Oh, the irony. The Leave campaign slogan, empty but nonetheless highly effective, was “we want control of our country back”.
The early reports from the Brexit negotiations are pointing towards a Norway-type associate membership of the EU, which would look like:

• Keeping access to the single market … 
• … but with a pause on free movement of people into UK for 5 – 10 years
• Continue to pay a levy to the EU budget
• Continue to be bound by EU laws
• Maybe continue in some EU science and research networks.  

But

• No UK elections to the European Parliament
• No UK nominations of European Commissioners
• No UK ministers voting in the European Council of Ministers.

The American war of independence started with the battle cry, “no taxation without representation”. 

Someone said that all democracies eventually come to an end because they commit suicide. 

Voting to not have a vote in future, to have less control, seems a good way to start.

In a recent blog I looked at Brexit and concluded that the UK needed to build new international bridges, and fix the economy at home: to “find a progressive economic solution with working dignity for all communities, not just the winners“.

So, how might we solve the need for a progressive working economy for all communities?

Thinking broadly, we might imagine a money-free utopia where everyone swaps butter for eggs over the gate with their neighbours, and with exotic passing travellers swapping their silks and spices for your bread and ale. A sort of cosy Iron Age Emmerdale. That is, until you need antibiotics or an X-ray…

So, here in the 21st century, we need to make the economy work for everyone, even with money circulating which can so quickly leave a local economy to go into the bank accounts of a small, rich elite. Local sourcing is part of the solution, as it delays the eventual departure of money.

Well, tax policy is strong way to sort this out. But to date, tax policy has focused on things like Corporation Tax and how much tax companies should pay, and the scandals of their tax avoidance with offshore accounts. We need to bring tax policy nearer to communities.

Tax policy should be used as an instrument to shape local economies.

1. To start with, whether it is done as a benefit or a tax credit, create a minimum income for everyone aged 16 and above. This would be enough to live on, where work becomes a fulfilling choice and so that the worst jobs have to pay the best.

2. To encourage more employment, shift taxes away from payroll and on to harm reduction by taxing pollution, sugar, tobacco, alcohol, carbon emissions, empty homes, empty shops and derelict eyesores. Land is the most efficient tax base, as it is hard to hide or move offshore, and it can be the most progressive base as well.

3. Similarly, tax credit places used for social wellbeing such as libraries, community centres, adult education, cafes and parks.

4. To reduce inequalities, increase the tax thresholds above twice average earnings, returning progressively to the high percentage rates of tax for high income levels used up to the 1970s.

5. Also to reduce inequalities, taxing inheritance is essential, even though it is unpopular with the right wing newspapers. A decent social housing programme would ensure that family inheritances were not the only way to the next generation to find shelter. This tax is then redistributed to support work and wellbeing.

6. For manufacturing and goods, the circular economy of recycling another organisation’s ‘waste’ as a valuable raw material is key to sustainability, so more tax is needed from all raw materials which are extracted from the earth (such as oil, gas, minerals, coal, stone) to encourage the circular economy. Similarly for renewable energy sources. Our landfill sites and our oceans are brimming with rubbish, and tax policy is one way to help.

By using tax revenues to support the creation of new local economies we can avoid the danger of becoming dependent on needing to maintain sources of tax revenue which are themselves harmful and unsustainable.

There will be many books about Brexit on sale in the shops soon. These will probably include – historical accounts, political memoirs, lessons for managers, public relations handbooks and much besides.

But we know the past. Fundamentally it was a vote of rage, of disconnected people in communities who felt they had been thrown under the bus to save the well-off; who felt their livelihoods had been sacrificed to keep the Stock Market dividends rolling in. Immigration was the target for this rage, cynically whipped up with racism and xenophobia being made to seem respectable.

The vote against the EU was conflated with a vote against EU migrants. And, against refugees coming to the EU to escape from war, including areas being bombed by the UK and its allies.

The message of the economic benefits of the EU – the heart of the Remain campaign – failed to work in communities where the economy was already on its knees. To some, the Leave vote was retribution time. To paraphrase a message back to the London metropolitan elite – you’ve peed in our soup, now we are going to pee in yours.

But looking forward, what should we plan for?

If you still believe in an international future, here are some strategies we could consider.

Well, first we could have the Grim Reaper strategy. Basically, the Leave vote was predominantly elderly, the Remain vote predominantly young. Easy. Just wait ten years … fewer Leave, more Remain, have another referendum and back to normal. Tempting, but alone it is too passive.

Secondly, we could have the Under The Radar strategy. We could press the UK government to try and negotiate with the EU for a least-worst exit. Something like “Norway plus”, which keeps the single market (free movement of people, capital, goods, services), budget contributions, research networks for universities, but no flag and no European elections. Again tempting, but we know it will be two years of constant right-wing bickering on Twitter and in the Daily Mail, complaining of selling out, conspiracy and betrayal. As someone said, these are people who cannot take yes for an answer.

Third, we could have a Cut Our Loses strategy. This sees the UK state break up into its various countries and regions. Scotland, Northern Ireland stay in, maybe London as well. England and Wales out. Manchester and Liverpool voted in (60%), but that area is probably harder to ring-fence than London. Tempting, and more likely now, but ultimately it gives up on England being progressive.

So, fourth, we could have a Build New Bridges strategy. Early days here, but this could include a range of initiatives, including:

1. Declaring our solidarity with all EU nationals living in the UK, calling for lifetime rights
2. Reaching out to “expat” UK nationals in the EU to win over more ambassadors
3. Giving young people reasons to stay hopeful: European exchanges, twinning, joint projects
4. Creating more international links and exchanges at the local community level
5. Building exchanges, twinning and joint projects between progressive local political groups
6. Giving students Europe-wide free movement to study without discrimination,

and crucially

7. Find a progressive economic solution with working dignity for all communities, not just the winners. In the 1930s Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) in the USA experimented until he settled on the New Deal. This phrase is tarnished currently in the UK from the Blair governments’ time but the idea is sound. The 2010s Great Depression needs a response just as strong now as then.

OK. At its best LinkedIn should be a forum for talking about working life. Though sometimes all-of-life takes over. Brexit is one of those moments. For the details, the FT on Saturday gives a thorough recap.

Some key points: Sterling at a 30-year low, intraday swing of over 10%. FTSE 100 down 8.7%. RBS shares down 34%. Spain’s Ibex down 12.35%, worst drop since 1992. Residential property values expected to drop 3-5% pa for next two years. London commercial property, as much as -18%.

Perhaps most telling, the resignation of the UK Prime Minister not even the lead news story that day.

There is a rage from people in the Brexit vote, and “Business as Usual” isn’t going to answer this rage. In 2008 we saved the banks but left many people feeling they had been thrown under the bus. We must do better this time.

Doing business does not have to be ever-greedier; ever more unequal; ever more indifferent to people’s plight.

Being an ethical and moral business is now far more than CSR and due diligence, or a nod at a charity during the swanky awards dinner. Crumbs from the table.

Leadership now requires that we do “Business as Unusual” and make a difference.

Posted on LinedIn on 27 June 2016

Europe is still there. The world is still there. People are still there.

The end of membership of a political structure – the EU – may be a big regret, driven by racism and xenophobia – specifically the whipped-up fear of the free movement of people across the EU.

But international structures will still exist.

So now is the time for progressive people to come to the aid of internationalism. There are many progressive international organisations – for disabled people the European Network for Independent Living springs to mind. Hearing Voices is doing fine work around the world for progressive mental health. Eurocities for local authorities. Greenpeace for environmental protection. And many, many others.

Perhaps our local organisations left internationalism a bit too much to others. It was often left to national organisations to join European and world networks when they could spare the time. But there is no reason why local organisations should not make their own strong international links directly, as well as continuing through national bodies.

The world is still there, its people are still there. Progressive people in all localities in the UK must now work harder to keep the channels of solidarity and internationalism open.

Even before the recent cuts, public bodies were increasingly moving from giving grants to the third sector, to contracts for services instead.

This has led public bodies down a procurement path. Grants could be decided as a matter of policy — contracts have to be bought in the marketplace. The Public Procurement Regulations govern how contracts are awarded: advertising, bidding, evaluation criteria, scoring panels, standstill periods, and finally for the lucky winner, a contract. A long and complicated process, and an expensive one for bidders at a time when resources are very tight.

But there is another way, especially for smaller contracts below the EU thresholds which mandate the full process. Of course, the general principles of transparency, fairness, equal treatment, and value for public funds apply at all levels. These are known in the procurement trade as the Treaty Principles.

Consider the humble price list. A public official can test the market by researching prices and specifications online, then making a purchasing decision, the same day if necessary.

So, I would just suggest that it might help some third sector organisations to publish a rate card, especially for routine small service contracts, just in case someone is looking to buy quickly.

I write this in early April with the referendum on EU membership due in late June.

It will be 100 years then since my great grandfather John died in the Battle of the Somme, aged 37.

My great grandmother Sarah Rachel married again later, and her second husband Thomas died at sea in the Merchant fleet in the Second World War, aged 59.

We only found out recently her family were Jewish, something she never spoke about.

Bare facts. Troubled and sometimes terrible lives.

It is generally thought that the referendum result could go either way. I fear the overall vote will be to leave, mainly by the English, with the fewer people of Scotland, and maybe Northern Ireland, voting to remain in. Wales’ vote may depend on who is blamed for the loss of the steel industry — Westminster or Brussels.

And the day after the vote? Scotland pushing for independence from the UK — the English really — and to remain in the EU. Northern Ireland driven back into irreconcilable Unionist and Nationalist positions. All for a referendum which has everything to do with the Westminster politics of a divided Conservative party, a vote which will cleave the fissure in the party whatever the outcome. Perhaps to the short term advantage of the opposition.

How did we get into this position?

Leaving aside the personalities and the micro grievances of the day, let me suggest a deeper approach. We live in a time when almost every political discussion is economic. We have to argue for social, cultural, or environmental improvements on economic grounds. Only the NHS so far remains an ethical and moral decision. Even climate change can only be tackled, we are told, if there is a sound economic case.

I would not be surprised if some bright person in HM Treasury was asked to prove economically that the security services “pay for themselves” in terms of their safeguarded national income from tourists.

So we have become just a Single Market. The EU is now all about the economy, and big business has captured the EU institutions and narrowed the debate. We have an EU where every policy position can be summarised on a spreadsheet.

And what of peace? What of binding together peoples whose leaders, if not their own instincts, seem too ready to pick a fight? From the Ukraine to Syria, war is not far away. Nor is NATO the answer to peace-making, because at best it is a peace-keeping force. Peace has to be made first.

We need an EU which is fundamentally a peace-maker first and foremost. Economic, social and environmental security are essential parts of this mission, but they are all secondary, to be used internationally as the means to an end in overcoming the causes of war. We need the millions of school exchanges, of young people working in different countries, of marriages between people from combatant countries.

Otherwise, it could be all our children who will have to learn afresh the lessons from war, and who will remind us what we threw away, slowly then suddenly.

Increasingly, cities and towns are looking to appoint a writer in residence to ‘up the profile’ of the area to tourists, visitors and investors. Cultural cachet as an economic driver.

For example, there is a delightful article in the Cities section of The Guardian by Steven Poole on the decision by Milton Keynes authorities to appoint a writer in residence to increase its profile and tourism. Many people who have written job descriptions in the public sector will wince.

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/06/milton-keynes-writer-in-residence

But let’s look at this a bit deeper. It is one thing to attract someone to come and write nice things about a place. But how would a town or city make itself attractive to writers as a place to live, to write in for the next ten or twenty years?

Well, the economists amongst us would point to cluster theory. This explains why restaurants choose to set up near each other, the same for jewellery shops, fancy clothes shops, and so on. A too-simple economic theory would suggest they would all spread out, as far from each other as possible. But there is more money to be made by similar businesses grouping together.

So, cluster theory and writers as new residents. Here are my suggestions, based on the real town of Sale in Greater Manchester (or is still in Cheshire for some).

First the existing factors and assets:

1. Most writers have a day job, the writing itself being a passion which usually pays less than the minimum wage. The breakthrough is to get a salaried job for writing, a rare and precarious living as journalists will tell you. Forget the very few celebrity writers, who are foot-loose anyway.

2. Writing is a solitary and self-critical activity, so any supportive and understanding friendships and networks are very welcome, especially in person rather than remote and virtual.

3. As well as there being little money to pay writers, there is precious little money to pay to support writers. The existing resources could be used to their full extent. In Sale these include the library (even though cuts continue), the Waterside Arts Centre, the Northern Lights writers festival, and charity shops with a range of books which put bookshops through their paces.

4. Sale has a large cluster of coffee shops, cafes and bistros which tolerate solitary souls tapping away at their screens and keyboards.

5. Housing which, in places, is affordable in terms of real incomes and not just as a phrase on a press release. Sale is a town which straddles the richer professional groups and the less secure working population.

6. Connectivity to the rest of a big city-region with an international profile and organisations to match, from theatre to TV studios to freelance radio companies to newspapers to university libraries to community writing groups.

7. Resilience is key to making a town attractive as a long-term home for writers. This is not about a new website or a time-limited funded project, which rise and fade like fireworks. It is about a resilient and sustainable change in the culture of a town. It isn’t a ‘hub’, but it is family of strong and independent bodies.

8. Sale has a number of small printing companies, and with the respectable growth in self-publication these firms offer affordable ways for a writer to reach paying readers. There is also online writing (this blog!) but the ability to earn income online as a writer is absolutely minimal. The income goes instead to the hosting organisation such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Google, Amazon. WordPress, dare I say. The writer is always last to be paid, if at all.

So Sale has these eight assets. What could the ninth?

9. Talks and short courses. Writers love to hear from other writers, and to ask them questions. I would suggest a coffee house owner could volunteer to stay open sometime beyond 6pm, line up the chairs and have a guest writer or two speaking. The extra coffees bought could cover costs, but it is done firstly for the greater good. Keep the costs right down and use existing resources and goodwill to the full.

And a sign of success would be when we see more people moving in to Sale who have budgets and rely on writers – agents, producers, publishers. And if some moved from London, drawn by the buzz of a town of writers, well that would be something.

This weekend President Obama spoke to high tech computer science audience at the SXSW festival in Austin, Texas. “Government has to tackle harder problems than the private sector”, he told them, adding, “we are at a moment in history when technology, globalisation and our economy are changing so fast”.

He told an enthusiastic audience, “if we [in government] join forces [with you] there is no problem that is not solvable. It is not enough to focus on the next big thing. It is how we harness the next big thing to make sure that everybody in the country has an opportunity.”

And elsewhere we read about the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and robots, and of the fear that many people in the future will be stuck in a drudge underclass, working to the orders of a computer with AI that answers phones, talks to customers, negotiates with suppliers, solves delivery problems, and spots new trends in the market.

Which isn’t as fanciful as it sounds when we find that, also this weekend, that Google working with DeepMind has produced an AI machine called AlphaGo which has beaten a world-ranking player at Go three times in a row.

Don’t be misled. The use of AI to win games is just a showcase to catch public attention. DeepMind is a very general platform which can be tasked with a wide range of problems to solve and businesses to run. And no doubt with driverless lorries before long.

So, can we use AI to manage programmes in the public sector, the harder challenge?

Yes we can.

The Greater Manchester authorities have big plans to devolve and integrate health and social care. These plans are outlined for public consultation in spring 2016.

To win public support for change, there needs to a clear “offer” with a public convinced that there is no wiggle room for corporate deceit.

The general public mostly knows and understands the current national “offer”:

1. Ambulances with an eight minute target for arrival,
2. A+E with a four hour target for waiting, and
3. GPs with a “days not weeks” target for appointments.

The Greater Manchester “offer” needs to add:
4. a 24/7 pharmacist within five miles,
5. a nurse appointment next working day,
6. a home accidents prevention visit within two working days,
7. a home care assessment and named care manager within five working days,
8. a quality-controlled network of home care providers, and
9. a quality-controlled training network for front-line staff and volunteers.

Guarantees. No disappointing small print, and sanctions for any manager who tries to game the system.

Details

The devolution aims are very good, though beyond five years we should aim to exceed the England averages in all categories. Clearly the strategy is right to say that poverty is a root cause of chronic ill health, though the section on early years development needs more detail, especially for parents with low pay and long hours. Also, there are some areas in health care where the English average is woefully short of the European average, especially in the early detection of cancers. An improvement here will probably require more routine community-based blood testing.

But my main comment is the need to engage the public attention of 2.5m people. The GP and hospital services are clearly understood. Councils less so. Trust in change is low and anxiety is high. Leaflets with initials and long, vague phrases will miss people entirely, except to fuel suspicion.

Of course there will be a public engagement strategy with an exhibition trailer and leaflets to take around town centres, with local radio programmes and newspaper reports. But the content, the “offer” is key, otherwise it risks adding to a general public perception that change cannot be trusted and clever lies will cover the truth. In general, politicians who go on the doorstep at election time probably get this sense of public suspicion more than their staff do, and especially more than some senior staff who are without shop-floor, daily public-serving experiences.

So the devolution of health and social care allows for some fresh thinking

For example, a target of a 24/7 pharmacist within five miles of everyone in Greater Manchester. Some of these could be based within all-night petrol stations. They have ease of access, security, and the safety of existing staff. It would be a source of advice, not just emergency supplies, and would look at sustained health promotion for shift workers and for drivers with long hours. It would play a strong role in promoting men’s health. For security only a limited amount of controlled drugs would be kept, in a time-delay safe.

A pool of salaried pharmacists would be employed to provide a mixed economy of provision and to mitigate the procurement tendency of cartels and of some contractors using service guarantees to push up price negotiations.

For nurse appointments, in other European countries it is common to make such a booking by using a phone app. Even on the outlying islands. We should catch up.

Of course, not every beneficial change can be summarised in a target or clear promise. The role of poverty in determining overall health was covered above. Another key factor is the importance of mental health, and including here substance abuse and addictions, especially alcohol misuse.

Many people have direct or family experiences of living with mental health distress or with addiction-dominated lifestyles. This happens in all walks of life, and at all ages. It is often a great strain on families, and even harder to cope with alone. Too often, impossible. This personal understanding from experience, a rich vein of knowledge running through society, needs to be supported and harnessed.

The need for community support is widely understood, but the means to build that support are not always available. The Greater Manchester devolution of health and social care could make a big difference here.

As practical examples, a programme would include:

A mental health first aiders course for front-line staff (including housing, fire and rescue, transport and especially rail, libraries, schools, custody) and for youth, community and voluntary groups (guides and scouts, sport and leisure, neighbourhood and residents).

A longer course in approaches to addiction reduction would be available for front-line staff and volunteers who form longer term relationships with service users and fellow members. Training providers would be quality assured before they could use the Greater Manchester NHS brand.

These programmes would build on the national and international centres of expertise in mental health in Greater Manchester, such as 42nd Street, the Hearing Voices Network, and innovative work supporting the mental health of refugee and displaced children.

Buildings

The hospital “estate” also needs some creative change. The need to move away from reactive admissions towards community-based prevention and treatment is understood and highly desirable. Nevertheless, people have a heart-felt connection to their local hospital where their have stayed, where their children were born, where their relatives died. Local hospitals could become more varied, for example with fewer rooms needed for reactive treatment and the rest used as studio space for artists, as repair workshops for recycling groups, as college training rooms and as community function rooms.

Home care is probably the most fraught topic here

Over the years it has become increasingly difficult. Lawyers have left their mark. The laws of thirty years ago – the Council shall provide – has been worn down over the years with case law replacing a person’s absolute right to receive home care with vaguer phrases such as – the Council shall endeavour to provide. To some extent people mostly with the highest levels of need were able to side-step their Council by going to the national Independent Living Fund (ILF) which created a wealth of best practice in person-centred home care. The development of Direct Payments as an alternative to Council provision was an attempt to mainstream some of the ILF principles. But years of financial cuts have reduced this provision, to just a history lesson.

Councils are in the invidious position of being told to pick up the pieces but with less money, and people using those services only have a time-limited protection within Council provision. The time will soon run out, as will the money. Government promises to make a lifetime cap on people’s own financial contributions to their care costs have been kicked into the long grass, put off for years to come. Meanwhile Councils look into bank accounts now and use the law to seize the value of people’s houses which can be sold later. It was becoming true that home care was for the poor and the rich, but not for people in the middle. However, with recent benefit changes, mostly around Housing Benefit (such as the weekly cap, increases in affordable rents, bedroom occupancy limits) the scope for poor people to survive on benefits with home care is increasingly hard to achieve.

So, the hardest test for devolution in Greater Manchester will very probably be to what extent a new local arrangement can mitigate against the worst of these cuts. To date, the system has been first to change the criteria, then to only fund those who meet the highest criteria, and to means-test all provision regardless of people needing modest savings to protect their wellbeing, such as saving to build a downstairs bathroom.

We saw in the devolved arrangements in Scotland how the promise of free social care for elderly people was rationed out in practice by creating long waiting lists for assessment. It is this type of practice which is seen by people as deceitful and it feeds distrust in politics and in what claims to be the democratic process.

We must have honest conversations with people

“Your home care assessment is for three hours support each day to help you with washing, dressing, eating, whatever. Your elderly parent can do some of this, and the Council can provide the staff or money for two hours a day of this. It isn’t ideal, and thousands are in the same boat as you and there is no spare money. But given this, what would you want us to provide first?”

You might say, start with anything involving heavy lifting. And then, give my parent each Tuesday off. Or whatever.

And the stark reality is, due to lack of funds, you can only go out twice a week, and it is only because the doctor has agreed to do home visits that these can include social trips as well as health appointments. But this is a more honest approach than creating new waiting lists to hide the numbers and pretending everything in home care is better than people know it is.