Lots of good ideas here and love the positivity! I feel most skeptical about the health section, perhaps because it's the area I know best.
Certainly, in psychiatry the search for biomarkers of pre-symptomatic illness has been a major strategy over the past two decades with absolutely no returns. More generally, in medicine pre-symptomatic often equates to false-positives.
Similarly, 'decentralised & personalised delivery model for healthcare' sounds a little pie in the sky!
My own preference would be for improvements in general health through universal interventions - eg making cycling easier in cities, discouraging use of cars, subsidised exercise, reduced pollution, easy access to weight-loss treatments. There is surely also much room for reform in Primary Care and lots of public appetite for better access to GPs!
Anyway, thanks for starting the conversation and great to have genuinely progressive suggestions from the left.
Thanks so much Thomas for the lovely comments and suggestions.
I really like the suggestions around walkable cities etc. There is something to be said about the '15 minute city' project, which would be an ambitious but worthwhile planning project in the way that you describe.
We are planning on doing a iterated version of this using people's feedback - watch this space!
A Labour Party I would actually vote for. Somebody please get this to Rachel Reeves.
One thing which would be helpful would be to create a “national constituency” where all of the votes that didn’t count towards electing an MP would be pooled on a national level, and national level MPs would be elected based on that. It would keep local constituencies and provide proportional representation, like they do in Germany.
The U.K. urgently needs reform in childcare costs, to promote natality. It would be good to see something in this area.
I’d also argue for a flat and low income tax, reductions in corporate tax, and an increase in VAT but that would be difficult for a left wing party to promote.
Very good list; I love the optimism! A few questions and a couple of suggestions:
1. Why proportional voting as opposed to, say, approval voting?
2. Why create a "second chamber of mayors and city-region representatives"? Wouldn't we expect their decisions to be highly correlated with the House of Commons, thus undermining the check on incompetence that the House of Lords currently provides?
3. Instead of "Open source degree accreditation standards to allow alternative educational models that would anyone to gain a degree from free, online resources alone", my preference would be to force all unis to separate their teaching from their role as examiners. I.e., I could pay 30k for the teaching and accreditation that Oxford provide, or I could pay £200 to just take the exams. This way we could still experiment with various teaching methods (I might choose Khan academy teaching & Oxford accreditation; others might choose differently) and can massively reduce the price of education but do so without accidently creating a degree that everyone knows is for poorer students. What do you think?
1. I didn't know of approval voting -- will look into it further, but given how strong FPTP's incumbency is, I think even changing to PR will be v hard.
2. Re: correlation, it's a risk, but I think regional representatives with wider remits would have different incentives & interests -- e.g. promoting the growth of an entire city-region -- vs constituency MPs who might have narrower, local interests. I'm sympathetic to some of the expertise in the Lords, but IMO a) this is fungible and b) not sufficient to retain them.
3. Great point -- I think we're thinking along the same lines, to be honest. You could do both, but agree brand name (& implied extra rigour) counts for a lot. Challenge is funding given unis are paid for attending students -- take that away (or at least reduce the need to attend), and you lower the incentive for unis to provide examiniation/accreditation services at all. Allowing anyone new org to provide degree accreditation, though, sidesteps this. (Though no doubt has other challenges!)
Enjoyed the article. There are not enough people taking the problem of development seriously in British political discourses. You might get something out of these two articles recently out in The TransAtlantic on the political geography of development/anti-development in the British Isles. It follows many of the contours sketched out in your post. More of these kinds of articles are planned for the near future in the TA, so do consider subscribing for future posts.
- Fraunhofer network is much bigger in scale - probably about 2-3x the size of the UK Catapult Network.
- Catapult's are not as closely tied to universities as Fraunhofer, and are therefore not as focused on local areas. This means that the link between local industry and academia is not as strong in the Catapult system.
Generally, Innovate UK’s Catapult Centres have played a significant role in developing regional innovation clusters, but in an unplanned way; developing regional innovation capacity has not been an explicit part of their mission. Focusing around local universities could help to support this, but would require Catapult Network to redefine their role/responsibilities.
Very interesting list, thanks for writing! A new regulatory framework for software as a medical device is much needed, although quite a lot of SAMD could be managed under the existing framework with more up to date tools and processes. Even more urgent is a new framework for funding digital health interventions so that companies can generate health economic data quickly without having to go to the US ecosystem or die. Germany’s DiGA Fast Track Process is showing some success with this – it would be great to see the UK have a go at something similar.
Thanks Melissa, definitely. Have actually been digging into DiGA in the last couple of days, so funny you should mention it -- agree a similar process would be v useful here!
Some nice ideas, and some which are awful. Moving parliament to Manchester would be a poor idea for a great many reasons - attitudes, transport, it not actually being England's or Britain's second city, absence of history (a key plank of the unwritten constitution), the chance for some Scottish parliament style architectural atrocity, and the inevitable waste of money the process would entail. Let's face it, the British parliamentary system is an odd fish and moving it would not create any positive change.
It's a pity it's so light on what the economy would actually do. We've doubled down on the service economy idea until the whole nation's clicking a mouse but the last couple of years have shown us that this work can be done remotely, and is inessential. What's more, the rise of the BRICS countries and changes in global security are increasingly showing that having a real economy, with production, is an important thing.
It's also worth considering the plight of the British underclass. Their existence is paid for and sanctioned by the state, and has been so since the mid-70s as an alternative to having them employed. If hope and jobs for them can be created, and the outgoings on their long term benefits reduced, then the costs to the NHS, local councils and state will be massively cut.
Some really interesting ideas here. How much of this has been tested against polling/was derived from polling?
I've been trying for some time to find a kind of route into the British political landscape where I might be able to bring a useful skill or two to bear (I'm of an entrepreneurial bent so perhaps predictably I've found the Civil Service not much for me). If you're interesting in chatting further, shoot me an email, m.gorynski@yahoo.co.uk
Hi, we didn't test against any polling for this but could be worth doing in future. Is this something you're involved in? Twitter might be easier to chat: https://twitter.com/andrewjb_
I fear this is just an expression of the male predilection for lists, rather than a set of coherent, costed solutions. No doubt there are some good ideas here but they are distinguishable from the bad ones only by reference to unconsidered costs and collateral consequences. What is most obviously not addressed is (in any particular case) how the change might be brought about, taking account of the likely vested interests, change aversion and political sabotage. The gap between theory and practice ought not to be airbrushed from any set of purported ’solutions’.
Thanks for the comments Sandy. We should have perhaps been a bit more clear that this was a bit of a volume 1 'longlist' of things that we would then iterate, concentrate and build out with a bit more on costings etc.
I think you are also right to suggest that we frame things a bit more in terms of how tractable certain policies might be, and what levers need to be pulled in order to bring change about. Watch this space for volume 2!
Lots of good ideas here and love the positivity! I feel most skeptical about the health section, perhaps because it's the area I know best.
Certainly, in psychiatry the search for biomarkers of pre-symptomatic illness has been a major strategy over the past two decades with absolutely no returns. More generally, in medicine pre-symptomatic often equates to false-positives.
Similarly, 'decentralised & personalised delivery model for healthcare' sounds a little pie in the sky!
My own preference would be for improvements in general health through universal interventions - eg making cycling easier in cities, discouraging use of cars, subsidised exercise, reduced pollution, easy access to weight-loss treatments. There is surely also much room for reform in Primary Care and lots of public appetite for better access to GPs!
Anyway, thanks for starting the conversation and great to have genuinely progressive suggestions from the left.
Thanks so much Thomas for the lovely comments and suggestions.
I really like the suggestions around walkable cities etc. There is something to be said about the '15 minute city' project, which would be an ambitious but worthwhile planning project in the way that you describe.
We are planning on doing a iterated version of this using people's feedback - watch this space!
A Labour Party I would actually vote for. Somebody please get this to Rachel Reeves.
One thing which would be helpful would be to create a “national constituency” where all of the votes that didn’t count towards electing an MP would be pooled on a national level, and national level MPs would be elected based on that. It would keep local constituencies and provide proportional representation, like they do in Germany.
The U.K. urgently needs reform in childcare costs, to promote natality. It would be good to see something in this area.
I’d also argue for a flat and low income tax, reductions in corporate tax, and an increase in VAT but that would be difficult for a left wing party to promote.
<3 Move Parliament to Manchester <3
0161 xD
Very good list; I love the optimism! A few questions and a couple of suggestions:
1. Why proportional voting as opposed to, say, approval voting?
2. Why create a "second chamber of mayors and city-region representatives"? Wouldn't we expect their decisions to be highly correlated with the House of Commons, thus undermining the check on incompetence that the House of Lords currently provides?
3. Instead of "Open source degree accreditation standards to allow alternative educational models that would anyone to gain a degree from free, online resources alone", my preference would be to force all unis to separate their teaching from their role as examiners. I.e., I could pay 30k for the teaching and accreditation that Oxford provide, or I could pay £200 to just take the exams. This way we could still experiment with various teaching methods (I might choose Khan academy teaching & Oxford accreditation; others might choose differently) and can massively reduce the price of education but do so without accidently creating a degree that everyone knows is for poorer students. What do you think?
Thanks for the comment Jonathan!
1. I didn't know of approval voting -- will look into it further, but given how strong FPTP's incumbency is, I think even changing to PR will be v hard.
2. Re: correlation, it's a risk, but I think regional representatives with wider remits would have different incentives & interests -- e.g. promoting the growth of an entire city-region -- vs constituency MPs who might have narrower, local interests. I'm sympathetic to some of the expertise in the Lords, but IMO a) this is fungible and b) not sufficient to retain them.
3. Great point -- I think we're thinking along the same lines, to be honest. You could do both, but agree brand name (& implied extra rigour) counts for a lot. Challenge is funding given unis are paid for attending students -- take that away (or at least reduce the need to attend), and you lower the incentive for unis to provide examiniation/accreditation services at all. Allowing anyone new org to provide degree accreditation, though, sidesteps this. (Though no doubt has other challenges!)
Great post! Super interesting set of ideas here & love the reading list as well. Just wanted to flag your first link leads to the wrong place!
Thanks Rachel, and thanks for the spot - death by links! Will change now :)
Enjoyed the article. There are not enough people taking the problem of development seriously in British political discourses. You might get something out of these two articles recently out in The TransAtlantic on the political geography of development/anti-development in the British Isles. It follows many of the contours sketched out in your post. More of these kinds of articles are planned for the near future in the TA, so do consider subscribing for future posts.
https://thetransatlantic.substack.com/p/high-finance-and-anti-development
https://thetransatlantic.substack.com/p/city-state-britain
How do you differentiate Fraunhofer style institutes from the Catapult system we have?
Hi Sam,
A couple of key differences
- Fraunhofer network is much bigger in scale - probably about 2-3x the size of the UK Catapult Network.
- Catapult's are not as closely tied to universities as Fraunhofer, and are therefore not as focused on local areas. This means that the link between local industry and academia is not as strong in the Catapult system.
Generally, Innovate UK’s Catapult Centres have played a significant role in developing regional innovation clusters, but in an unplanned way; developing regional innovation capacity has not been an explicit part of their mission. Focusing around local universities could help to support this, but would require Catapult Network to redefine their role/responsibilities.
How do you differentiate Fraunhofer style institutes from the Catapult system we have?
How do you differentiate Fraunhofer style institutes from the Catapult system we have?
Very interesting list, thanks for writing! A new regulatory framework for software as a medical device is much needed, although quite a lot of SAMD could be managed under the existing framework with more up to date tools and processes. Even more urgent is a new framework for funding digital health interventions so that companies can generate health economic data quickly without having to go to the US ecosystem or die. Germany’s DiGA Fast Track Process is showing some success with this – it would be great to see the UK have a go at something similar.
Thanks Melissa, definitely. Have actually been digging into DiGA in the last couple of days, so funny you should mention it -- agree a similar process would be v useful here!
Some nice ideas, and some which are awful. Moving parliament to Manchester would be a poor idea for a great many reasons - attitudes, transport, it not actually being England's or Britain's second city, absence of history (a key plank of the unwritten constitution), the chance for some Scottish parliament style architectural atrocity, and the inevitable waste of money the process would entail. Let's face it, the British parliamentary system is an odd fish and moving it would not create any positive change.
It's a pity it's so light on what the economy would actually do. We've doubled down on the service economy idea until the whole nation's clicking a mouse but the last couple of years have shown us that this work can be done remotely, and is inessential. What's more, the rise of the BRICS countries and changes in global security are increasingly showing that having a real economy, with production, is an important thing.
It's also worth considering the plight of the British underclass. Their existence is paid for and sanctioned by the state, and has been so since the mid-70s as an alternative to having them employed. If hope and jobs for them can be created, and the outgoings on their long term benefits reduced, then the costs to the NHS, local councils and state will be massively cut.
From your comments, you might find these two article recently out in the TransAtlantic interesting.
https://thetransatlantic.substack.com/p/high-finance-and-anti-development
https://thetransatlantic.substack.com/p/city-state-britain
Hey Tom, Andrew,
Some really interesting ideas here. How much of this has been tested against polling/was derived from polling?
I've been trying for some time to find a kind of route into the British political landscape where I might be able to bring a useful skill or two to bear (I'm of an entrepreneurial bent so perhaps predictably I've found the Civil Service not much for me). If you're interesting in chatting further, shoot me an email, m.gorynski@yahoo.co.uk
Hi, we didn't test against any polling for this but could be worth doing in future. Is this something you're involved in? Twitter might be easier to chat: https://twitter.com/andrewjb_
Wow the environment bit was a disappointment
Help us make it better! What would you like to see included?
I fear this is just an expression of the male predilection for lists, rather than a set of coherent, costed solutions. No doubt there are some good ideas here but they are distinguishable from the bad ones only by reference to unconsidered costs and collateral consequences. What is most obviously not addressed is (in any particular case) how the change might be brought about, taking account of the likely vested interests, change aversion and political sabotage. The gap between theory and practice ought not to be airbrushed from any set of purported ’solutions’.
Thanks for the comments Sandy. We should have perhaps been a bit more clear that this was a bit of a volume 1 'longlist' of things that we would then iterate, concentrate and build out with a bit more on costings etc.
I think you are also right to suggest that we frame things a bit more in terms of how tractable certain policies might be, and what levers need to be pulled in order to bring change about. Watch this space for volume 2!
Do females not do lists?