level up not down

 

"For the many not the few". A Labour strapline. It's a levelling down slogan. Research by Hanbury Strategy into the once Labour voting industrial heartlands showed that levelling down is not an issue that resonates with the new working class. What they want is levelling up.

Labour's 2019 meaningless election strapline was 'it's time for real change.' Tory strapline researched and tested in focus groups was 'get Brexit done'. It's time for real change - get Brexit done?

Hanbury https://www.hanburystrategy.com/ qualitative research for the Conservatives, tested in focus groups, has thrown up a two word heuristic strapline they know will work - level up or levelling up. It's being floated just now but when Brexit is done this will be the heuristic that will take the Tories to the next election and it has to be countered.

Labour is gaining support among wealthy voters and is appealing to metropolitan regions. No party can win a majority now without the votes of the new working class who switched from Labour to Conservative.

Anyone who objectively analyses which party would give the best individual, family and work based benefits would answer Labour. No-one could objectively choose the Conservative Party to make life better. No matter who you are, where you live, what job you do and how rich or poor you are you will be better off under Labour. Stick a bit of ideology in the mix and you might choose the Greens. But overall everybody - everybody - is better off under Labour. 

Oh sorry, forgot the SNP, they are probably the first choice in Scotland and I'd put Nicola Sturgeon as the best political leader in the UK just now.

Voters don't objectively analyse who to vote for. They vote according to perceived tradition or on emotionally heuristic straplines. Get Brexit done for example. Using 'content marketing methods' bypassing biased media and going straight to voters Labour can educate voters in making objective democratic decisions.

The economy will be in a real mess after covid and the shock of Brexit. There will be elements of 'we're all in it together', 'we need to pull together' etc.

Bearing in mind everyone benefits from Labour and the messages need to be levelling up not levelling down, I'd like to suggest a strapline of:

                                        for the many as as well as the few

Public Investment Corporations (an idea in development comments welcome)

 

Financial structure of Public Investment Corporations PICs

Government takes back control of industries that are national assets and natural monopolies.

Government does not buy back an industry as such but invests in the industry concerned. 

The investment is converted into government shares giving the government a majority shareholding. Only the government holds these 'PIC G' bonds and they cannot be sold. However the government may raise more shares or reduce shares as investment increases or decreases in a Keynesian cyclical model 

The current owner operators remain in place. The privatised owners can sell their shares with government permission to an approved buyer. But these PIC A shares can only be bought and sold to an approved buyer. These approved buyers could be operators. The government can buy these shares.The government can take full control of the PIC if needed or desired, The owner operators receive dividends based on performance. There might be times when the government is owner and operator and there may be times when the government wants to appoint a contracted operator. In these circumstances the operator is never the owner. The government maintains ownership and ultimate control.

Banks, pension funds and other financial sectors can and are encouraged to invest in the PIC. These shares - 'PIC B' shares can be bought and sold in financial markets as normal but can never equal the government shareholding and are separate from the owner/operator shares. Private and institutional capital can invest but never own, operate or control the PIC. But it would be a sound investment almost like a government bond.

Members of the public can buy shares in the PIC as a form of saving through banks and building societies. This public shareholding 'PIC P' can only be bought and sold by members of the public. Institutional organisations cannot buy these shares. However banks and building societies might be allowed to bundle them into some form of ISA or similar savings or pensions instrument.

Employees can buy shares - 'PIC E' shares. These shares can be sold back to the PIC on leaving, become part of a pension arrangement on retirement and can be bought and sold but only to other employees. The PIC may also bundle employee shares into savings schemes.

The primary role of PICs is to run natural monopolies as efficiently as possible.

But I would like to introduce a new Keynesian idea of ‘notional efficiency’’.

The price charged to users may vary from strict market based pricing to adjusted pricing based on need and ability to pay.

Would like to mention that this flexible ‘market based pricing’ is a valid aspect of a marketing strategy and isn’t that radical.

Staffing levels will vary depending on the economic cycle.

This is where ‘notional efficiency comes into play.

A secondary aim of PICs is to create as many well paid jobs as possible.

In a recession or down turn of the economic cycle the government has to pay unemployment benefits. Regardless of what it is called it has to be enough for a family to survive. 

It would be possible to calculate how many extra employees a PIC could take on with the minimum of cost to general taxation. Let's keep in mind the British worker pays between 70% to 80% of his/her pay in one form of tax or another so the whole wage isn’t accounted for when calculating notional efficiency of employee numbers. At a guess I would say 15% overstaffing in an economic downturn or recession would not increase the tax burden when applied against unemployment benefits. Governments can make decisions about how much overstaffing can be borne by the PIC and the taxation system.

The Aerospace industry of the late 1960s and 1970s ran on a model very similar to what I’m proposing and from experience I know how 100 000s of good jobs can be created.

A problem arises when the economy is in an upward cycle. Keynesian principles say employees should be let go at this time. But no-one will want to leave. Reduced recruitment is a partial answer. I can’t as yet provide a full answer to this problem. 

Perhaps an equilibrium staffing level.