I suggested earlier this week that it would be wise to consider now what five policies the progressive parties should prioritise to prepare for an election in 2024.
I suggested five because no more can be communicated.
And because focus is essential.
What I have not done is offer comment myself. That was deliberate. I do not think this an overnight thing. I intend to spend time thinking about it. That said let me offer an over-arching narrative.
Over-arching narratives are essential. They are what is said time after time. 'Get Brexit done'. 'Strong and stable'. You know the thing.
Often, as with those two, these over-arching messages are meaningless. The left cannot afford such luxuries. There is too much to do and no time to waste on platitudes.
My suggestion for the over-arching narrative is straightforward. It is 'Jobs in every constituency'.
I readily admit that this is a Green New Deal theme, much promoted by Colin Hines and myself, in particular. But it is powerful.
It is about labour i.e. jobs.
It is about local. And this matters.
It is about national - 'every' necessarily means the whole country.
And it is about joining up the local to the national, which also matters.
The link is the Green New Deal.
I'll explore this more in coming blogs. But as an idea this is where I am going, I think.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Hi Richard. The CTBI report, “Unemployment and the Future of Work” (1997) came up with a simple little aphorism which still sums things up well for me in trying to shape a labour market that is fair and evenly distributed: “Enough good work for everyone.” The adjective “good” perhaps adds something important to what you are saying above?
Thanks for all the blogging. I continue to read with avid interest. Christmas greetings.
Thanks!
What would be the reply to the question “How many jobs?”
For all who want them
Answer to the question ‘How many jobs?’ – One each (paying a good living wage)
I think a lot more needs to be done to expand on the word ‘jobs’. Jobs that are zero hour or below living income shouldn’t be accorded the label jobs.
The focus needs to be on living income. Especially as our technology is accelerating ever faster towards a potential abundance economy, with massive automation, especially in white collar areas, well paid jobs will become a rare species. We need to move beyond the 19th C protestant ethic that the devil makes work for idle hands to that of accepting a persons job is not equal to their worth. The issue will be, as it always is, how to fairly distribute the product of an abundant economy. This may be through a combination of Unconditional Basic Income and Unconditional Basic Services. Andrew Yang is flying the flag in the Democratic election process in the USA and bringing onboard many of the folk who were Democrats and voted for Trump the last time round. This has echoes of what has just happened here in the UK.
So a big NO to jobs for all, and a YES to a living income for all as the fruits of an abundance income. I accept that we still have a long way to go with the productivity gains that can take us to a real self-sustaining abundance economy here in the UK but, in my opinion, that’t the way we need to be heading.
I think the theme/strategy/narrative tying the different aspects together is very good, and important.
But I don’t think ‘jobs in every constituency’ is strong enough.
My gut reaction is:
– It will be attacked as ‘Government job creation’/student politics/’lefty’ economics
– The Tories will say something about them having record levels of jobs, irrespective of quality or number of hours
– It’s too specific?
I’m drawn to the idea of a narrative based around security (in all its forms) and prosperity
Interesting…
“The Gross domestic product of the United Kingdom in 2018 was 2.11 trillion British pounds, an increase of around 70 billion British pounds when compared with the previous year” (https://www.statista.com › gdp-of-the-united-kingdom-uk-since-2000). This works out at £31,777.11 per person, for every one of the 66,400,000 people in the UK (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates). Which means that GDP for a family of 4 works out at £127,108.44.
For every working person (32,540,000) (https://www.bbc.co.uk › news › business-46958560), that’s £64,843.27. For every one of the 27.8 million households in 2019 (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/latest) it works out at £75,899.28.
The idea that we need to increase GDP in order for poorer people to have more is totally false. We need no more productivity gains for each household to have more than enough for a good life. Moreover, money is not a natural phenomena, it is human-made and operates in a human-made system to human-made rules. All of the ill effects we see relating to money are not natural phenomena, they are inherent within the design of the system. We are the ones who decide this, and we can decide something else. I agree with Julian – “YES to a living income for all”. Where I disagree is that “we still have a long way to go with… productivity gains… to [achieve] a self-sustaining abundance economy”. We have that now, the problem is the maldistribution of what we already have. We are sold a lie, that land, shelter, food, water, clean air have to be bought. Theft of the commons over centuries has led to most paying rent to a few. It’s a protection racket any gangster would be envious of.
@ Helen – “It’s a protection racket any gangster would be envious of.”
“Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class” – Al Capone 🙂
As I’m sure you know, there are (for example) local authorities everywhere with plenty of long-unfilled posts. Money isn’t the issue – they have the money to pay interims, just can’t recruit permanently.
And the ones I know about (Yorkshire, NE, NW) can’t even fill their apprenticeship posts. These are kids straight out of school, no experience required, with the offer of a secure interesting career. Can’t fill them.
That’s just local authorities. I understand there are labour shortages elsewhere. Unemployment didn’t seem a big issue at the moment.
What sort of jobs do you have in mind?
Read the Green New Deal
Thanks – I had a look at this https://greennewdealgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Green-New-Deal-5th-Anniversary.pdf – is that the one?
It seems to discuss infrastructure projects at a very high level. Nothing to agree/disagree with until you propose something a bit more specific.
This document above doesn’t (at least as I can see) address the issue I raised – a labour shortage. Where will the skilled workers come from?
If your answer involves ‘more immigration’ then be my guest in suggesting this in the next Labour campaign.
Training
So it is a training agenda, not a job agenda.
There is already plenty of training around. What will you be offering that will be different to what is already available?
As one aspect, where will you find the surplus expert labour to become trainers and to supervise the trainees?
Of course it is a jobs agenda
You asked where skilled people come from
I said training
And then they have a job on the Green New Deal – and there will be hundreds of thousands of them
We already have unfilled posts, even at trainee/apprentice level, with training available. Even in places like South Yorkshire and the North East (Teesside, Durham, Tyne and Wear etc).
I was at a meeting this morning at one NE local authority about the problems getting apprentices – more jobs than people.
I’m puzzled how you will recruit all these trainers (dipping into experienced capacity), and attract these already-hard-to-attract trainees. Making it (presumably) harder to fill existing posts.
We must be operating in different worlds.
Unemployment wasn’t a big issue at the last election.
But it is in the real economy
Thanks.
How does local government join the real economy? I had assumed we were well involved in it.
How will the Green New Deal avoid these issues that we cannot?
I am nit sure what your question is
Local authorities (particularly those outside big cities – ie without a large pool to draw from) have long running unfilled posts. Mostly at skilled levels but apprenticeships requiring no experience also go unfilled.
You seem to propose a Green New Deal to create a lot of jobs. Sounds like a great idea if this were 1983.
My question is how you plan to fill these jobs in an already-tight market. You responded with training (already plenty of that – what do you plan to do differently) about the ‘real economy’ (not sure what that means, given LAs operate in the real economy).
How are you going to achieve something with which the rest of us struggle? Are you aware of the likely impact on existing organisations (public and private – all fishing from the same pond) trying to recruit?
Short answers are unlikely to be persuasive.
If you think there is full employment and well trained people I can’t help
Nether exists
But for these who insist they do all I can advise is education, counselling, or both
You can have unemployment and a labour shortage at the same time as we are seeing now – even for apprenticeships where the barriers to entry are low.
You assume the unemployed will apply for jobs in the New Green Deal (and will be suitable for the roles – not all will be entry level, presumably) when local government is struggling.
Why will that succeed where we are struggling?
Plus, if they are to be trained, the trainers will need to come out of the existing skill pool. How are you going to do that.
Let’s start with decent pay
Add training
And long term prospects
It’s called inducement, I think
Perhaps it should be NEW jobs in every constituency. Yes the Tories will say everyone’s got a job now to which you could reply but I think you’ll find that many – particularly if they have a poorly paying Mcjob – would like the possibilty of a new one!
Indeed…that would be the plan
Long term
Secure
Trained
Well paid jobs
It doesn’t fit easily into a slogan, but how about something on careers to cover the aspirational elements?
If you want a slogan, how about “a future for our children”, because this is what is at stake now. There’s no future unless we can somehow shake people out of their complacency about climate change. We are now a gerontocracy – our only hope is that old people can be convinced to care enough about their children and grandchildren to save them.
(Of course, the risk is that the Tories will twist this into “a future for our white British children, but not for other people’s children”.)