The draft Vision for Leeds is nothing if not\u00a0ambitious\u00a0when it comes considering the city’s economy:<\/p>\n
\nBy 2030, Leeds\u2019 economy will be prosperous and sustainable<\/strong>. We will create a prosperous and sustainable economy, using our resources effectively. Leeds will be successful and well-connected offering a good standard of living.<\/div>\nLeeds will be a city that has:<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n
- a strong local economy driving sustainable economic growth;<\/li>\n
- a skilled workforce to meet the needs of the local economy;<\/li>\n
- a world-class cultural offer;<\/li>\n
- built on its strengths in financial and business services, and manufacturing, and continued to grow its strong retail, leisure and tourism sectors;<\/li>\n
- world-class, cultural, digital and creative industries;<\/li>\n
- developed new opportunities for green manufacturing and for growing other\u00a0new industries;<\/li>\n
- improved levels of enterprise through creativity and innovation;<\/li>\n
- work for everyone with secure, flexible employment and good wages;<\/li>\n
- high-quality, accessible, affordable and reliable public transport;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Who are the ‘we’ who will create a prosperous and sustainable economy? \u00a0And, what breakthroughs might allow this utopian economy to be achieved by 2030 but that has prevented us achieving it to date? \u00a0Or perhaps this is one of those ‘shoot for the stars’ to give yourself a chance to hit a nearby moon type plans?<\/div>\nBut, the question of who are the ‘we’ is, I\u00a0think, an important one. \u00a0Is it various collections of the anointed and the appointed, gathered at city and city region level (while the RDA might be going we retain a ‘Leeds city region<\/a>‘ and have a new Local Enterprise Partnership<\/a> that covers the whole city region. \u00a0The city region\u00a0representing\u00a011\u00a0local\u00a0authorities across North, South and West Yorkshire, claims to\u00a0represent\u00a0the ‘real economy’)\u00a0to plan economic development?<\/div>\nOr is this a challenge that demands a wider\u00a0response?<\/div>\nThat must engage a much wider group of those with a stake in the future of our economy?<\/div>\nThis matters because, depending on the answer, we can either\u00a0leave the ‘Vision for Leeds’ as little more than a\u00a0document\u00a0that steers the work of a\u00a0small\u00a0number of\u00a0civil servants, politicians\u00a0and strategists or use it as a vehicle for much broader engagement. \u00a0Is the vision really for all of us? Or is it just a piece of the political\u00a0furniture?<\/div>\nThe problems of definition seems to me to be immense. \u00a0What do we mean by a ‘sustainable\u00a0economy’? Has this been\u00a0thought\u00a0through or is it just another\u00a0example\u00a0of what was memorably referred to at a recent Leeds Salon as ‘environmental Tourette’s’.<\/div>\nPerhaps it is OK for us all to have our own working definition of sustainable? \u00a0I know from personal experience that for many entrepreneurs ‘sustainable’ means ‘financially viable’, with no environmental implication whatsoever.<\/div>\nWhat does ‘prosperous’ mean in practice? \u00a0Is it\u00a0OK\u00a0just for the economy to create more cash, or is there something about how the prosperity is shared that should\u00a0also\u00a0matter to us? \u00a0Are we sure that ‘prosperity’ should still be the goal of our economy, or should we be considering other metrics such as well-being or happiness? \u00a0If part of what matters in our economy is health, then would we really use public funds to subsidise the expansion of the sugar industry?<\/div>\nIf a vision is to work in mobilising action, then these issues of definition and\u00a0meaning, and a robust social process for their negotiation is critical to creating alignments and the possibility of progress.<\/div>\nBut let’s set the challenge of definition and meaning to one side. \u00a0Let’s look at just some\u00a0aspects\u00a0of content.<\/div>\nOne of the first things that disappoints me is the way that ‘people and skills’ are once again put to serve the needs of the economy. \u00a0Why not try to develop an economy that\u00a0actually\u00a0honours and reflects the skills and passions of the people? \u00a0Develop an economy that serves people rather than people that serve the economy? \u00a0We spend fortunes trying to bend the labour and skills market (people) to meet the unpredictable needs of the economy, perhaps we could instead help people to develop their own\u00a0economic engine built on the foundation of their passions and skills? \u00a0Of course if we have a Strategy Board and a Local Enterprise Partnership dominated by\u00a0large employers such a shift in\u00a0thinking\u00a0towards a DIY\/craft\/artisan\/enterprise based economy is unlikely to get serious consideration.<\/div>\nWhat does it mean to ‘improve levels of enterprise’. \u00a0Is this a euphemism for increasing the start-up rate? \u00a0Or is there something more subtle here that might allow us to encourage fewer but better equipped start-ups? \u00a0The phrase is dripping with ambiguity….<\/div>\nI love the idea of work for everyone. \u00a0Secure, but flexible employment with good wages. \u00a0What a difficult challenge. But what a great prize.<\/div>\nAnd as for ‘high-quality, accessible, affordable and reliable public transport’ bring it on I say!<\/div>\nWho shall lead us to this land of milk and honey?<\/div>\n\n‘Is a dream a lie if it don’t come true? Or is it something worse?’ \u00a0– B. Springsteen.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nSo shoot for the stars and hit a nearby moon?<\/div>\nUnlikely.<\/div>\nOnce again if we trace the current route from the high level statements of vision through to the 4 Year Priorities and then on to ‘Headline Indicators’ there seems to be whole lot of dilution going on.<\/div>\nTake for example the challenge of work. \u00a0Remember the ‘flexible, well paid and secure work for all’ of the vision? \u00a0Well, in the 4 Year Priority this has become ‘More jobs are created’ and the Headline Indicator ‘xx jobs are created’. \u00a0We go from a Vision of great ambition to a\u00a0headline\u00a0indicator that will allow partners to carry on, pretty much as usual pretending that\u00a0they\u00a0create jobs in a modern economy.<\/div>\nAnd ‘high-quality, accessible, affordable and reliable public transport’. \u00a0Well as a 4 Year Priority that becomes ‘Improved journey times and reliability\u00a0of public transport’, and the Headline Indicator at the moment is ‘Reduced Bus journey time variability on the core\u00a0network’.<\/div>\nIs there a pattern emerging here?<\/div>\nHigh falutin’ rhetoric for what will be achieved by 2030, undermined by 4 year priorities and headline indicators that appear to be almost devoid of ambition?<\/div>\nThe ‘people of Leeds’ may have spoken when it comes to the Vision for 2030.<\/div>\nI wonder what they would have to say about these draft City Priority Plans?<\/div>\nIf they were asked….<\/div>\n<\/div>\n