Asking voters and think tanks to shape policy means blame can be spread more widely when everything falls apart
Daily Telegraph
First you wait for ages for a 10-year plan, then two come along at the same time. But then it turns out that the second plan wasn’t ready after all, and there would be an extended delay before it arrived.
Such is life in Labour’s Britain. First we had Keir Starmer, or “two-year Keir” as some social media wag christened him, defying criticism from his own party by announcing he needed at least 10 years in office to turn things around. And he had a plan to prove it. He would have been wiser to produce a four-months plan.
Then his successor, Andy Burnham, promised his own 10-year plan and even suggested that those dissatisfied with John Healey’s Budget last month should look to the publication of the plan, before the year’s end, to answer everyone’s substantive questions that the Budget did not.
But now the plan itself has been delayed until January, though it may (or may not) be formally launched in December with a speech, and the publication of a short consultation document. And then there will be a long consultation period in which voters, think tanks and anyone else you can think of will be asked what should be in the 10-year plan, because by this stage it will be pretty clear that Burnham doesn’t.
That consultation process will lead into another consultation process on the spending review. Barring unforeseen delays, No 10 hopes to finalise the 10-year plan by January 2036. Maybe.
Promising long-term plans is what modern governments of all stripes do when they have no immediate answers to people’s legitimate concerns. Promising a plan delivers two objectives: it gives the sense, accurate or not, thatSecondly, it kicks every difficult issue into the long grass, which seems to be a favourite tactic of Burnham’s Government. Again, there’s nothing unusual or intrinsically wrong with this approach, except that it risks further erosion of the public’s faith in politicians.
There’s also an element of cowardice in long-term plans, especially if the level of public engagement and consultation actually materialises. After all, if the consultation process offers the public a buy-in to government policy, a sense that they as well as ministers have had a hand in developing a policy, the blame can be spread that much wider if everything falls apart.
Not that this is a deliberate aim of the Burnham administration. “Well, you wanted this!” is not going to hold much weight in the eye of the storm, however justified ministers feel when they’re shouting it at constituents.
But wouldn’t it be far better for political leaders to do what the description suggests and lead? There would be nothing wrong in Burnham presenting a 10-year plan full of his own ideas which we could assess and judge. It would take far less time too. But this whole process feels instead like it is intended to relieve the Prime Minister of the burden of leadership.
Still, what’s the hurry, eh? A 10-year plan is for life, after all, not just for Christmas.
the Government knows what it’s about, that it has a sense of direction and purpose, if only it could codify them.
Comments
Post a Comment