In a moment of crisis it is not enough after a while to carry on shouting about what is wrong. At some point you do have to start thinking about how to put things right. What things would we do differently?
The challenge lain down for those who want change is, ‘Well what’s your plan then?’ And the trap therein is to accept the implicit expectation that a viable and believable plan can be summed up in a few snappy phrases. It is a trap because, if it can’t be reduced to tag lines, then your audience glazes over as you descend to detail which proves to them that you are just a policy wonk and enthusiast, who lives for and is lost in pointless detail. Or if it can be, and you flourish your polished phrases, then you are dismissed as a juvenile or aging ideologue who needs to get a job.
What I want to say to any such challenge is, which bit of the entire working of the present system shall we discuss? The system as it stands is vast and complicated. Any defence limited to a few catch phrases falls apart under scrutiny. So in a real discussion about radical change, it is not up to those who wish for change to slog up-hill doing all the talking. It is a level playing field. Which bits of the status quo do its defenders think works just fine and want to defend? Which bits precisely? I know what I think will work. Do they?
There is no onus on those of us who argue for change to present in a few words and entire alternative to a system which cannot itself be so summed up. Those defending the status quo seem to feel that they can stand pat, not have to explain how the present system works. To allow them to structure the argument in that way guarentees their victory and our failure.
Step one – level the field. There are no glib answers therefore there can be no glib questions either.
OK that’s my preamble.
Before we work out some credible plan to change the current system we should agree on what we would like the future to look like. I'm an engineer involved creating and maintaining in complex systems. When we want to change the system, we never have the time and budget to change the complete system at once, but we can nearly always get agreement on what features need to be changed and what can be left for later.
As you have said in previous posts, we need to tackle the size of the financial system. It's getting to be like Skynet in the terminator movies. We all need a healthy financial system that supports industry and provides capital. What we do not need is an extractive financial system that acts as a parasite to the rest of the economy.
We need to reduce the tax on productive labour in order to create jobs. People don't just need work to survive and pay the banks back, but also to feel like a valued member of society.
Perhaps the readers of this blog can come up with some other ideas. I have to get back to some productive labour 😉
Rob
I agree with everything you've written Rob.
As a small business owner, I despair at the cost of employing people, most of whom require up to 6 months to become fully productive.
The Government could offer short-term tax incentives to encourage small businesses to employ more people. A reduction in red tape, as always, is welcome.
I would also like to see a clear division between investment banks and high-street banks. Let the investment banks carry on with their risky trading, but don't do it with the working man's money. High-street banks' main activity should be management (not creation) of money. Their primary income should come from interest on loans and service charges.
Lastly, I would like to ban all supermarket chains from selling anything but food and non-alcoholic drinks. Give business back to the local grocers, butchers, hardware merchants, pharmacists, dry cleaners, etc.
I don't know if I'm reading too much into it or if it's going to go anywhere, but Ken Clarke's suggestions for penal reform sound like like an excellent idea.
The breathtaking amounts of money we've been wasting locking people away and building more prisons instead of having them do useful things for society have been a national disgrace and one of the dumber ideas we've imported from the US. It's a shame that it's taken a Tory to realise this, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea anyway…