How can Gordon Brown dispel the sense of drift and decay that hangs over his government? One response to the mix of bad luck and bad judgement that has laid him low is to carry on as if nothing much has changed. That is less silly than it sounds. Moods change, too much policy activism looks panicky, and in any case, the public does not yet seem fully convinced of the Tory alternative.
On the other hand, there is a feeling of political limbo, of the Blair decade having closed but no new story having emerged to replace it. Brown's task going into 2008 is to change the political conversation, without the help of an election, and decisively enough for people to feel a sense of political momentum once more. And he has to do that without abandoning the broad contours on tax and spend and redistribution already laid down by New Labour, and more or less accepted by the new Tories.
There are plenty of things in modern Britain that don't work very well; some of them are beyond the reach of politics in a liberal society. But fortunately for Brown, there are plenty of unused policy ideas lying around that could change the country for the better. This is not about a pompous political "vision" or nebulous questions of character, but rather a broadly centrist list of policies—familiar to anyone who keeps half an eye on these things—that are practical and potentially popular, and, in truth, could be embraced by any of the three main parties.
My imaginary programme of domestic reform can be divided into three: infrastructure, public services and constitution-plus-citizenship. (I am excluding economic and foreign policy, and focusing on things that are more directly in the gift of government.)
Britain is no longer very good at big infrastructure projects. One reason is that the country is very densely populated (England has the population density of the Netherlands), which makes most projects more expensive and legally complex than in comparable European countries. But big projects—when they clearly fulfil a useful purpose—appeal to the national imagination and give a sense that the country is speaking to itself across the generations.
There is one that we need badly. We are the only big country in Europe without its own domestic high-speed rail link. It is absurd that from London it takes more than five hours to get to Glasgow and nearly three to get to Manchester. Birmingham should be one hour away, Glasgow no more than three. A new rail link should be funded by the state, with moderately subsidised running costs. It would provide a public good for the economy, and by "shrinking" distances, boost the cultural life of the country. It would also have the effect of reducing the stranglehold of London on national life. If communication links with the capital were better, it would be easier to disperse public bodies—like the new supreme court or a new, reformed House of Lords—to big provincial cities. (Crossrail is fine, but improves links only within the capital.)
A high-speed rail link would also reduce pressure at airports and help reduce carbon emissions. This connects to another big infrastructure project—the renewal of our energy economy. The government is already on the right path here, both in its support for nuclear power and in its new enthusiasm for offshore wind power generation. The latter in particular is something that chimes with environmental anxieties and could capture the imagination of a once seafaring nation with a long coastline—we could and should be world leaders in wind power.
The second part of a new programme for government is about where to go next on public service reform. This has been a policy field so crowded with government initiatives that it is hard not to sound stale, even when saying something new and welcome (as Ed Balls did recently, announcing a reduction in testing at primary level). Say less and do more might be one simple guideline. But there is one important and unreformed area where citizens desperately need more choice—primary care in the health service. The recent news that GPs have received big pay rises for no extra work, or in some cases less work, has undermined Labour's message that much more money was being invested in the public services in return for more and better "output." There are still many parts of inner-city Britain where the quantity or quality of GPs is inadequate, and yet it remains, in effect, impossible for new ones to set up in competition.
More generally, rhetoric on public service reform should now be less about methods—pragmatism should reign here; market-style reforms and choice where they work, not when they don't—and more about the people who need better services, in particular the bottom third of the population. So education and training reform should focus much more on apprenticeships, and there should be no let-up in the academies programme, which is mainly directed at the worst-performing schools in the poorest areas. Humane reform of the benefit system, plus better control of migration from outside the EU, is also needed to prevent our labour market looking increasingly like Saudi Arabia's, with British workers sitting at home (or moonlighting) on enhanced disability benefit while energetic foreigners suck up the jobs.
The final cluster of reforms concern constitutional reform and citizenship, and need to go far beyond Brown's anaemic July green paper. These reforms need to address several issues at once: the long-standing problem of overcentralisation; the issue of declining trust and participation in politics; the West Lothian question; and finally the belief that British citizenship is not sufficiently valued or protected in an era of mass immigration.
But the constitutional-citizenship reforms need to be visible and "populist," appealing as much to readers of the Sun and the Mirror as the Guardian. One such initiative would be the introduction of directly elected mayors, with modest budgets, in all towns with over 50,000 people. At a stroke this would make local politics more meaningful. With the mayors pushing local schools, hospitals and police forces to perform better, among other things, they would act as the missing link between local politics and national spending programmes. Moreover, to bring politics closer to the unpolitical people, each urban ward or rural parish should also have well-advertised biannual meetings, open to all residents, with all the relevant political and authority figures present: local councillors, headteachers, police officers, NHS officials and so on. These meetings would be an opportunity to discuss local problems and also to consider the spending of a small annual pot of money on improving local parks or other amenities.
Declining participation in politics is less of a disaster than many members of the political class think—most people see politics as a necessary evil, not as a form of self-expression. Nonetheless, if turnout in national elections continues to fall, there will be a problem of political legitimacy for the ruling party. It is time to introduce compulsory voting. This could certainly include a "none of the above" option for those who want to protest against the whole system. People could also tick a box to indicate which party they select to receive state funding. After the latest party funding revelations, state funding is now unavoidable, as is a cap on individual gifts of around £50,000, not excluding the unions. Finally, with the two big parties in historic decline and no longer so closely connected to clear interests or ideologies, it is time to consider trading the clarity and effectiveness of first past the post for the greater fairness of proportional representation. There should be a referendum on PR after the next election.
There is only one simple and fair way to conclude Britain's devolution settlement that avoids dividing parliament into an English and a British legislature—that is to further reduce the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster. Answering the West Lothian question in this way might give further impetus towards Scottish independence. But would that be such a disaster? A single state on this island is preferable to two, but an independent Scotland with an open border, the same currency (at least initially) and the same head of state is nothing to fear.
Finally, in the words of Jonathan Sacks, the chief rabbi, Britain has become too much like a "hotel," where citizens both new and old have a largely instrumental relationship with the country and the state. The rights, duties and rituals of citizenship need to be given greater weight—indeed, there is a strong case for making citizenship a normal requirement of residence after people have been here for more than five years. A British national day is long overdue.
The above measures complete business from the Blair era (reform of primary care, finishing devolution) while also striking out in new directions (localism, the new infrastructure, compulsory voting). Apart from the infrastructure projects, they would cost little, if anything. Some measures benefit the Tories (the cap on donations to parties, a further cut in Scottish Labour MPs) but others help Labour (compulsory voting and PR). Taken together, they would address some of Britain's problems and provide a new sense of direction. And if Gordon won't grasp the chance, I would happily see the programme taken up by the next Tory/Lib Dem government.
