Tom brings our attention to this:Nothing like this has been tried before. We have set out the process in detail below but we don’t know what the response will be and exactly how it will work. So we may need to tweak the process slightly. But we wont do that without signalling any changes and getting comments.In my opinion, the high is not so much in relation to the content as the process.
To be effective we think the policies selected should tick as many of the following boxes as possible:
* Mix populism with principle
* Be both sellable and workable
* Mix achievability in the short, medium and long term, addressing current policy agenda and looking into the future as far as you want
* Be prefigurative i.e. symbolise the kind of society we want to live in
* Balance spending with raising revenue
* Provide a sense of electoral analysis by appealing to key coalitions and constituencies
* Help build social democratic institutions and organisations e.g. unions, local government, community groups etc
* Tell its own story e.g. rail in common ownership – speaks to market failure and privatisation failure, the need for a holistic approach to public services, fairness agenda in terms of fares, climate change, and democratisation if we get a new model right.
* Be relevant across the UK
* Mix what people can do, what civil society can do and what the democratic state can do
More here on the latter.
Definitely worth further cogitation.



2 thoughtful fixes:
Mmm, all very interesting. Thanks for pointing it out. Fair play to Compass for pushing it forward, and I'll almost certainly join in the fun some time over Christmas.
But there's some interesting stuff in there about the parameters set by Compass for what's a good policy idea, and - for example - the subtle change in wording from the 'about' page to the actual submission page on making cost and revenue projections realistic, and how that fits with the 'pre-figurative' expectations.
Small box, large box? I'm not quite clear.
I'm also interested in the decision to go for a 'Panel of Experts' to provide some form of guidance of what is ok and what isn't. In particular, I'm interested in the presence of Richard Sennett, given what he (reflecting Hanna Arendt) has to say about 'experts' and 'policy wonks' as Weberian prison guards in his most recent (I think) book.
Oh bugger me, I feel a 2,000 word post coming on. Last thing I need, and I blame you.
Hi Paul - I'm getting blamed for all sorts at the moment. First it was provoking Labour Matters to buy a Crunchie. Then it was generating an almighty row over at Members Net. Now you're going to regale us with a 2000-word missive. What can I do to fix all this?
Post a Comment