The event that we held in Ely on Saturday was, I think, a success. My team assured me they felt this way, and I have received enough thank-you notes to suggest many attendees felt the same.
As I made clear in advance, and as was reiterated in yesterday's video and supporting blog, the focus was on solution-focused campaigning.
In my opening presentation, which we might share when the recording has been checked, I outlined the many reasons why, at this moment, campaigning of this sort is appropriate. John Christensen and I then shared our experience of working in this way, but whilst some of the comments in the Q&A sessions that followed indicated that those attending did understand the importance of imagining what a better world might look like if we are to campaign for it, I am also aware that many still need assistance to imagine what this might look like.
I think that was an important lesson for me to learn. Just because I can imagine a world in which the question with regard to any proposal that is made is “can we resource it?” rather than “can we afford it?”, which is the change in stance that modern monetary theory enables, this does not mean that everyone else can do so. It is now apparent to me that I do need to spend more time explaining just how this transition from our current way of thinking to that which we need might occur.
At the same time, it is obvious that I also need to answer in greater depth how this transition might take place, because this might be the area where greatest uncertainty exists. To use a metaphor, MMT might be a better mousetrap than any existing mousetrap available on the market, but that does not mean that everyone is going to be persuaded to buy it. I did, in fact, lay out quite a number of reasons in my presentation why there might be considerable institutional difficulty in persuading organisations from the Treasury, to our political parties, to the OECD, to the Bank of England, to the World Bank and the IMF, and then the world beyond, to believe that this is necessary.
Perhaps my two biggest reflections arising from the day were that I need to take on these two tasks. I need to explain the transition to MMT, and why it might happen.
Saying so, however, there might be a third task to add. My son James got in one of the last questions of the day, and until he asked, I was quite unaware of what it might be. What he actually did was throw back at me a question that I had previously asked him, which was the standard solution-focused question, which is: if the world was a better place, how would you be able to tell?
Because of the way in which John Christensen chaired the whole afternoon (for which I thank him), I had a minute or so to contemplate how to answer that question before having to do so.
When explaining the difference I would look for, I did not refer to ideas or policies. Instead, I focused on what people would actually observe. To do so, I highlighted not just a delivery mechanism, but the consequence of its use. That mechanism would involve the resurrection of effective local government in the UK, which was something that Margaret Thatcher set out to destroy.
The history of local government in this country is now largely forgotten, but from the late 19th century onwards it was local initiative, backed by both local taxation and local borrowing, that built the foundations that transformed a great deal of Britain in ways that are still the bedrock of much of what we expect from our society.
Local authorities built sewers and clean water supplies, transforming health.
They created town gas, and later built and owned most of the country's power stations, delivering both heat and power to local communities.
After that, they built tramways, trolley systems and then the bus systems that should still be the foundations of local transport networks.
And they did, of course, provide healthcare and education.
What is more, they were the biggest house builders for a long time, and many of the houses they built were of high quality, with gardens and rooms of decent size.
They also provided parks, libraries, leisure facilities, theatres, swimming pools, other sports facilities and, in some parts of the country, many of the golf courses, not least in Scotland, where the municipal golf course still exists.
I know, of course, this was a different era, and capital intensity was lower, but the point is that the imagination and the attention were available to ensure that these things were delivered, and the idea that they should be delivered through municipal, democratically elected authorities was embraced by those in power, with local business people often working alongside local authority officials to create these outcomes.
This was a form of democracy in action which we have largely lost sight of, and what is more, it was about meeting local need with local delivery in a fashion that was accountable to the community that was served.
If that were to happen now, the world would look very different from what we have today. I can imagine this better possibility. I think it would be possible to deliver it. That is the type of outcome that I am talking about when I talk about solution-focused thinking and campaigning.
There are, then, three issues to look at here, and I will be doing so, and I reiterate my thanks to all those who came on Saturday, because you have helped reshape my priorities as a result.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
There is an old adage that if it looks right it is right.
I go to Bath in the evenings fairly often and its the presence of the homeless that shows that it isnt right.
By comparison a trip to Brugges and the surrounding area a few years ago – no homeless, people cycling in ordinary clothes not Lycra etc – OK & bearing in mind that I have no feel for Belgium in the way I do for the UK made if feel a lot more ‘right’
In the same way I remember being in the engine room of a ship running at absolute full power – 290rpm on a 300rpm max engine and while the row was beyond imagination even to the untutored ear it was obvious that everything was just as it should be, smooth, unchanging, no nasty thumps and bumps.
I am quite sure that if we get the UK (RUK/whatever) ‘right’ it will feel the same way, a safe and ordered public realm, services that work quietly and efficiently.
That’s a good question!
I have another that might help it along.
“What do people (known to us, not straw men) REALLY complain about?” (once they’ve got past the scapegoats and diversions the politicians WANT them to complain about).
If those things were better, what would that look like, and why arent we doing it already?
Maybe also ask, “What HAS got better recently? How did THAT happen?”
And because many of us need (literally) concrete examples – I wonder whether the humble but ubiquitous POTHOLE might prove useful as a real life problem, doubling as a metaphor in solution focussed discussion campaigning? Lateral thinking about potholes, takes you almost everywhere you need to go – local & national gov’t, employment, finance, taxation, resources, quality of life, transport, risk to life & limb, priorities, accessibility, private versus public, infrastructure investment, repair versus rebuild, etc. etc. Everyone is affected by potholes!
Thank you
Having a father steeped in public sector finance and restructuring I was (of course!) provided an education into the history of Local Government. I remember a young me asking how was how did small authorities manage to afford to build utilities? An important part of the answer was the Public Works Loan Board. Further questions lead to a realisation that money could simply be created. An a-ah moment. The mechanics will need to be reimagined
The centralisation of formally local powers and decision making seems to have gone in parallel with neoliberalism The high tide of both trends seems to be passing. With that London’s overwhelming dominance too, I suspect
Centralisation in other areas means we have about forgotten local and regionally based banking and leaning. Until well into the 20th Century police power was largely seen add the responsibility of local government and looked after by locally elected Watch Committees.
https://historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/britains-police-forces-forever-removed-from-democratic-control/
Much to agree with
Thank you James for a brilliant question. Maybe we could all have a go at answering it and share our redults. Seeing a whole range of imagined futures might ease the thinking transition
I have wondered whether this is something to invite. I will muse on that…
Hmmm………now that is interesting.
You and John in your dealings with secrecy jurisdictions upon reflection chose one thing – not everything that was a problem. That one thing was also pivotal wasn’t it – you chose and you chose well.
So, you couldn’t take on every issue, but you were thinking strategically about the impact you were imagining – you went to where you’d have the biggest impact. That is my reflection (once again) on what you did and again is instructive to the rest of us?
It may be
We each have to choose our cause.
Swansea Council funded my entire university education, fees and living costs, for four years back in the 1960s. There is no way my widowed mother could have afforded to pay for me. (Fellow Southampton alumna, btw).
I remember seeing small advertisements in the local Evening Post inviting people to buy bonds at 4.5% (if I remember correctly).
I don’t know how the local authority managed its finances, but it certainly worked for me, and many of my contemporaries.
Me, too
If I hold my breath and cross my fingers and toes and wish upon a star…
MMT teaches us, as did Keynes, that our constraints are the nation’s resources.
Isn’t it really about time that the government set up an Office of National Resources Auditing (ONRA) to count, check, monitor (and whatever else is required) and propose action to remedy shortfalls in the resilience we need to pursue?
Burnham’s National Care Service could be a worthy first case:
Accommodation, including furniture and aids, both long-term and respite. Administrators. Nurses. Carers. Cleaners. Chefs. Gardeners and other estate maintenance staff. Physio- and occupational-therapists. Launderers. Transport. Sufficient doctors in local communities and local hospital facilities to accept extra emergency need.
I’ve probably missed a lot, but can the PM say, hand on heart, that his NCS is viable, given the wages paid by private business to recruit and retain those staff?hhñ
Burnham has not thought this through
Interesting article here by John Harris – nothing about ‘adult’ social care in Burnhams plans
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/oct/05/social-care-disabled-adults-crisis-elderly-people-government-silent
James O’Brien, and his callers, were very good today on the causes, and seriousness, of skills shortages in the UK. Between 11.00 and 12.00. Worth listening to on catch-up. Subsequent discussion on US drift to Nazism also fascinating.
Wish i could have made it to Ely!
Even in 2008 Manchester City Council still employed qualified architects in its planning department. Since then most Councils seem to have got rid of this kind of expertise, in architecture and environmental matters among others. They added amazing value, and the short term savings mean less public service.
Agreed.
A Lilburn should visit Cromwell’s house, I suggest.
Roz Savage has written a report ‘Liberalism alive’ just published by Compass that is very much on the same page: solution-focussed, and emphasizing the importance of local decision-making and of human flourishing rather than economic growth. It could do with more on the need therefore to change the economic framework, but is otherwise inspiring. Here’s are the link and a quote from it:
https://www.compassonline.org.uk/publications/liberalism-alive-a-liberal-vision-for-a-flourishing-britain/
What kind of country are we trying to become?
Suppose the answer was this. By 2035, we want Britain to be a country
in which:
• everyone has enough security to live without constant fear;
• every child has a genuine opportunity to develop their talents;
• more people own a meaningful stake in the businesses, homes and
assets around them;
• excellent universal public services underpin freedom;
• communities possess real power and resources;
• local economies retain far more of the wealth they create;
• work leaves room for life;
• nature is recovering;
• wealth cannot buy disproportionate political influence; and
• every generation expects to leave the country in better condition
than it inherited it.
Very many thanks
When do you think the rot set in? I mean the great transference of power from local authorities (or corporations) to the centre. I would say that it began with the Land Valuation Act of 1909 but other opinions are valid.
There is good reason for a second chamber to be elected from local governments with the power to veto further centralisation of power in Great Britain. The US Senate was elected this way until 1912 and since then the States have had to work really hard to retain the powers that the Constitution says are rightly theirs.
I have not considered the point.
You clearly have – but I am nit very convinced by your suggestions. The big change was Thatcher