On Vision

On Vision


I have been critical of 'Call me Dave' recently, but the twitter format means that any criticism tends to take the form of a sound-bite and can be seen as a critic taking the easy way out; not needing to substantiate any of the points he/she is making.

I have also had some fascinating twitter conversations with people on this subject and wanted  to clarify what I mean by my assertion that, without a proper, clear vision, Dave is bound to fail.

And, more importantly, (because I am more concerned about the future of the country than Dave or Nick or Ed or any political party), without vision, the damage that has been and is currently being done to the UK will continue.

I tweeted that 'without a clear vision - if you don't know where you're going - how can you possibly lead anyone anywhere?' Self explanatory, but a bit trite perhaps?

It's quite a big subject and, a bit like not having a clear vision, it is easy to become side-tracked by the minor details and minutiae of the subject: I've tried to start this piece several times and each time swerved off into the ditch before getting very far. I've decided, therefore, to cut to the chase and show you what I mean rather than theorising. We can, maybe, come back to the theories later:

Here's what we need (as a country and, from Dave's point of view, as a Government):

What we need - item one on the agenda

We need a clear vision of where we're going as a nation: What our ambition is, what we aspire to achieve, what we stand for and what that means in the 21st Century both for our citizens and in terms of our place in the world.

This vision needs to be something that most 'right-minded' people can agree upon on the basis of their being British and wanting what's right for their nation and fellow citizens as we travel into the future and meet the many challenges that we will inevitably face. It also needs to be connected to reality - it cannot be ridiculous or totally unachievable, but needs to be aspirational and possible (although not easily achieved).

Only when we have arrived at the point where we have this clear vision for the nation and it has been agreed by the majority of people, can we begin to establish how we are going to achieve it. (There will always be some who disagree with the vision, either for the sake of it or because they have some kind of alternative agenda which is not geared to the future success or prosperity of all but only themselves or their particular grouping/affiliation).

Only when the vision is in place can the different political parties and interest groups enter the fray and make their pitch as to how they would help to achieve this common goal: By which I mean that the over-arching vision is not party political, it's about the country as a whole, but it needs, now, to be redefined by the party in power having been 'mislaid' by the last Government and, so far, not properly reinstated by this one.

The trouble at the moment is that we don't even have this 'item one' in place; or at least it is neither clearly defined nor agreed, which makes setting out a 'road map' as to how we can get there, impossible (and boy are Dave and co confirming just how impossible it is?). The other key element to be mentioned here, is that the vision must also be connected up to the practical plan to achieve it - the two things are inextricably interwoven and must work together to be effective.

Having the vision is critical and vital, but Government then needs to create the action required to achieve it - there's no use having a great vision if you don't also have a clear programme of activity designed to achieve it.

My take on what the Vision should be:

So here's a 'top of the head' go at defining a vision everyone can agree to, and then a demonstration as to how it then works in terms of actions and policies: I'm not putting this forward as a real option by the way.

Vision (made up)

Our vision is that the UK should be 'A world-class nation of prosperous, well-educated, tolerant, healthy and happy people, able to contribute to, and benefit from, the modern world that is the 21st Century.'

Cumbersome? Yes. Banale? Probably. Lib Dem? Not deliberately (just joking my many Lib Dem friends). Inoffensive? Yes, deliberately for the purpose of illustration! Obviously it would need work to make it more catchy/memorable, but not catchy in a way which makes it meaningless. The need for everyone to understand what it means is more important than creating an award-winning 'work, rest and play' style strap-line.

Take 'Big Society' for example: Now I'm an interested and semi-educated observer, but I have no idea what 'Big Society' means. So 'catchyness' can be part of the problem if it does not clearly communicate the vision and, more importantly, ensure that it is understood, so that people are not left behind.

The Vision also needs to be Aspirational (aim high) and 'Open-Ended', which means that you cannot ever really get to the point where you can say, 'ah, we're here, we've arrived/achieved everything we set out to do... and rest..... Now what?' It needs to be an ongoing, never-ending but in an inspiring and motivating rather than a demoralising way.

Agreement?

OK. So are we agreed on the vision? (It is deliberately designed to be as inclusive as possible of course, for the sake of this illustration). If you're not sure, read it again. Trust me on this, if you don't engage/agree, just in principle and for the sake of this argument, the rest of this post will be more difficult.

If so (from Dave's point of view), the issue now is to decide, and then communicate to the population, how our policies and initiatives will help the country to achieve this goal: Essentially, we have now agreed on a 'target destination' and that defines where we are headed (i.e. towards it) and that, in turn, defines which direction we are moving in. So, at last, we are now able to move in a direction, and that means that we are now able to lead people. I know it sounds really stupid/basic to say so, but if everyone is just standing around and not going anywhere (which I would argue is the case at the moment in British politics) then you cannot possibly 'lead' anyone. People who aren't moving or going anywhere don't need to be led.

And if you aren't moving/going anywhere, no matter how loudly you may shout, no-one's going to be following you. Dave.

OK, again the danger here is to disappear off into the detail, which I'm trying not to do, please accept my generalisations here, the alternative is stodgy detail. I'm not seeking to hoodwink by missing stuff out, just to be as clear and simple as possible:

Essentially the vision (which we have now agreed upon) means that we need the country to have better 'stuff' going forward. (I'm guessing you're not shocked by this). Better healthcare, education, housing, policing, pensions, jobs, defence, leisure facilities, roads, parks, etc. And that we need to tackle the difficult issues we face such as the economy/financial meltdown, immigration, unemployment, international conflict, religious division (same thing), energy and waste, planning, infrastructure etc.

But that, if we successfully pursue these goals, the result will be the creation of a better place for everybody: kids, mothers, young people, families, workers, older people, the disadvantaged, vulnerable, needy, women, men, gay and lesbian people, ethnic minorites. Everyone. In line with our agreed vision.

Still agree?

Still with me? Still agree the vision?

If wavering, ask yourself this: do I want a better world for my kids and grandchildren (as well as for myself), or am I just out for what I can get now and sod the rest?

If that question has led you to now discard the vision as set out earlier, thanks for getting this far. And goodbye.

OK cutting to the chase now: We're still together, behind the vision, we agree it. We're committed to it. We understand it. We want what it can do for us now and for our kids in the future. The question (we all want the answer to) is: How can we get there? If only we had a leader to help us...

Enter stage left: Call-me-Dave: 'Hello', waves.

No, I said a leader Dave. :-) (small joke for the left to enjoy there). (or not a joke at all, for the right to worry about).

Achieving the vision

OK so now we're putting forward our ideas about how we achieve these desired goals (and this is now, of course, open to all parties, not 'owned' by any of them - I just happen to be looking at the current incumbents).

{NB: Back in the 60s and 70s the vision for the country would have differed between the Tory and Labour parties in terms of its fundamental end-point: Tories would envisage a laissez fair, small Government market economy, whilst Labour would have tended towards the creation of more of a larger Government 'Command Economy', whereas today both are really after a Mixed economy but with variations based largely on the amount of Government input/intervention - so the overriding vision is pretty much identical.}

They key here, is that the proposed activity and policies must be created in a way which relates back to the clearly defined and agreed vision. And here, at last (I hear you say) is the crux of the point I'm making: I'll take one example, but this relates to everything from granny tax to pasty tax; HS2 to a new runway for London; education standards to tuition fees:

And I'm not shirking controversy here, let's take a nice easy example:

The NHS and Health Care Reform


OK, the goal is to deliver better healthcare in line with our 'world class' vision right? Right. Is the NHS good now? Yes. (ish). Could it be better? Yes. And the only way in which we can change it from where it is now to where we'd like it to be is? To change things, for the better. To make improvements. Agreed?

It's not going to get better without something changing; evidence and experience would suggest that the opposite is true, that it will get worse, rather than better without some positive input and change. But let's just focus on this issue - sorry to labour the point (pun recognised but irrelevant) but are we agreed that we want a better health service? That this fits with our goals for the future and that there is room for improvement? I'm not saying we need to execute nurses or send doctors to the electric chair here, I'm asking do you agree that it needs to be, and can be, improved. If you're not willing to concede this point, then, goodbye, it's been grate.

Yes? You agree so far? Good. So now healthcare reform is one of our long-term goals, part of our vision for the future. Reforming and improving healthcare is now an important part of creating a better, world class country for the C21st - and you agree with this now. Don't you (in principle)?

It might not be easy - I'm not saying it is or will be: The NHS is a complex organisation involving private sector organisations (before you boo, I mean like 90+% of GPs for example); public and 3rd sector partners as well as the NHS itself. It is the third largest employer in the world, only beaten in terms of numbers by the Indian Railways and the Chinese Army; so it will inevitably have a mind-boggling amount of complexity, administrative stuff, bureaucracy, red tape, health and safety regulations and, inevitably, inefficiency. It will also have considerable numbers of people for whom change and eliminating inefficiency is a threat. These people are part of the problem we're trying to address, but don't expect them to be happy about this threat to their cushy, non-challenging jobs.

However, the key is that we agree that it (the Health Service) needs to change; that reform is required in order to deliver our vision and our long-term goals and that it can be done (even if it might be very difficult). So while it might be difficult (told you), we are, nonetheless, committed to it because we agree with the vision and we want what this reform can achieve, which is a better, 'world class' health service for this 'World Class C21st' country.

Making things better

So now the question is how we achieve this, what reforms we make, what changes will make the health service better for us and our families and indeed for everyone.

The question is not whether those reforms should take place, but what those reforms should be. Because, through our vision, we have established that these reforms are needed if we are to achieve our goals. That's not negotiable because we all agree about this. We are, collectively, committed to making this change.

Whether or not you have the vision in place to enable you to explain why the changes are needed, you will encounter people with a vested interest in resisting this change. And if you cannot convince them that they need to help, to get on board, to accept that change is coming - because you don't have the vision and the agreement of the population to back you up - then this vested interest will have a much stronger case. As we have seen all too clearly in the recent past.

In fact, if you can't call on the support of the (majority of the) population who back your vision, you could well find yourself losing the argument. At the very least you'll be mired in the detail. Every little interest group will kick off and everyone who opposes you - like opposition parties and even some who are supposedly on the same side (small joke for the Lib Dems there - didn't want to leave them out) - will be able to garner support - because you have not bothered to make sure that they (the general population) are already on your side.

And then what happens is not that the actual, specific changes are questioned and opposed (by the relatively small self interested groups they affect the most), but the very notion that any changes are needed begins to gather momentum. So because you didn't go through the process of getting people on board, with your vision and the communication of each incremental step along the way in order to arrive at the point where change was agreed in principle (if not in detail), what actually happens is that everyone in the NHS who might possibly face any unwelcome change, actually comes out against every single change you propose.

So, without the vision and agreement, the surgeons come out in support of the cleaners, the British Medical Association (BMA) threatens strike action in support of the paramedics (I'm making this up) - and, ultimately, the opposition comes out in support of the 'dear old NHS' which brought us into the world and is such a fundamental old friend of us all that it would be heartless and just plain wrong to change it at all, ever.

And then you're fucked. Completely, fundamentally and indefensibly fucked. Weren't you Dave? Aren't you, Mr Lansley?

In short, without a strong, clear, agreed vision. You're fucked.

Dave.

And these exact same principles apply to schools, teachers, unions, recipients of public sector pensions, the police, transport and utilities monopolies, local government, the MoD, recipients of Overseas Aid, makers of pasties and static caravans - all of whom could have provided my example instead of the Health Service. If you cannot win the argument by virtue of not only being right, but also having the principled support of the vast majority of the population, then you can lose not only the individual  battle, but also the war.  Dave is currently losing both, in my opinion.

Conclusion

In general terms, people don't like change: They feel threatened, they prefer to deal with what they know, even though they know it might not be particularly good or efficient. They fear their own inadequacies being exposed. So if you propose change, the immediate response of those who might be affected is to oppose it. Which means you need to have a strong, compelling argument as to why change is necessary and plenty of support for your view - secured by a cogent vision.

In conclusion, consider the response you might make to these two - essentially similar, but crucially different statements:

'Change is needed, we know you don't like that prospect, but it is for the good of the country as a whole, it is part of our plan to make the UK better for everyone and to make sure that our kids and grand kids can enjoy an even better life than we do ourselves today. It is part of a plan that has been agreed by the (majority of) people of this country: It needs to happen and it's going to happen. Your choice is to come with us and help, or to oppose us, but, in that case, it will then happen around you anyway.'

or:

'Change is needed, we know you don't like that prospect but we're trying to make things better. Not sure quite why but please help.'

The second is essentially what Lansley and Dave et al have been doing for the last two years. Yes they were faced with a massive deficit when they got in, but they seem to have been trying to make the ditch more comfortable for us to lie in than getting us back on the road in that time. They need some positive direction, some vision. Better connection with the great people of this great country.

They are currently wasting time. Their time and, much more importantly, your time and my time. And we don't have that time to waste.

Past vision:


Maggie was lucky in that the Falklands conflict essentially got her a second term and a mandate and majority that allowed her to tackle the unions and drag the 'sick man of europe' into the modern world. If she hadn't, we'd probably now be getting advice and aid from Robert Mugabe and Mark Serwotka would be the Queen. She had a clear vision - although it wasn't supported by everyone - and was, therefore, able to achieve major things (whether you agree they were good or not is not relevant to this piece). I think it was Frank Skinner who said: 'At least you always knew where you were with Maggie - it was just being there without a paddle that was the problem.'

Similarly Tony Blair's 'New Labour' project was actually more about vision than reality, ditching many of Labour's past principles of socialism (in a changed world - someone tell Bob Crow) in order to get power. New Labour was the vision. Powerful - obviously PR/communications-driven 'new' like 'sex' sells. That vision enabled him to steer a clear and steady path (albeit some might argue it was a path which led, ultimately, to destruction) but nonetheless it was a clear direction and vision which was successful from his point of view. It meant that the party did not wallow in uncertainty and did not, in broad terms (I'm sure you can find examples if you want to) lurch from one fuck-up to the next, as Dave seems to be doing. Continuing Mr Skinner's analogy to include Messrs Brown and Balls, who were only half right when they claimed to have eliminated Boom and Bust: 'At least in Maggie's day we had a canoe'.

Call-Me-Dave

And what do we get from Dave? The Big Society. Anyone? Means nothing - for two reasons - it hasn't been explained and it hasn't been committed to. He doesn't believe it, why should we?

So it's play-acting. Make-believe. Doesn't work and means that he is reduced to lurching between one fuck-up and the next.

Time for vision or exit Dave, in my opinion. I hope he goes for the former, but if he doesn't, it is definitely time for the latter.

Final point, regarding what needs to be done now. I can understand that when he came in, Dave faced a country and an economy in meltdown. Given that, the creation and promotion of a brave new vision was difficult. It is difficult to get people to believe in a project; a journey into a brighter future within a modern world, when they are ass-deep in Government-and-financial-services-created shit. This comes back to my point about the vision being achievable and not ridiculous. At that time, even my banal vision might have been seen as ridiculous and would have been daunting rather than aspirational.

That is not the case now, even though we are not yet out of the mire - and indeed might soon be returning to an even deeper swamp as the EU breaks up. Back then, there was a definite sense of an ending of the New Labour project and the need for some basic recovery work rather than moving on to a new, brave new world.

What I mean is that the fact that they've not had this clear aspirational vision for the past two years is neither surprising nor terminal. It is a situation that can be rectified, but it needs to be rectified as soon as possible - by this Autumn at the latest in my opinion. We certainly cannot wait until the next election when putting yourself forward as a party of fresh new ideas and vision, having had none for five years will be laughable. But there is a chance to make this work, as a sort of 'relaunch' if Dave can (urgently) put together a meaningful vision in the way I describe above.

If he does, it could be possible for him to take the country with him as he goes forward in a positive way. And not just the country, but also his own party as well as me and even you!

I'm not quite so sure about the Lib Dems, but then some things in this world are truly impossible.

And rest.