New Government, time for new ideas

I wish

The scale of the new government's majority (170) is excessive but the scale of the conservative defeat is well deserved. The first days of the new Labour Government have been a tonic, things are moving and there is a discernable trend of establishing collaboration with the devolved nations, Europe, the Junior Doctors, Ukraine, and the business sector. Levels of optimism among the population and businesses have improved significantly according to polling and the pessimism of the past few years is evaporating.

There has been a cascade of statements from government ministers deploring the state of affairs that Rishi Sunak's government have bestowed on the new government. We knew that finances were in a mess but so were the prisons, the backlog of court hearings, probation service, NHS waiting times, community care, school estate, road network, rail finances, and water companies. The previous government had withdrawn measures to alleviate climate change and several reports, inquiries and pay review body recommendations with severe financial consequences had been deferred by the Chancellor. The IFS estimates that £20bn of expenditure is an unaccounted deficit left by the outgoing Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt following his decision to reduce national insurance payments. Perhaps this was the real reason for Rishi Sunak calling an unexpected general election.

It would appear from the Labour Party manifesto and early speeches by the Prime Minister and Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, that whilst there is an ambition to change, the financial circumstances are so dire that we will have to await the buds of growth before much investment can occur. It will create a vacuum in addressing the list of priorities listed above and settling pay awards. The logical and straightforward answer would be to restore national insurance levels but the Labour Party ruled that out, despite disagreeing with the decision. Unfunded policies by the previous government will have to be cut or scaled back instead. 

Additionally, several things could be addressed that have less costly upfront costs but could make a real difference in creating more effective public service delivery by both central and local government. They seem to have escaped the attention of the new government as they confront the legacy of a broken Britain.

Identity cards or digital identity was proposed by the last Labour Government but abandoned by the Tory/Lib Dem coalition of 2010. It is a no-brainer that could transform so many transactions that take place within the state both locally and nationally. They are common practice in most European countries and worldwide. The EU is also introducing an EU Digital Identity Wallet that can be used for any number of cases, for example:

• public services such as requesting birth certificates, medical certificates, reporting a change of address
• opening a bank account 
• filing tax returns
• applying for a university, at home or in another Member State
• storing a medical prescription that can be used anywhere in Europe 
• proving your age
• renting a car using a digital driving licence
• checking in to a hotel 

A UK digital identity would be a verification card for the above but also an entitlement card to gain access to local services and discounts or offers. A digital ID that could be held on phones like Apple Pay or Google Pay. The technology is there, the reason for not introducing it in 2010 was a reluctance to allow the use of personal information by the government but we all carry bank cards, driving licenses, club cards, and travel cards in bulging purses and wallets. Many of these are a far greater risk than the digital identity using biometrics that are now available. Think of all the occasions we have to produce a collection of electricity bills, council tax payments, and birth and marriage certificates to obtain some services. Digital identity would be proof when voting, buying cigarettes and for immigrants when applying for jobs or services. It could eliminate the discrimination that currently leads to illicit employment in some industries and speed up the processing of asylum seekers.

Land ownership is the missing link in the government's proposals to increase the supply of new housing but could also provide a mechanism to generate income for councils to provide more social housing and local infrastructure. The major housebuilders are gungho in favour of the reform to Planning but indifferent to the fact that they have banked hundreds of thousands of residential planning permissions to be developed when circumstances are favourable. This might be an upturn in house prices, a reduction in planning conditions such as fewer social houses in the development or payments to secure infrastructure and services like roads, paths, play areas or school extensions. 

If no development takes place within a specified time then councils should be given the right to acquire the sites at the existing use value paid by the housebuilders so that they can fast-track development including social housing and secure any uplift in land value for commercial developments. This could provide the infrastructure required for new developments that are often lacking in new housing developments. This is what the Land Commission was established to do in 1968 until it was quashed by the Heath Government in 1971.

The other initiative would be to fund the manufacture of pre-fabricated houses to enable rapid development, particularly for smaller housing units for the elderly, disabled, and young people. It should be possible to specify net zero standards and space standards appropriate for modern living. The technology is there and some government funding to kickstart the initiative could have a similar positive outcome to the prefabs constructed in the immediate post-war years that were genuinely liked by residents. They could be erected on the brownfield and greyfield sites that are already close to shops and services like GPs.

Business rates should be vested with councils, they collect the rate for the central government who then redistribute it as grant support but this has plummeted over the past decade. It would re-establish stronger partnerships between councils and their local businesses. They have common interests and have in previous generations been the drivers of local innovation and developed the infrastructure be it colleges, public health initiatives like water and sewerage, gasworks, electricity power stations, transport facilities and social housing by working hand in hand. This collaboration was much diminished when the government centralised business rating. It could be an important step in devolving the levers of growth to all levels of government in the way that exists in most European countries. Centralisation has been one of the key instruments of stagnation in the times we have recently endured.