Too often, still, new economics focuses on the what rather than the how. We continue to lack clear step-by-step transition plans that can redesign economies to focus on the wellbeing of people and nature, not solely GDP.

The question is not just what a new economy looks like, but how we unpick the old one and move forward. That goes beyond just listing policies, targets, and calculations – of which there are so many terrific contributions out there, and of course we need them to continue building.

But we now also need a manifesto-ready roadmap for a new economy. A plan that politicians, officials, and the whole movement can argue for and implement with the least modification possible.

A roadmap must:

1. Win the communication battle by appealing across the political spectrum.
2. Have a joined-up plan to implement a new economy programme in the near, medium, and long-term.
3. Provide arguments to defend the plan.
4. Identify challenges that need to be overcome, such as market reaction (see: “what about the bond markets?”)

In the UK’s increasingly multi-party system, there are several strands of consensus developing across the Liberal Democrats, Greens, and a Labour Party now led by Andy Burnham, that GDP and growth-at-all costs, with little thought as to where and for who that growth goes to, is a failing way of anchoring a government’s work.

With a real chance of a 2 or 3-party coalition after a 2029 (*or sooner) general election, getting the most comprehensive manifesto-ready roadmap for new economics becomes all the more pressing. The same goes globally, with each country and party needing to naturally make sure it gets its policy and communication right for its own context.

Too few people in positions of power truly realise just how deep the failing of the current economy goes.

Or they fear standing on a radical program due to the lack of confidence in a new economy plan or the possibility of negative market reactions. And even if they agree with the general principles of new economics and the shortcomings of GDP and the broader economic system, many are overwhelmed by the scale of change required.

A four-year plan, for the typical political cycle, with differing levels of detail and wordsmithing for different times and places, would be immensely impactful for the new economy movement – and for the people and nature that economies should ultimately serve.

Here is some initial thinking around what a plan might look like – that also links to wider research from different individuals and organizations.

Here is an exploration combining new economics, transition planning, and systems change. That combination explicitly looks to build a critical mass and positive tipping points for new economics, as well as communicating how a new economy works better for people and planet. It can even be a means to show how a new economy can win under more traditional definitions of growth, wealth, productivity, public finance, inflation, and beyond.

A new economy plan needs to explain clearly how it will deliver on a range of measures...

… From the perspective of cost of living and wellbeing, but also more orthodox measures of success, including inflation and public debt (climate change, for example, has the potential to drive huge increases in both). A plan must also be conscious of the very real risk of capital strike and market reactions and go into detail that overcomes these risks.

There is and will be significant upfront inertia to a transition to a new economy.

We need to dig deep into the systems change and transition planning needed – and is too often lacking – for new economics. With a particular focus on bringing different parts of the political spectrum together.

We need to plan and, crucially, communicate across the political spectrum for a new economy to be sellable and implementable. The plan would need to answer questions, from affordability and the cost of living, to care and demographics, industrial policy, trade and strategic autonomy, the macro-finance architecture that must change to pay for it, and economic democracy as the precondition for delivering any of it.

We need to piece together the beginning of a timeline and variations of already established policies tailored to different national contexts.

We need slogans, sentences, paragraphs, pages, and long-form versions for a complete manifesto-ready plan.

We need the roadmap to focus on key economic battlegrounds like market reaction, the right-wing press, and media more broadly.

A “manifesto-ready” plan would exist for all stakeholders, not only politicians:

• For politicians and policymakers to draw ideas, build on, and communicate.
• For officials as a guide to develop, redesign, and implement.
• For academics to add their depth and flair to – and monitor successes and failures.
• For businesses to redefine their own success and anticipate market and policy changes.
• For the public to have confidence and a clear idea of what a government will actually do – and how it will benefit them individually as well as all society.