I went to a policy launch this morning hosted by Ian Duncan Smith’s Centre for Social Justice. It was packed out, which is a sign that they are doing some interesting and good quality work, but I guess also reflects the common perception that IDS has the ear of the leadership, and represents a ‘good angel’ on David Cameron’s shoulder, focusing him onto issues of poverty and social justice.
The event was good. It was a launch of four or five new policy strands, each advised by a group of experts, and planned to be an exercise in consultation and community engagement. A project on social returns from early investment sounded particularly interesting, and the centre is also working on elderly care, mental ill-health, sport and youth justice. All ideas at early stages, but clearly some resources behind the projects, and a clear sense of overarching direction (based on the idea of early intervention) from the chairman.
What was really fascinating (to me, anyway) was the tone of IDS’s remarks. At first parse, a world away from the stuff of Conservative reformers past. I started to think about how the IDS agenda might match up to his party line on various things, and whether this is really what people mean by ‘progressive aims using conservative means’. A few themes stuck out:
- Focus on prevention and early intervention. This was a key theme, cutting across all of the projects, and providing a narrative for the centre as a whole. Investing preventatively is proven to make economic and allocative sense, so this was largely good to hear. But I also have some questions: Would systematic early intervention require new national frameworks and guidelines set by Whitehall? And if so, how does this square with handing greater autonomy to local authorities in a ‘post-bureaucratic state?’
- A key role for the voluntary & third sectors. This is again welcome, and consistent with an approach to public service reform that prioritises outcomes, rather than particular forms of service delivery. But conspicuous by absence was a role for the (central or local) state. In a more paternalistic model – which prevention can sometimes represent – the role of the state is key in terms of providing information, market shaping and also service delivery.
- The elephant in the room. The elephant in this particular room was the fiscal squeeze. The long-term benefits of the CSJ approach is often very lucidly made – as in their recent paper on benefit reform. But just as the case for up-front spending on social aims is being articulated, the shadow treasury team seem to be rolling their sleeves up for a very different agenda of rapid cuts to public spending.
Tomorrow I am at a Progress session entitled: ‘does localism hold the key to achieving efficiency while maintaining social justice outcomes in the downturn’. I’m sure there will be lots of crossover (it will be interesting to see how much). I just hope that the pressure being applied to these issues across the political spectrum is maintained, even as the calls for arbitrary cuts get louder.
