Reading Time: 21 minutes

Opposition Senator Cleveland Tomlinson, one of the youngest senators in the House of Representatives, made a perspicacious and insightful presentation for his Budget Debate debut last Friday (March 27).

He spoke for a generation who will shape Jamaica’s future. Senator Tomlinson made the point that too many Jamaicans are opting to build futures abroad and do not view their country as a place where they can get ahead and look after their families.

Jamaica faces structural challenges that must be addressed. The country has to vastly improve its levels of productivity and performance must be vigorously evaluated.

Below reads Tomlinson’s full address: 

In this, my first debate on an Appropriations Bill, I speak fully conscious that I represent, in part, a generation of Jamaicans whose voice is not always reflected in decision-making in this chamber.

 Young people who are constantly told, by Senators Marlon Morgan and Dana Morris Dixon through the Ministry of Education and Youth, that their voices matter and that the future of this country is theirs to carry.

Yet when I engage them, Mr President, whether at community events, on the campus of the universities, or in quiet conversations, I hear something very different. They say to me, ‘Senator, there is no future for me here‘. They speak openly about their desire to leave, to seek opportunity elsewhere. 

And when I ask them, even in the face of tightening immigration policies and growing uncertainty overseas, ‘Are you still willing to go?‘, their response is sobering. They say, ‘Senator, I would rather take my chances up there than stay here‘.  

It breaks my heart every time. What is even more troubling is that many of them are not idle. They are educated, they are working, they are trying to build a life here.

That reality is one of the main reasons I approached this year’s Budget Debate with such anticipation. Because if Jamaicans no longer believe there is opportunity at home, then the budget debate must be about restoring that belief, and where that belief never existed from the outset, then this debate must be about creating it.

Focus of my presentation

That reality is also one of the reasons I have taken seriously the responsibility given to me when the Opposition Leader [Mark Golding] invited me to serve in this Senate and asked that I act as deputy spokesperson for productivity, efficiency, and competitiveness. 

It is from the standpoint of these core portfolio areas that I intend to make my contribution today, because if we are serious about improving the lived experience of our people, fixing these structural issues cannot be optional. It is a necessary prerequisite for a better economy.

I listened carefully to the government’s presentation in the lower house, hoping to hear a clear and compelling vision for the future. A vision that could speak directly to those Jamaicans who are those who are willing to be on the run in another man’s country than staying in the land of their birth “jus because dem waah mek it.”

Having listened closely to the minister of finance in her presentations, I came to an honest conclusion. The presentations fell short. They did not set out a clear path to address the structural challenges that have held this country back for decades which would help to improve the lives of Jamaicans.

And with respect to the second observation, it turns out, Mr President, that I was not alone in that view.

On March 16, I read a Gleaner editorial titled ‘Waiting for Transformation‘. It made a point that, and I quote, “At the bottom line, though, Minister Williams’ speech was stronger on mobilising finance than on directing finance. Much less was addressed about the underlying engines of sustained development: export diversification, industrial upgrading, lower energy costs, logistics reform, digital capability, innovation policy, agricultural productivity, workforce skills, and urban transport efficiency. While it recognises the need for faster growth, it does not provide a compelling map of structural transformation.”

Mr President, I then turned my attention to the prime minister’s contribution, hopeful that he would fill that gap in his bite at the cherry. To be fair, he did attempt to address some of the structural issues. But it was clear that the effort did not go far enough. The response lacked depth in many areas and ultimately, credibility. So when I consider both presentations together, I am left with one unavoidable conclusion. Even at their best, they, on that side, lack a clear and credible vision for Jamaica’s transformation.

Response to the prime minister

Mr President, I turn to the prime minister’s presentation. In particular, the series of project announcements that were put before the country.

At first glance, the list is ambitious. It speaks to infrastructure, investment, and transformation. And to be clear, Mr President, there is nothing wrong with ambition. But ambition must be matched with credibility. Because when one examines these announcements more closely, a number of concerns arise.

First, Mr President, many of these projects are not new. They are re-announcements. Projects that have been spoken about before, in some cases for years, projects that we were previously told were underway or imminent, are now being presented again as part of a new wave of development.

That in itself raises a question about execution. For example, Mr President, Trelawny Multipurpose Satidum development and new urban centre for Trelawny have both been referenced in previous announcements, yet we are still awaiting clear timelines and evidence of execution.

Second, Mr President, there is a lack of specificity. We have not been given clear timelines. We have not been told when these projects will commence, what phase they are currently in, or when the Jamaican people can reasonably expect to see delivery.

And in public policy, Mr. President, timelines are a basic measure of accountability.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, Mr President, when one turns to the Estimates of Expenditure, the “big yellow book,” and the Public Bodies Estimates, one finds very little evidence that these projects are scheduled for implementation in the upcoming fiscal year.

Mr President, we, in this chamber, know that any project that is to be executed by the Government, whether directly or through its agencies, must be reflected in those estimates. That is where the resources are allocated. That is where the plans are operationalised. 

If these projects are not there, then the reasonable conclusion is that they are not yet ready for execution, at least not in the near term. So we are left with announcements, but without the budgetary backing that would give those announcements immediate credibility.

Fourth, Mr President, there is the issue of financing. And this is particularly important because the Government itself has been quick to question the Opposition on the financing of its proposals. But what is good for the goose must be good for the gander.

The prime minister referred to the package of financing from international partners. But, Mr President, that financing is not guaranteed and much of it is debt. 

If these projects were expected to be financed through that facility in the near term, we would expect to see some indication of that in the Government’s medium-term fiscal and debt projections.

But what do we see instead? We see a continued decline in the debt-to-GDP ratio over the upcoming fiscal year. That suggests that there is no immediate expectation to access those resources at a scale that would support the level of project execution being announced.

Mr. President, when you take all of this together, the re-announcements, the absence of timelines, the lack of presence in the Estimates, and the uncertainty around financing, it becomes difficult to attach a high degree of credibility to these project announcements at this time.

And that is not about me opposing development. It is a call for clarity, for transparency, and for alignment between what is announced and what is actually budgeted and ready to be delivered.

National Resilience and Reconstruction Authority (NaRRA)

Mr President, to be fair, the Government has identified a longstanding constraint within our economy, the pace and efficiency with which we execute major projects.

This is not a new issue. It is one that has affected public investment, private sector expansion, and ultimately the rate at which this economy can grow.

In that context, the proposal to establish the National Reconstruction and Resilience Authority represents an attempt to address that challenge. And any serious effort to improve execution deserves careful consideration.

However, when examined through the lens of efficiency and institutional reform, there are important concerns that must be addressed.

First, Mr President, while the diagnosis of the problem by the PM is largely correct, it is incomplete. The issue is not simply that processes are slow or fragmented. It is that the underlying systems, incentives, and institutional capacity within the public sector are not aligned to support timely and efficient execution. Mr President, these are systemic issues. Creating a new authority does not, in and of itself, resolve them

Second, Mr President, there is an obvious risk that rather than fixing the system, we are creating a parallel one.

NaRRA is described as not being another bureaucracy. Yet it is being given special powers, a central coordination role, and the ability to bypass existing processes. Alongside this, the Government has proposed FAST Jamaica, a framework intended to fast-track large-scale strategic investment projects by providing expedited approvals, coordinated regulatory engagement, and a dedicated pathway for high-value investors.

While I am not denouncing these measures, I must ask the question: are we reforming the system, or are we just working around it?

And third, Mr President, we must consider sustainability. The prime minister has indicated that NaRRA will operate with a sunset clause of five years. That makes this question even more important. What happens at the end of that period? If the core systems of government remain unreformed, do we simply return to the same inefficiencies that we are trying to escape today? Mr President, a temporary solution cannot substitute for permanent institutional reform.

And fourth, Mr President, there is the critical issue of accountability and integrity in execution. The Government has indicated that NaRRA will have accelerated powers in relation to approvals and procurement, and that FAST Jamaica will facilitate large-scale investment through expedited processes, including, in some cases, direct engagement with investors.

While speed is important, it cannot come at the expense of transparency and accountability.

To be clear, Mr President, the announcement of an oversight body and the indication that it will be chaired by Professor Peter Blair Henry is a positive step. He is a distinguished Jamaican with an international reputation for excellence, and his involvement should give confidence that there is an intention to maintain high standards.

But Mr President, strong individuals alone cannot substitute for strong systems.

Given the number of issues relating to public procurement and project execution that have been raised by the Auditor General in recent years, the Jamaican people are entitled to a clear understanding of the guardrails that will govern this new framework.

What will ensure transparency in the selection of contractors? What mechanisms will govern the treatment of unsolicited proposals? How will value for money be independently assessed in accelerated processes? And what real-time reporting will be available to Parliament and the public?

Mr President, if we are to move faster, we must also become more transparent, not less. In that regard, there are practical steps that could strengthen confidence in this framework. These could include mandatory public disclosure of all NaRRA-approved projects and contracts, independent procurement oversight at key decision points, clear and published evaluation criteria for FAST Jamaica projects, and regular reporting to Parliament on performance, timelines, and expenditure.

Mr President, the objective must not simply be to execute projects faster. It must be to do so efficiently, transparently, and in a manner that builds lasting institutional strength. Without that, there is a real risk that we treat the symptoms while leaving the underlying condition unchanged.

Productivity 

Mr President, I now turn to the issue of productivity, which the prime minister rightly identified as one of the central challenges facing our economy. And on this point, Mr President, I agree with him.

Productivity must be at the core of any serious strategy for growth and improved living standards. But while the issue was correctly identified, I am not convinced that it has been fully grappled with.

Because productivity is not simply about output per worker. It is about how efficiently we combine all the factors of production, labour, capital, technology, and systems, to generate value. In other words, Mr President, we must be focused on total factor productivity.

And that requires a much deeper and more coordinated policy response than what we have heard.

Mr President, I recall that in 2019, the Government announced that it had developed a National Productivity Policy. Yet, since that announcement, we have heard very little about its status, its implementation, or its impact.

If productivity is indeed a priority, then that policy must be brought forward, fast-tracked, and tabled in this Parliament so that the country can understand the framework being used to drive improvement.

Now, Mr President, the prime minister also made an important point in relation to wages and productivity. He indicated that increases in wages must be linked to productivity and GDP growth, and that increases disconnected from productivity gains risk eroding purchasing power through inflation.

That is a valid and important point.

But, Mr President, that principle cannot stand on its own. It must be supported by systems.  Because if we are to link compensation to productivity, particularly in the public sector, then we must have a credible and transparent performance management framework that allows us to measure output, track efficiency, and reward performance.

At present, those systems are not sufficiently developed to support the kind of linkage that is being proposed. So while the principle is sound, the institutional framework required to operationalise it is still lacking.

Mr President, when we speak about productivity, we must also confront the real, everyday constraints that limit the efficiency of our workforce.

And one of the most significant of those constraints is transportation.

Every day, Jamaicans spend hours in traffic, commuting from communities like Papine to New Kingston, from downtown to Half-Way-Tree, from Spanish Town into the Corporate Area. Journeys that, under normal conditions, should take a fraction of the time, are routinely doubled or even tripled.

That is not just an inconvenience. It is an economic cost. It is lost time, lost output, and reduced quality of life.

Mr President, the structure of our transportation system reflects a deeper policy gap.

We have seen a steady increase in the number of motor vehicles on our roads, with tens of thousands being added each year, at significant cost in foreign exchange. At the same time, a substantial share of our fuel imports is consumed by ground transportation, and millions more are spent annually on vehicle maintenance and spare parts.

Yet, despite this, the system remains inefficient, fragmented, and heavily reliant on private vehicle ownership, often with single occupants.

Mr President, that is not a sustainable model.

And it points to the absence of a coherent, integrated public transportation strategy, one that is aligned with how Jamaicans live, where they work, how communities are structured, and how goods and services move across the country. Instead, what we see is a pattern of reactive measures, road expansions here, adjustments there, but no comprehensive framework that treats transportation as a central pillar of national development.

If we are serious about improving productivity, then transportation cannot be an afterthought. It must be a core component of our economic strategy.

Because an economy cannot be efficient if its people cannot move efficiently.

Plan for the future

Today, I want to discuss our economy and to put forward a vision of where I think we are right and where we are completely missing the boat.

Current government strategy

Let us begin by reviewing the current economic strategy of the government. I will explain why the government’s strategy is necessary but not sufficient.

Above all, I will stress the need for us to think long-term when developing the right strategy for our economic development. The global economy is changing very rapidly. 

New and dangerous geopolitical risks have arisen for our Development strategy. The price of a one-sided dependence on a particular market is plain for all to see. This is unlikely to change anytime soon. So we have to think and plan LONG TERM for the global economy of tomorrow, which will differ radically from the one which exists today.

What is the government’s strategy?

• Preserve macroeconomic stability.
• BPO
• Tourism expansion
• Logistics port
• Caymanas EPZ

All of these strategies are necessary, and we support them. However, NECESSARY is not SUFFICIENT. By themselves, they will not achieve the goal of development and modernisation of our economy and a sustainable improvement in our incomes and wages and our overall living standards.

The core of this strategy is the following:

Maintain macroeconomic stability.

1. Using the strategic location of the port of Kingston to develop a strong logistics sector
2. The attraction of foreign investment for local assembly/manufacturing, attached to this logistics sector in order to insert our economy into global value chains.
3. Wage suppression as a means of attracting this investment.
4.  Relying solely on the private sector, and especially the FOREIGN private sector, to develop our economy.

In other words, this strategy tries to leverage our strategic location together with relatively low wages and macro stability so as to attract private sector foreign investment.

It’s not a complete strategy for development.  It can bring GDP growth, but it will not result in a significant increase in incomes. It can even improve the economic complexity of our exports, but it cannot turn us into real economic innovators. It can insert us more into global value chains, but it will not result in us MOVING UP THE VALUE CHAIN.

The large corporations dominating the global economy occupy the lucrative parts of the global value chain. If they think it is profitable, they will invest in Jamaica. But they will never give us access to those truly lucrative parts of their value chain, such as design and intellectual property. On the contrary, they will assign us to the low-value parts of the chain and reserve the high-value parts for themselves.

Therefore, if we continue following this path, we will never be able to get out of our present low-wage, low-tech trap and become a truly developed and modern economy. We will remain hewers of wood and drawers of water forever.

The government is, in fact, targeting a global economy which is already ceasing to exist. It’s targeting a global economy which absolutely will not exist 20 years from now. Despite all the hype about digitalisation, this is in fact A BACKWARD LOOKING VISION.

But we can’t have success if we target the global economy of today. That reflects a dangerous lack of imagination. We have to look much further ahead. Our target must be to function well in the global economy as we anticipate it to be 20-30 years and even 50 years from now. We have to break out of this political cycle thinking and take the long view. We have to stop the false hype and political gimmicks about ‘prosperity’ and get serious.

What is our central challenge?

What is our central challenge? It’s not only to attract foreign investment in order to become more integrated into global value chains. 

Our goal must be TO MOVE UP THE VALUE CHAIN. 

It’s to diversify our markets so to reduce our geopolitical risks.

This is THE ONLY WAY to increase wages and on a sustainable basis and to put our public finances on a truly solid footing. This is THE ONLY WAY to obtain the revenue needed:

To finance a really first-class health service; To fund all the necessary advances in education which we need and our people deserve; To strengthen our pension system so our elders can enjoy a worry-free retirement; To finance our housing needs, which are even more acute now following the devastation wrought by Hurricane Melissa.

To make adequate future provision for Disaster Preparedness given our severe vulnerability, and to seriously pursue a responsible path of sustainable development in the context of global warming.

All these things which the Jamaican people need and deserve cost money. There is no way that the growth strategy being currently pursued can generate anywhere near enough revenue to finance our needs, either in terms of wages and incomes for individuals, or at the national level, in terms of public revenues to improve public services.

So what is to be done? Market and state are key: We have got to understand that our strategy cannot rely on either the MARKET ALONE or the STATE ALONE. IT MUST BE BOTH. 

It’s about a COMBO of MARKET and STATE

THAT IS THE KEY LESSON OF SUCCESSFUL ASIAN DEVELOPMENT

ONE HAND CANNOT CLAP.  

We need a STATE which has a better understanding of the needs of the private sector and how to advance them in the modern global economy.

And we also need a PRIVATE SECTOR which understands how to take advantage of state support to SCALE UP its activities and to develop into globally competitive LOCAL CHAMPIONS.

It needs BOTH SIDES.

Right now government strategy is far too ONE-SIDED and narrow in its vision.

The so-called ‘magic of the marketplace’ is not what transformed South Korea into a high-tech, high-income economy. Rather, it was the combo of a strong modernising state fostering an equally strong private sector which brought those results. The need for a strong DEVELOPMENTAL STATE working hand in hand with a strong private sector is the fundamental lesson of Asian development success. We must learn this lesson and adapt it to our own unique circumstances.

Why do you need a strong DEVELOPMENTAL STATE? 

The main reason for this is that development requires PATIENT CAPITAL. This is because development takes time, more than 20 years: it’s not a matter of an election cycle or two, which allows a party to brag of what it has achieved. We are talking about deep, lifelong transformations here, not empty political slogans.

We do not have such patient capital. We do not have investors who are willing or able to wait over a 20-year period before they start seeing returns. They would throw in the towel long before that. But development is not a political gimmick. It can’t be achieved overnight. Therefore, only the STATE can have this degree of patience.

The need for a strong DEVELOPMENTAL STATE is therefore a TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT of development. Likewise, the need for a strong, globally competitive private sector is also an absolutely essential TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT. Neither of these are IDEOLOGICAL requirements. This is why in the Asian case, we see states of both LEFT and RIGHT ideological orientation putting the state front and centre in the economy. It’s NOT A MATTER OF IDEOLOGY.

This is the fundamental lesson of Asian development success. We must learn this lesson and adapt it to our own unique circumstances and talents.

In thinking this out, we can’t simply copy what other countries in entirely different geopolitical contexts have done. We can’t just blindly apply policies drawn from other historical periods which don’t apply to us, a small island state trying to develop in probably what is the most challenging geopolitical context we have ever faced in our history. We have to think of our specific situation and our unique talents and devise policies which seek to take advantage of these while derisking from the real challenges we face. We have to be far more creative than we have been so far. 

Above all, we have to think LONG TERM: It will take at least 20 years or more to change the direction of our economy along the lines I am proposing. All the more reason to START NOW. There’s no time to waste on point scoring or frivolous, unworkable off-the-cuff ideas.

 We are small, but we have to think BIG and not seek short-term demagogic gains, which are a mirage.

ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERATIONS:

• Keep the core of the current macroeconomic stability,  logistics/Caymanas components, which originated from the PNP anyhow
• Develop a new strategy whose aim is not just Growth but whose central goal is MOVING UP THE VALUE CHAIN
• Reposition a reformed STATE to play a central support role in the scaling up of local private sector firms so that they can become more globally competitive.
• ECOSYSTEM strategy: Our goal must not simply be to develop a random collection of globally competitive firms. We will never succeed that way. Our goal must be to develop a specific subset of AN ENTIRE ECOSYSTEM of services which will mutually support each other and reinforce the competitiveness of the individually participating firms and enterprises, large and small. 

We must strive to develop entire NETWORKS OF SERVICES which provide customers with the full array of goods and services, from training, through design to cultural education to customer support right through beyond purchase, consumption and customer satisfaction. If we think along these lines it becomes even clearer why we need a strong role for the state and why we must scale up our private sector also to be strong: to be able to build a hub and spokes arrangement which will integrate large and small businesses into a single coherent unit covering all bases in serving rapidly changing consumer needs.

• Diversify our markets to the South and Latin America (especially Brazil) and Africa to access the fastest growing markets in the world.
• Make full use of the global PLATFORM ECONOMY so as to reduce export costs and extend our economic relationships globally. The global platform economy is a rapidly expanding digital ecosystem where companies like act as intermediaries connecting users, buyers, and sellers, with a market cap approaching $5 trillion. These platforms leverage network effects to facilitate services.
•  Make the development of high-value-added goods and SERVICES a focal point of our strategy. Here the development of a robust DESIGN infrastructure to take advantage of and upgrade our talents in the CREATIVE SECTOR is key. 

Here a particularly good model is the UK DESIGN COUNCIL, which brings together all the various elements in the design ecosystem from research and training to technical upgrading, quality certification and marketing the full system. We have some elements of this already at the School of Arts Management and Humanities at the Edna Manley School of the Visual and Performing Arts. But these need far more public support and to build out a closer integration with humanities programmes at UWI. 

Many more short upgrading programs of support for vloggers and other social media entrepreneurs are long overdue. We have failed to understand how vital these institutions are to our future economic development and as a central means of upgrading our indigenous talents to not only meet international standards but to help define what those standards should be in the 21^st Century and beyond.

h.     Educational Reforms: None of our economic goals can be achieved without serious educational reforms. Unfortunately, the proposals in the Patterson Report are insufficiently focused and far reaching.

                                               i.     Tertiary Education: the key here is promote Research and Innovation and to support diffusion of this research across enterprises and individuals. This requires new institutional arrangements: not just investment promotion: UWI/STRC/All research innovation strategy exploiting the platform economy in particular. Cultural industries etc; Different role for JAMPRO and JDB—not just soliciting foreign private investment but helping to diffuse modern technology across the private sector and to scale up our firms.

In addition, our private sector, even our largest firms, are small by global standards. They don’t have the technological capability in house to become globally competitive and achieve significant market penetration. Research and Innovation is a costly business and it’s impossible for even the largest Jamaican firms to finance this on their own. 

Further, we have to drastically reform our development institutions: JAMPRO and JDB have been built for a different era and are aimed at lower level growth. They have done good work but they are not designed to propel the kind of innovative localized development which we need.

The same applies to our academic and scientific institutions. We have fine scientists in the SRC and at UWI/UTECH and elsewhere. But we have not been able to integrate them into an innovation and development ecosystem in other more advanced economies. This has to change if we are to move up the value chain. This means a huge increase in the role of the state.

Right now in so far as we are in these global value chains at all, we slumber at the very low end where technology is low and therefore earning are also relatively low. Moreover, none of this generates many backward linkages in our economy to help to transform the entire economic structure.

A word on design and AI

We must think long-term. It’s not about the global economy as it looks today. It’s about what the global economy will look like 20 years from now.

By then, AI will have eliminated many jobs, especially but not exclusively in the BPO sector. Many jobs in manufacturing will be done in so-called ‘dark factories,’ that is, factories running night and day with no need for lights to be turned on because all is being done by robots. This already exists in quite a few factories in China and is bound to become more widespread.

In such a context, DESIGN and QUALITY goods and services will be where the money is. Given our natural talents, this is an area in which we could be unbeatable players, but only if we institute some serious reforms now.

Future demand will be for HIGH QUALITY design. Cultural products and services have to be authentic and provided at a sustainably high standard. Markets in Asia, in particular, are VERY QUALITY-conscious and also highly educated. This means that any crude nonsense product or service won’t last too long in that highly competitive marketplace. This is why an upgraded role for the Edna Manley School is so crucial.

State coordination

All of this of which I have spoken of requires STATE coordination and initiative.

Many will rightly say that more State means more bureaucracy. Also, more State means more corruption. They will rightly say that we have more than enough bureaucracy and corruption already. Rather than adding more by expanding the role of the State, we should, in fact, reduce this role.

For reasons already stated, this is fundamentally wrong and inconsistent with the lessons from Asia Development. A powerful development state is a technical necessity. 

Further, this misses two key points:

1.     In this model, the goal is NOT to develop an overbearing State sector. The goal is completely different: it is TO USE THE STATE TO DEVELOP A STRONGER PRIVATE SECTOR.

Therefore, at all times we mustn’t lose sight of this focus: it’s BOTH the State and the MARKET working together to achieve societal goals.

2.     So the real answer to the serious risks of increased bureaucracy and corruption lies elsewhere. It lies in increased digitalisation of our government processes.

Indeed, as Minister Wheatley himself has said, the only real and lasting answer to increased bureaucracy with increased accountability is digitisation. I agree with this fully. If we digitise application and approval, disbursement and audit processes and deploy AI, we will be able to approach that famous ‘China speed’ which their state is famous for while enhancing the integrity of our processes.

But this requires a far more aggressive and thorough application of digitalisation than the government is currently pursuing.

 If we properly apply digitalisation, not only will applications and project approvals and disbursements flow far more rapidly, it will also provide an audit trail in real time, which will allow us to spot and stop corrupt practices immediately. Indeed, it can be set up in such a manner that departures from procedures are simply undoable: the algorithm itself will just block them, long before the Auditor General arrives on the scene.

Conclusion

I have tried to sketch out the elements of a vision for the REAL DEVELOPMENT of our economy. In so doing, I have tried to take a long-term view and to think of the kind of global economic and political environment we are likely to face 20-30 years from now. I have tried to speak from the point of view of the younger generation who will have the responsibility of dealing with this future.

This is only an outline and by no means comprehensive. I sincerely hope it will be taken in the spirit in which it is offered and that others will critique and improve on it to produce a vision which we can all share and work towards, irrespective of our political allegiances.