energy security, as new interconnectors were built and LNG reception facilities.

From 2010 we lost the plot in particular planning for novel infectious disease. Fortunately experts were in the room for some of the difficult decisions over lockdowns, time will tell how much the experts were at fault for the failure to act earlier. I expect most on this forum have far more love for Jonathan VT than the current PM.

On the down side Labour did not make good decisions on nuclear new build.

I was involved in some of this but I admit to an anti-Tory bias. I thought some of the Big Society stuff was OK but subsequently dropped. Some of the environmental ambitions are good, but lack of substance and Truss will sacrifice much of this. The two challenges to future generations are climate change and geopolitical instability. These don't feature on the current leadership race.

If Rory Stewart had been leader I hope the country would have gone in a very different direction. Truss will end up being even worse than Johnson. Quite a challenge!

[diable rouge]

We live in a short-term age where lots of people don't/can't plan for the long-term.

In the workplace a 'job for life' is the exception rather than the rule. Short-term/zero hours contracts have brought about more job insecurity, with people living/surviving from pay day to pay day.

People are saving less, pension planning is considered an unaffordable luxury rather than the norm.

Less and less people can afford to buy their own home and instead are forced to rent. I live in an area where renters far outweigh home owners, and the renters are extremely transient in nature, there's hardly a week that goes by without someone moving in/out.

People have also become used to short-term/instant gratification in their daily lives where everything is just a click away.

Added to all this you've now got the uncertainties/economic damage caused by Brexit, Covid, Ukraine etc. How can people plan for the future with such uncertainty? Would they even bother listening to a politician offering a 'long-term vision'?

So is it any wonder this short-termism has crept into politics too. Whether by design or accident, populists have tapped into this by offering seemingly quick and easy solutions to difficult long-term problems just to get elected. Of course, they fail but then another one comes along with more of the same, witness Johnson and now the soon-to-be new PM Truss.

At least Labour did the decent thing and got rid of Corbyn and his brand of populism, but it would be nice to be able to judge whether Labour under Starmer are any different, but I still don't now exactly what he's offering the country except to say the Tories are rubbish etc.

I can understand Starmer keeping his head below the parapet with regard to Brexit, but the cost of living and NHS crises should be fertile home ground for Labour, they should be setting the agenda on these issues.

A personal 'long-term vision'...I think the best thing that could happen to UK politics is an end to the First Past The Post voting system. That would shake things up, provide a better format for new/fresh ideas/visions to be heard/discussed, but I can't see the two dinosaurs changing that, certainly not the Tories...

[Spartacus]

It's an issue caused by the 5 year election term.

As soon as a government gets into power they look at two things

What they want to undo from the previous government and what they want to implement over the next 5 years. Then about 18 months before the next election they look at what short term popular items they can deliver to boost their pre election ratings.

Regardless of if they win again or not, the next parliament after an election looks at the following 5 year delivery window and things start again.

Long term planning (next 10, 20 or 30 years) doesn't really happen because to do that the government in power would need to get the opposition parties to agree that the plan has to happen regardless of who's in power and politics bring politics that's just not going to happen unless it's a national emergency (war, famine or such like)

Blaming one party or the other or the brexit vote doesn't really cut through the issue that for long term planning to occur, political parties would have to work together for the sake of the electorate which would in turn allow major projects to start, complete and be implemented regardless of who was in power when.

So back to the question, possibly they do but they are hampered by the very political system that puts them , or removes them from power.

[Sephiroth]

“5 year election term”

Ah now you’re making me nostalgic. Been a while since we’ve had one of those. And I don’t expect one any time soon

I do agree FPTP needs to go (another thing Starmer is foolishly and needlessly ruling out )

[TheCat]

Well... I asked for 'a plan'... And by all reports truss and kawrteng are going to give us one tomorrow....

I like at least that there is some conviction, but no question... It's a gamble.... If they stimulate the growth with their measures history will judge them heroes.... If they don't... Well maybe some choice other descriptors will be used....

[jazzer]

And you just can't wait to stick your size 13 boot into them whatever they say, will be wrong by you.

[TheCat]

I think you might be confusing me with the other 90 percent of posters on the EDF....

[jazzer]

a pretty rubbish budget unless you earn over £150K

[malumbu]

Not that I like the bloke but clearly Sunak had a much better grasp on economics. A bit of a lose lose situation, in the likelihood of long term economic damage it's depressing. And should the gamble play off similar thoughts.

[malumbu]

Starting to get my head around things. So the Johnson government proposed a radical approach to land management and improving biodiversity.

Truss is already getting the bulldozers ready (fast tracking commercial and residential development in investment zones).

We will all be promised the opportunity of high paid jobs. Who is going to do the low paid ones?

[TheCat]

What's fascinating is that all the opponents of austerity wanted this.....

[TheCat]

It may or may not work..... But I love that there's a plan.....

[diable rouge]

What's fascinating is that all the opponents of austerity wanted this.....

 

Huge difference in borrowing costs i.e. interest rates/inflation rate, between then and now...

[diable rouge]

Also a huge difference as to how the borrowed money would be spent.

I'm guessing tax breaks for the wealthy and removing the cap on banker's bonuses wouldn't have been top priorities for those opposed to austerity...

[diable rouge]

It may or may not work..... But I love that there's a plan.....

 

Call me a cynic, but something tells me this post isn't going to age well...

[diable rouge]

Kwarteng on borrowed time...

[diable rouge]

It may or may not work..... But I love that there's a plan.....

 

[TheCat]

Also a huge difference as to how the borrowed money would be spent.

I'm guessing tax breaks for the wealthy and removing the cap on banker's bonuses wouldn't have been top priorities for those opposed to austerity...

 

An extra £1 paid out in bonus generates 40p of revenue for the tax man. If it’s instead retained by the company as profit it will only generate 19p of tax

[diable rouge]

In theory, but the reality is that these high earners employ 'creative accountants' (tax deductible) and via tax avoidance schemes this revenue is just as likely to end up in an off-shore fund than the Treasury's coffers.

What the Tufton St lot don't understand is the 'politics' of all this, it's seen as intrinsically unfair, a 'reverse Robin Hood tax', and today's Telegraph headline about the Gov prepared to cut benefits in real terms will feed into that narrative. And that's before we even get the full details of the ginormous spending cuts needed to fund this plan i.e. Austerity 2.0...

[TheCat]

I purposefully haven't really commented on this issue this week, as there is so much to it, meaning that it doesn't lend itself to simplistic, partisan Internet shouting.

Suffice to say the hysteria this week has been OTT

That's also not meant to imply I like the mini budget.

But.... On a micro point.... I know 100s of people who would fall in the 45p band and none of them have these mystical creative accountants you speak of..... Its easy to Conflate someone who makes, say 200k (with a big mortgage and other commitments) a year with someone that makes millions or more.....

[Sephiroth]

So these hundreds of people? They WILL be paying higher tax into govt coffers then?

That’s a good thing surely? (Compared to them being payed bonuses )

I thought the argument went “if you have a cap on bonuses, companies just pay higher wages”

[Sephiroth]

“. Its easy to Conflate someone who makes, say 200k (with a big mortgage and other commitments) a year with someone that makes millions or more.....”

Oh I’d say it’s easy enough. Definitely easier than conflating them with majority of the people earning far less in the country anyway

I’m not begrudging higher wages. I just wish the people earning them (and I do ok) don’t make out like THEY were the hard done by