I couldn’t attend yesterday’s Liberal Democrat manifesto conference (I was at another Lib Dem event in Harrogate), and so like many people I have had to rely on the copy of Nick Clegg’s speech that is posted on the party website and various comments by other bloggers (I recommend James Graham and Paul Walter).
I admit I am a bit of a lefty when it comes to public services, and so my instinctive reaction to the proposals by Nick Clegg to reduce the influence that the state has over schools is to throw my hands up in horror. But it is far more complicated than that. My gut instinct is that public services should be provided by local, national or devolved government, rather than us handing money over to private companies, trusts and organisations. It’s a variation on the saying “no taxation without representation” – if the state is paying for it then they should be involved in running it. However I also accept that there are already huge numbers of public services that are privately run with local government overseeing their operation, and many public services that, in my view, don’t have enough state involvement, such as energy provision. So that means I can’t be quite so purist about it.
But if I have major doubts about the proposals, it is more because I wish that services provided by government or councils were more integrated so things ran more smoothly and actually on a more cost-effective basis. I would like to see schools as being the base of local community services and activities, rather than being closed half the time. For example, I would like to see school libraries becoming a community resource rather than just being there for the school, with the local area having to house the library in a separate building or not have a library at all. There are many other services for which they could also be used. If the provision of schools is to be more fragmented, such as under Nick Clegg’s proposal, then I do not see how this can be done effectively.
It is a cliche, but the devil really will be in the detail, and despite my reservations I hope it won’t be fudged to get it through conference. I am sure work will be done on how this can be of benefit in rural areas where people have to travel much further to get to a school and so creating choice may be very difficult. I would also be interested to see how this benefits less well off areas, (a recurring theme in Nick’s leadership campaign, and so there must be a clear answer to this already), as community and parental involvement in those areas is already more of a struggle, and I suspect that the reason trusts and companies are investing in those areas at the moment is purely because the government is not allowing any other options and is throwing money at them to do it. Would these organisations have the same motivation under this system, and would the community come forward with any other option?
All my concerns are far more about how this system would work in reality and on how I think services should be provided based on what is the most effective form of delivery. It cannot be counted as a principled objection and so for that reason I am happy to be persuaded by Nick’s proposals. I feel far more strongly about selection in schools (something that Nick has ruled out) and faith schools (something which I have had to temper as abolishing Church of England and Roman Catholic schools would be so unpopular, no government would ever do it), than I do about these proposals. I also think that his proposal to scrap the lowest GCSE grades is a good one and will play well with many people, even if it will give me one less GCSE.
I see Nick’s proposals on the NHS as far less controversial. I don’t want to see public money being spent on private healthcare. But what we are talking about here is a backstop. If the NHS is being run well, then we won’t be spending the money that way anyway, as it is only if someone is waiting too long on the NHS that they will be treated in a private hospital anyway.
I always knew Nick would propose stuff that I didn’t initially agree with, but I supported him because I believed he would be the most effective leader. I didn’t expect proposals like this so soon, but I am glad he has done it as it sets down a marker as to where we are going and means it is clear the party is moving along quickly and appears more dynamic. Some of these proposals may lose some activists (who I think do tend to be quite left wing, although that is changing) but I think it will go down well with many armchair members (who I think are a bit more on the right) and the general public.
(This posting is written by Anders Hanson in a personal capacity)
13 responses so far ↓
Sam // 13 January 2008 at 2:09 pm |
Your comments are spot on on schools.
On the NHS I think the proposal to allow people to take money to the private sector is dangerous. It puts NHS doctors in the position that a national waiting time target overrides clinical prioirties, otherwise the NHS loses the money.
Another question I have is how Clegg can be so clear about these issues in the first week of january but didn’t propose them clearly in his leadership election campaign just a few weeks ago?
Anonymous // 13 January 2008 at 2:29 pm |
“…if the state is paying for it..” – but it never is, it’s always the taxpayers. And they might prefer to decide for themselves.
Tristan Mills // 13 January 2008 at 2:59 pm |
As anonymous points out, this is not state money, it money individuals have been forced to give to the state. The most democratic manner is to let people keep their own money – the only problem there is that some may not be able to afford a minimum standard of living, but that doesn’t require state run schools (something J.S. Mill campaigned against due to the indoctrination which occurs) or state run medical systems (which as we see again and again simply do not respond to what is needed or wanted by patients).
As for making things efficient and work together well – the state is infamously bad at that, at any level. The only way things like that happen is within the framework of the market.
The worst cliche is the ‘People don’t want choice they want good schools’. That’s true, but how do you get good schools (or hospitals)? Its certainly not the current way and just tweaking that system just won’t work.
Sam // 13 January 2008 at 3:01 pm |
So why is , Tristan, that private health systems are often so much more expensive than publicly run ones?
Rob Knight // 13 January 2008 at 3:15 pm |
Sam: Is cheapness a virtue? Perhaps spending on health is higher where people are able to top up state spending with private contributions, or where people feel more in control of how the money will be spent. (Not that this is necessarily the case, but it seems plausible enough to me – my point is that higher spending on health can’t be dismissed as a bad thing!)
Anonymous // 13 January 2008 at 3:40 pm |
Sam asked why are private health systems are often so much more expensive than publicly run ones. My experience from the Scandinavian health care system is that they are less expensive because they cut services. The queues are longer than in certain countries like the Netherlands where the state just finances, but doesn’t produce the health services (except for the universital hospital with state-run universities). In some countries like Finland the salaries of the medical staff have also been kept articially low, which leads to their emigrations and even longer queues. Like somebody once joked, the health care will become less expensive when the patients will die in the queues.
Now there is a similar system called “health care guarantee” in use in Sweden (vårdgaranti) and in Finland (hoitotakuu) that Clegg would like to introduce in the UK. However, it is meant just to shorten some of the most unreasonable queueing times, not to solve the problem. I’d like to recommend a Dutch-style publicly subsidised health insurance, which would enable the patients to choose for themselves, where they want to be treated. Why not introduce some grassroot choice in the health care, as well?
Anyway, the costs of health care differ in different countries with a publicly produced health care just like they differ in countries with privately provided health care. It’s a political choice how much tax money will be invested to the health care. Surely there are ways to reduce the costs in the publicly produced health care, but that usually happens at the cost of the patients and the medical staff.
Anders Hanson // 13 January 2008 at 4:01 pm |
Sam: “puts NHS doctors in the position that a national waiting time target overrides clinical prioirties”
Which is what often happens now under the current system anyway. I agree there are potential issues with it, and it is another case of “the devil is in the detail”. At the moment targets can distort priorities, and so there would need to be some medical guidance on what was a reasonable wait before going private kicked in. This is a principle though that has been put in to practice with Lib Dem councils on things like council house repairs.
Tristan (& Anonymous): “As anonymous points out, this is not state money, it money individuals have been forced to give to the state.”
True. Ideally, everyone should be able to take decisions for themselves. But as we know, on many services the state, (a word I shouldn’t have used as it sounds far too corporate and far too uncaring), has to make decisions for the benefit of the wider community and to enable everyone to have the same opportunities, particularly where the market fails to deliver. Which is why Lib Dems have traditionally argued that as much as giving power to individuals is important, it is just as important to ensure that where the state does deliver a service it is not made by faceless bureaucrats or by distant or unempowered politicians. Which is why we have always held such store by political reform.
I remember a TV programme not that long ago arguing that the world works perfectly when everyone is either selfish or altruistic. The problem is that people are both in different circumstances. That is why we often need a state to decide on public services.
Anonymous // 13 January 2008 at 4:39 pm |
“But as we know, on many services the state … has to make decisions for the benefit of the wider community and to enable everyone to have the same opportunities, particularly where the market fails to deliver.”
The state can either give everyone a choice, by financing the services, so that even those low-income people who couldn’t afford them by themselves, can get those services from where they choose, or the state can make the choice on behalf of everyone, by producing the services itself, which forces even many middle-income people to use those state-produced services, because after already paying for them in the form of taxes, they can’t afford to pay again to buy them from the private sector.
Neither of these solutions is “Right wing”. The Right wing solution would be to leave the poor without health care. So both solutions are actually Left wing, because they guarantee everyone health care. The first solution is the liberal one, the second solution is the socialist one. For real liberals producing something in the public sector (or: nationalising the means of production) can’t be an end in itself. The end in itself is to provide everyone certain services, not to produce them publicly. Which solution Liberal Democats will choose defines whether they are liberals or socialists.
Anders Hanson // 13 January 2008 at 4:54 pm |
For real liberals producing something in the public sector (or: nationalising the means of production) can’t be an end in itself
I disagree. There are many services that will only ever be provided by the public sector. Sometimes for ease of operation, sometimes because it makes more economic sense, and yes sometimes because you get a better service that way. I wouldn’t say that makes a party who supports even the slightest bit of public sector provision is socialist, as it would mean that virtually every political party was socialist when that is far from the case. Where liberals differ is in how far they would take public sector provision.
I have no problem with privately provided recycling services, but I have some doubts about privately provided education. Why does one make me a liberal and the other one a socialist?
Anonymous // 13 January 2008 at 7:06 pm |
Well, maybe you just lack consistency, if you can see that recycling can be produced privately to the general benefit and satisfaction, but can’t see that education can be produced privately to the general benefit and satisfaction. Maybe you should pay more attention to international comparisons. The poor aren’t actually left without education in those countries of Continental Europe which use school vouchers or similar systems.
Anders Hanson // 13 January 2008 at 7:48 pm |
But if you look at other parts of Europe there are many services that we leave to the market but they still operate as part of the public sector. Every country is different, and what works well in some countries doesn’t work so well in others or there is just a cultural belief that certain things are best left to the state. I am also sure that other countries in Europe are no doubt critical of aspects of their education system that we aren’t in this country.
» clegg // 13 January 2008 at 11:21 pm |
[...] does? Maybe the BNP. Yes Nick – really radical stuff. The devil, as Lib Dem blogger Anders Hanson says, is in the details. Behind these bland statements there is huge room for manoeuvre; as noted on [...]
So are we in favour of academies or not? « Anders Hanson // 14 October 2008 at 6:38 pm |
[...] about academies shouldn’t be a huge surprise, given that I have been pretty open about my concern over proposals for ‘free schools’ and about reducing the involvement of the state in education generally, (yes, I am pretty left wing [...]