Thanet is obviously a place with its own needs and interests, distinct from most of Kent, though somewhat similar to Medway. It needs to be a unitary authority now, and one that trials new forms of democratic engagement. (Local government dysfunction helps the far right here.)
Thanet also needs to rethink its relationship with its rural/agricultural hinterland. At the moment much of it is an intensively farmed wasteland with a ruinous out-of-town shopping centre in the middle. It needs to be joined up to the towns, and to the visitor offer.
A landscape that could host thousands of camping holiday-makers every summer and sell them heirloom fruit and vegetables, bespoke ales and speciality honey is an inaccessible cauliflower factory that is gradually being turned into car-dependent executive estates.
Campsites, barbecue spots, nature reserves and environmentally friendly food production linked to the coast by a network of cycle lines could offer visitors a glimpse of a better way of life and form the basis for a tourist economy that delivers high wages.
This is the sort of thing that preoccupies me on my daily lockdown walks ... How people can start to imagine a future for the places where they live, and take the power needed to make it a reality.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In 1979 the UK state handed economic planning to rich people. They gambled, blew credit bubbles, looked for higher returns overseas. Domestic investment slumped. The rich haven't done their job, and we should replace them as planners through a democratised state. Once we've ...🧵
... agreed to do that questions about monetary-fiscal management and constitutional design fall into place. Democracy is appealing in this context because of its capacity to mobilise latent knowledge, and to combat elite corruption. Finance sector reform is necessary because ...
... the creation and allocation of credit-money is the primary means through which a society shapes incentives, creates subjectivities, and determines who wins, and who loses. The neoliberal subject is an indebted subject, and their worth is tied up with their credit worthiness.
Absolutely loved this conversation between @AyeishaTS @francesnorthrop and @KeirMilburn about Abundance, real and fake, on the @NEF podcast. FN makes such an important point about the current state's inability to recognise the capacity that exists in ... podbean.com/media/share/di…
@AyeishaTS @francesnorthrop @KeirMilburn @NEF ... particular places: a corporate type in a suit with a business, yes; people who know somewhere and have a deep sense of its needs and capacities, not so much. A big challenge for constitutional reform is to create a state that doesn't default to partnership with the rich ...
@AyeishaTS @francesnorthrop @KeirMilburn @NEF ... but has a deep affinity with a cooperative civil society. (This has preoccupied me for a while: it's one of the themes in my 2018 paper on constitutional reform for @DemocracyCollab: How do we connect a democratic state to a mutualised economy? thenextsystem.org/learn/stories/…
This is a useful way to think about how a mutualised BBC would differ from the current "public service" model. A BBC political reporter published an article on the 18th August. On the 20th a member of the public has tried to bring their attention to what they see as errors.🧵
As it stands there is no way to adjudicate between the professional journalist and the member of the public, even though the issues raised are incredibly important. In a mutualised BBC members' panels would be on hand to examine controversies like this, and make a determination.
The panel could take representations from interested parties and interview the journalist and their editors. They could then make a ruling, which would have to be publicised by the BBC at least as prominently as the original article, if they were found to be at fault.
In his latest explainer @garyseconomics touches on a key issue, the lack of seriousness in the media about how successful economic reform would need to organised. We need high-level, widely shared, discussion of what we've been doing since 1979 ...
... where it has led us, and we need to change our political economy to improve living standards for the majority against a background of geopolitical instability and climate change. But post-2008 the media prefer to believe one weird trick will be enough to appease the gods.
Again, we could have public media that organises and manages just such a debate, that tests all kinds of propositions against the evidence in a way that is compelling and enlightening to the citizenry, who themselves participate actively and directly in the process. But we don't.
🧵Highly paid BBC presenters who express astonishment at the very idea of taxing wealth aren't doing much to dispel the widespread perception, well documented in Ofcom's audience research, that they are 'out of touch with ordinary people.' ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/res…
From 2028 the BBC will operate under a new 10-year Charter. It's important that we have a broad and deep debate about its structure and operating assumptions before then. As the public lose confidence in the wider establishment there's a danger that the BBC will go down with it.
For example, the 2024 British Social Attitudes Survey talks of 'a stark decline in public trust' in the UK's governing institutions: a full 45% of us 'almost never trusted' politicians to put the nation's interests first.') natcen.ac.uk/publications/b…
FWIW, some thoughts on the influencer and the party / Stephenson and the left conversation. There's bound to be tension between the dynamics of the attention economy and the needs of political projects. Individuals empowered by platforms can rapidly build vast audiences.🧵
Those individuals are not tied to collectives, and are only really vulnerable to the platform owners (which can snuff them out, or promote them, at will). They can embrace left-adjacent themes and drop them as opportunities present themselves. (I am old enough to remember ...
... Russell Brand jousting with Paxman and being courted by Miliband in 2015.) But the left's response has to be to build collective agents that are themselves capable of reaching large audiences by dint of convening large numbers of individuals as rule-bound plural subjects ...