Radical Centrism (Part One)
Building a better Britain
As voters, we’re constantly told to pick between two poisoned chalices.
On immigration: open the door to anyone, or shut the door to everyone.
On energy: stop oil right now, or abandon net-zero and choke the planet.
On Brexit: Leave even harder or return, cap in hand, the EU.
And on, and on, and on, and on.
But the biggest problems we face as a country will not be solved with extreme, one-sided approaches. They’ll be solved with compromise, compassion and moderation.
Centrists have a reputation for trying to please all sides. We’re the middle lane hoggers of politics: perpetually hedging our bets, taking our pick at a little of this and a little of that.
But centrism doesn’t have to be about sitting on the fence (after all, as I was once told, if you sit on the fence - you’ll get splinters in your arse).
I’ve taken to calling my political belief “radical centrism”: a centrism that recognises that Britain is broken and in urgent need of small-r reform. But that also recognises that the solution is not extremism, it’s not cruelty, and it’s not communism. It’s sensible, grown-up politics that’s focused on fixing.
And, above all, it’s optimistic. Populists thrive when things are broken. They win by denigrating us.
To me - that’s unpatriotic.
Radical centrism says that Britain is the greatest country in the world: we are blessed to live in a nation that’s defined by freedom, democracy and opportunity for everyone. Of course there is work to be done: but we do it by coming together, not tearing ourselves apart.
So, this is my definition of a radical centrist Britain. It’s a plan to Make Britain Great Again: one that actually delivers on its promises, and one where great means great for everyone.
Britain was built on democracy, fairness, liberty, equality and freedom. This is a plan that elevates those values, against a backdrop of a politics that too often tears them down.
I. Economy
Peter Mandelson was wrong to buddy up with Epstein, but he was right when he said he was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes”.
In order to drive growth, Britain must reward success. Millionaires and billionaires are leaving the country in droves, and that’s a problem.
The top 1% of earners in this country contribute 30% of our tax. That means a third of our NHS, a third of our police, a third of our schools: paid for by the top 1%. If they go, everything gets worse.
And yes, of course we should be focused on closing the gap between the richest and the poorest. But we do that by making everyone richer.
To make everyone richer, you must grow the economy.
The Tories too often try to grow the economy with tax cuts. The theory makes sense: people would work harder if they could keep more of their money. But the reality doesn’t match the theory.
I’d propose an alternative. Instead of cutting tax (a blunt knife), we should focus on smoothing the tax cliffs and traps.
Here’s an example: a parent making £99,000 a year gets offered a £5k payrise. She is better off rejecting the payrise, because once she crosses a £100k salary, she immediately loses access to childcare support, which is worth £6000 per year.
If we want to grow the economy, we need more people to make more money: not trap them with disincentives like this (and there are many more examples).
The radical centrist rejects the idea that tax cuts are the answer to economic growth. For a functioning, successful society we all need to pay our fair share. But we need to make work pay, and we can’t scare off the top earners that pay above and beyond for our services.
It’s not just about tax, though. The secret to growing the economy is to spend, spend, spend.
Just one example: the government’s own analysis finds that every £1 they spend on research and development brings £2 of private investment into the country. Personally, if I had a money doubling machine, I’d be loading every penny I had into it.
In the US, the space race increased GDP by 2%. Despite costing billions, the space race grew the economy. By some estimates, every $1 NASA spent led to $7 of economic return in the long-term. And without the huge national mission to reach space, we wouldn’t have GPS, semiconductors or MRIs (and all the businesses that have grown out of those technologies).
Westminster, meanwhile, thinks spending sucks. Consecutive governments have cut spending on HS2, nuclear power stations, housing and science. If we absorbed the short-term pain of spending more, we would quite literally have money printers that’d turbo-charge our economy.
Part of the reason we can’t make stuff is that planning needs urgent reform. We’ve got to get Britain building again.
Isambard Kingdom Brunel did not need planning permission to build Paddington Station or the Clifton Suspension Bridge or the Great Western Railway.
In 100 years, our ancestors will curse us for prioritising Doris’ countryside views and jumping spider habitats over infrastructure development. We’ve got to get the country building again: and that means reforming planning to make it easier. Planning should default to yes: not no.
How to fix the economy, make work pay and get Britain building:
Smooth the tax cliffs and tax traps: make work pay
Invest, invest, invest: increase government spending on transport, education, net-zero and R&D
Reform planning so Britain can build, baby, build
II. Energy
Knowing that the space race grew the economy and improved lives on the ground begs the question: what is our 21st century space race that’ll bring a big economic boost and innovation?
It is surely net-zero. If we got serious in pursuit of net-zero, industry would suddenly whack up their spending in Britain on manufacturing and R&D, there would be thousands of new jobs and long-term benefits for our economy and energy security. It is nuts, and so short-sighted, that people don’t see this.
We have to prioritise net-zero because, one day, we will run out of fossil fuels. This isn’t a theory, this is simply a fact. We might not run out in my lifetime, maybe we won’t even run out in my grandchildren’s lifetimes. But we will run out eventually.
So then the question becomes - do you want Britain to be caught on the back-foot, or the front-foot?
Should future Britons thank us for our foresight and investment, or curse us for leaving them in the lurch?
China’s economy has gone gangbusters because they invested in the technology underpinning net-zero. We could do the same.
Energy creation relies on spinning turbines and, as of today, we do that in two ways. Firstly, we burn a pile of shit to create steam that spins the turbine. Secondly, we build giant turbines in windy places so that the wind spins the turbine.
There is a third way. A lump of coal boils a kettle. A spin of a wind turbine powers a home for almost a day. A single pellet of uranium, the size of a 5p coin, will power a home for four months.
Nuclear power is like a miracle. Nuclear power stations churn out energy cheaply, efficiently and cleanly. Every day, we should shake our fists at past Prime Ministers for not starting construction on a bunch of nuclear power stations. But we can turn the tide on that and start building nuclear power stations today.
Whether it’s nuclear or wind, Britain needs to generate more of our own energy. Generating more energy is good for our economy, good for our environment and good for bills. But it’s also good for our security.
Today, we import about 40% of our energy. This sucks: not only does it cost us more (because we’re paying tariffs, importation costs and so on) - but also it’s terrible for our ability to be truly independent.
Germany used to depend on Russia for around a third of its energy. When Putin invaded Ukraine, Russia was able to effectively blackmail Germany by threatening to cut their power if the Germans retaliated in any way.
We shouldn’t be beholden to any foreign powers to keep the lights on. Net-zero represents energy independence: which grants us security and freedom for the long-term.
How to secure our energy supply, create growth and ensure our grandkids thank us:
Build nuclear power stations: lots of them
Push towards energy independence: generate enough at home to power the nation
Net-zero as a national mission: to create jobs and wealth
III. Education
PISA - the Programme for International Student Assessment - is a global assessment of 15-year-olds from around the world: the benchmark for how well kids are doing compared to the rest of the world.
And England does pretty well: we’re the 11th top performing country for maths, and 13th for both reading and science. Another study, PIRLS, puts us at number one in the West for reading.
The world’s best universities are also in the UK, so we’re really punching above our weight considering our size and population.
That’s no reason to rest on our laurels, though.
The AI age will fundamentally disrupt what it means to learn and work, and education needs to keep pace. That means the time is now to prioritise lifelong learning. A single shot of learning is not enough any more to keep pace with a rapidly changing world.
If you were born in 1987, ICT lessons were about floppy disks and typing. If you were born in 1997, like me, ICT lessons were about word processing and spreadsheets. If you were born in 1998, one year later when the curriculum changed, ICT lessons consisted of coding and computer science. And today, kids are learning about AI and social media.
Yet all of these people are together in the workplace, using the same computers and devices with very different educational backgrounds. We need to create more opportunities for people to continuously learn throughout their lives. It’s important for their career, their economic contribution, and even for their quality of life. After all, learning makes life better and more interesting.
In the AI age, this matters more than ever. As the job market shifts, we need to ensure everyone can keep pace with the skills that will be required. For some people, that’ll mean shifting to vocational or care-based skills that robots can’t replace. As of today, a translator that wants to become a plumber or therapist or lawyer (jobs urgently in demand in our economy) will need to pay out of her own pocket to train.
We need a lifelong learning entitlement, similar to a student loan, that enables people to access education at any stage of life. And we need a huge expansion of vocational, on-the-job training so people can learn while they earn. In a changing economy, this shift will be vital: so much so that I believe the government should supplement the salary of on-the-job learners, regardless of age.
Lifelong learning is, obviously, important - but nothing matters more than the education you get as a young person. Yet not every young person is getting an equal shot at school.
Private schools and grammar schools serve to entrench inequality rather than bridge it. They drain talent and resource from the state system and remove incentives to make every school exceptional.
Faith schools and gendered schools are a bizarre relic of a bygone age that do nothing to support an integrated, well-rounded society. We recognised long ago that segregation was bad for everyone: it makes no sense that we haven’t extended that recognition to children and schools.
This essay is about radical centrism, so let’s be radical: I would abolish and ban all forms of school other than state schools. No more grammar schools, no more private schools, no more faith schools. Just free, open state schools that welcome all children, regardless of wealth, belief, gender or ability. There are incredible facilities and incredible teachers in this country that are being locked away from young people that would really benefit from them. And every child would benefit from meeting peers from all walks of life.
So let’s scrap them all, and focus on building a world-leading state education system.
There are a million and one more reforms that could make classrooms and learning better. Reducing the burden of exams, more integrative and inter-disciplinary courses, a crackdown on bad behaviour in classrooms and much, much better equipped SEND schools.
But teachers have the largest impact on learners, more so than any curriculum or top-down initiative. Great teachers make the biggest difference to the quality of learning.
One of the biggest ways to improve the quality of teaching is to pay teachers more. Of course this is expensive, but it’s the only way to attract the most talented people into the profession. Higher salaries will attract teachers with a higher level of qualification (particularly in pedagogy) and push them towards ongoing professional development.
We need to rejig the perverse incentive structure whereby the best teachers are taken out of the classroom and promoted to office-based roles.
The best teachers should not find that their salaries hit a ceiling because they want to stay in the classroom: there should be routes to make good money both in the classroom and in the office. There have been countless proposals for ‘expert teachers’: higher paid, in-classroom teachers.
And when you pay higher salaries, you can demand more.
Education is perhaps one of the most important parts of any society and yet too often we are letting unions set the rules: watering down Ofsted inspections, making it harder to fire bad teachers, blocking performance bonuses.
Fairness should not come at the expense of excellence. We should hold schools and teachers to really high standards: but we should give them a ton of money to reflect their essential role in society, just as we do with doctors or judges.
How to harness education for growth and give our kids the best start in life:
Expansion of vocational and lifelong education via a lifelong learning entitlement and salary supplements for on-the-job learners.
Scrap all non-state schools
Empower teachers to be great by paying them lots of money
==
Next week: Crime, Welfare, Health