You’re right about the policy on tackling NEETs and offering new “gold standard” apprenticeships are an absolute vote winner if Pat McFadden now doubles down on the policy through rapid and scaleable implementation. But alas, to date, this government has been incredibly slow on skills policy reform (much like the last). It has been introspective and technocratic. If anything, apprenticeship quality has been reduced with new 8 month duration schemes. Starmer promised an “imminent” skills White Paper during his Farnborough Air Show speech, July 2024. Over a year on, no sign of it except a vague policy ambition that was pre announced by Sunak and Gavin Williamson before that. This is the civil service at its performative worst. Handing politicians headline grabbing policy announcements then failing to follow through. I’ll be writing a piece next week on my own Substack on what the govt needs to do to meet the scale of the skills challenge ahead and what “gold standard” means in practice.
Interesting post. However, I have big concerns over the process by which we make decisions on best policy for our society. Implicit in your arguments is that the labour party in this case is the font of or at least has access to all wisdom, although it is conceded that listening to what other parties are proposing will help you hone the policy, prior to presenting it (initially via polling) to the people.
It seems blindingly obvious that is far from optimum in at least two respects. For sure other parties might well have some good ideas, but what about the mass of intelligence embedded in the people? So why not seek out all the wisdom in society and discover that “policy space” that a large majority are content with. Seeding dissent in society – the job of political parties as they each lay claim to ultimate wisdom to gain power, creates division and stultifies good discussion on optimum policy. An ideological stance no longer works, creates angst in society and soon to be superseded by AI enabled analysis of policy outcomes.
Yes we urgently need Reform, but not the variety on offer.
This is excellent Peter. I particularly enjoyed your reflections at conference about the “grid” and how outdated a mode of communications organisation and planning it now is. However, as this piece proves, you do need at least a baseline to start from for improvements.
Yep, cuts to the bone although New Labour set the template. Fair?
Suspect that the application of thej post's robust policy scoping and development framework would indicate that Digital ID cards on balance not a good idea.
It appears driven as a misplaced political tactical effort to trump Farage that instead is more likely to give oxygen to his agenda.
Digital cards can be forged and quite likely will give rise to another organised crime activity.
More fundamentally, its purpose and operation not thought out, other than its perceived soundbite value.
Also its massive opportunity cost in terms of legislative, political, abd administrative resources.
What the Starmer government doesn't seem able to get, is that it needs to set and justify the political agenda itself with policy supporting strategic ends communicated to the electorate rather than endlessly react like a ship without a rudder.
You’re right about the policy on tackling NEETs and offering new “gold standard” apprenticeships are an absolute vote winner if Pat McFadden now doubles down on the policy through rapid and scaleable implementation. But alas, to date, this government has been incredibly slow on skills policy reform (much like the last). It has been introspective and technocratic. If anything, apprenticeship quality has been reduced with new 8 month duration schemes. Starmer promised an “imminent” skills White Paper during his Farnborough Air Show speech, July 2024. Over a year on, no sign of it except a vague policy ambition that was pre announced by Sunak and Gavin Williamson before that. This is the civil service at its performative worst. Handing politicians headline grabbing policy announcements then failing to follow through. I’ll be writing a piece next week on my own Substack on what the govt needs to do to meet the scale of the skills challenge ahead and what “gold standard” means in practice.
But I thought there weren't going to be ID cards, merely a digital ID. I'm content with a digital ID, but not with an ID card.
Several comments on here are about ID cards, so are presumably irrelevant. Confusion helps no-one.
Interesting post. However, I have big concerns over the process by which we make decisions on best policy for our society. Implicit in your arguments is that the labour party in this case is the font of or at least has access to all wisdom, although it is conceded that listening to what other parties are proposing will help you hone the policy, prior to presenting it (initially via polling) to the people.
It seems blindingly obvious that is far from optimum in at least two respects. For sure other parties might well have some good ideas, but what about the mass of intelligence embedded in the people? So why not seek out all the wisdom in society and discover that “policy space” that a large majority are content with. Seeding dissent in society – the job of political parties as they each lay claim to ultimate wisdom to gain power, creates division and stultifies good discussion on optimum policy. An ideological stance no longer works, creates angst in society and soon to be superseded by AI enabled analysis of policy outcomes.
Yes we urgently need Reform, but not the variety on offer.
I do hope the government are listening. The ID card policy argument has been an example of how not to do it.
Starmer and Reeves are amateurs at political argument
This is excellent Peter. I particularly enjoyed your reflections at conference about the “grid” and how outdated a mode of communications organisation and planning it now is. However, as this piece proves, you do need at least a baseline to start from for improvements.
Yep, cuts to the bone although New Labour set the template. Fair?
Suspect that the application of thej post's robust policy scoping and development framework would indicate that Digital ID cards on balance not a good idea.
It appears driven as a misplaced political tactical effort to trump Farage that instead is more likely to give oxygen to his agenda.
Digital cards can be forged and quite likely will give rise to another organised crime activity.
More fundamentally, its purpose and operation not thought out, other than its perceived soundbite value.
Also its massive opportunity cost in terms of legislative, political, abd administrative resources.
What the Starmer government doesn't seem able to get, is that it needs to set and justify the political agenda itself with policy supporting strategic ends communicated to the electorate rather than endlessly react like a ship without a rudder.