the Blog rss Title underline

The 2020 Public Services Trust Blog

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

The Election Quadrilemma?

By Henry Kippin

The Financial Times came out for their party of choice today in typically measured fashion.  Their editorial picked holes in all three parties’ agendas, but argued that the Conservatives were the best of the bunch.  Maybe the public will feel the same this Thursday, who knows.

The FT’s ideal-type model was what struck me as most interesting:

“We stand for a liberal agenda: a small state, social justice and open international markets. But we do have a vision of the changes needed for economic and political renewal. It is on this basis that we judge the fitness of the contenders for power.”

But is a liberal agenda, small state, social justice and open international markets a plausible mix?  I find it hard enough getting my head around Matthew Taylor’s trilemmas, but could this be a quadrilemma?  This would be a situation where three out of four objectives could be achieved, but not all four together.  Why?

  • Do a small state and social justice mix?  Jury is out on that one.
  • Does being economically liberal preclude corrective spending and positive discrimination?
  • Who can monitor the liberal agenda when the state is small?
  • Can open international markets be effectively navigated by a small state?
  • And can social justice ever be achieved within this context?  Maybe within one country, but internationally?

I’m not sure whether this is actually a quadrilemma, but its certainly a bunch of big policy blocks with similarly big ideological and practical considerations.  For example, some have argued that development in some parts of the world depends upon the underdevelopment of the others.  Others have pointed to the weakness of small states within a globalised market economy.  In this country, economic liberalism and social liberalism have been difficult things for a government to achieve together.  I find it hard to imagine that the FT would ever get the government it wants given these criteria – but I guess we will find out!

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted by Henry Kippin at 2:38 pm
Thursday, April 22, 2010

Three colours orange – but what about the issues?

By Ben Lucas

In the parallel universe of British politics everyone has now become a Cleggon – basking in the orange afterglow of the Leader’s debate.  Change has become the central question – the choice being about who can manage this best and who personifies it the most.

But the election has not yet resolved itself into a clear argument about alternative strategies for managing the big issues – the economy, the deficit and the future of our public services. Read the manifestos in detail, as I suspect few have done, and what emerges are large areas of agreement between the three main parties, especially about public services and how they need to change.  But each party puts a different gloss on this. 

For Labour the central issue is about the scale of future risk – economic, social, demographic and political.  The message is that only Labour has the experience and fair values to guide Britain through these difficult times.  From here it is only a short step to Gordon Brown’s dividing lines on what public service budgets Labour would protect.

The Conservatives focus not so much on future risk but the state we are in.  Their argument is that our public finances, economy and society are broken and that a fundamentally new approach to government is needed.  They set out their stall for the Big Society, in which families, communities, and the state will need to work together to build a stronger society – exemplified in their plans for national community service for 16 year olds.

Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats have presented themselves both as the change agents and the people who tell it as it is.  For them the elephant in the room is the deficit and they seek to make a virtue out of plain speaking on this – saying that efficiency savings will never be sufficient to tackle the deficit.  They identify the need for hard choices about which spending to cut and offer, as examples of this, Trident and the Child Trust Fund.

Of course each party has much more detailed proposals on public service reform.  Labour has proposed strengthening citizens rights to public services to create a bottom up entitlement driver for improvement, with new patient and citizen guarantees. The issue of long term care and Labour’s proposal to create a new National Care Service echo Brown’s message about future risk.  And Labour seeks to be our mutual friend with proposals for public service co-ops in housing, sure start and even primary care trusts.

The Conservatives have prioritised welfare reform, based on tougher conditionality and extending payment by results for welfare service providers.  They have also promoted their model for parent led schools and for public service employee mutuals.  And they have courted some controversy by sticking to their guns in advocating elected police commissioners. On health their policy has been ‘softly, softly’, as they continue with their strategy of seeking to neutralise what has been a traditional Labour positive.   

The Liberal Democrats make fairness and decentralisation their overarching themes for public services.  They promote an explicitly redistributive funding formula which targets funding at the poorest people, so that the money follows the poorest patients and pupils – education and health premiums.  They advocate strengthened local say through elected local health boards and police authorities and neighbourhood justice panels.  And, in addition to their well publicised plans to simplify the tax system, they also propose greater transparency and control over by giving people greater flexibility in accessing part of their pension before retirement.  What the Liberal Democrats do not do is set out a framework for public service reform.

But so far none of the three main parties has really managed to lodge with the public a clear sense of what their vision adds up to for public services.   The Big Society is in some ways the most audacious idea, but it has not yet resonated as it might because, apart from volunteering, it it’s not yet clear where the beef is.  Meanwhile Labour’s focus on future risk has had some effect, but at the same time seems clunky. And the Lib Dems have scored on the deficit yet their prescription is less comprehensive.

Each party appears to have more of a stance than a strategy.  Take localism.  All are agreed that significant decentralisation is needed. The policies are plentiful from elected mayors, to localised planning and housing. What is lacking is a coherent theory.  A genuine shift in power from the centre to localities would have to involve big change in Whitehall and Westminster – a re-imagined, smaller and more strategic centre whose role would be to enable and empower innovation and delivery at local level.  That could be a recipe for achieving big savings as Total Place identified. The simple test for real devolution is to follow the money – if control over funding and revenue stays at the centre then so will power..

So the challenge for the main parties as we enter the second half of the election campaign will be to crystallise their respective positions into harder propositions, which offer voters some real choices for the future.  This isn’t just necessary for winning it is critical for governing. Whoever wins the next election, and whatever formation emerges after May 6th., their job in tackling economic stagnation, rising demand pressures and growing debt levels will be made that much harder if they haven’t established a mandate for the tough decisions which will be necessary.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Return of the Mac

By Ashish Prashar

Blair’s Back! Former Prime Minister Tony Blair stepped out of the political shadows today by making a speech in his former constituency of Sedgefield.

He praised Gordon Brown’s experience, judgement and boldness.  He also said he was optimistic about Britain’s future and that “the financial crisis does not diminish this optimism.” Mr Blair then went on to attack the Conservatives accusing them of “confusion” over their own policies.

He concluded that “this country needs strong leadership. I want a future fair for all. Only a fourth term Labour government can deliver it.”

Mr Blair used his speech to rally support for Labour ahead of the start of the election campaign, and is expected to make several appearances during the campaign.

Following the speech Labour’s election co-ordinator Douglas Alexander hit the airwaves, suggesting “Mr Blair’s presence will strengthen the party’s fortunes.” Conservative Shadow Treasury Minister Greg Hands quipped “it’s nice to see Tony Blair make a speech he hasn’t been paid for.”

It remains to be seen what impact Mr Blair might have on voters, but what is certain is that his return to UK party politics will spark controversy.  Let’s hope that ignites wider public interest in the political process. Either way; it’s definitely the return of the Mac.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted by Ashish Prashar at 3:17 pm

Lights, cameras, action…

By Ashish Prashar

Last night the chancellors squared up in a the first live TV debate in the UK and although it wasn’t always electrifying the programme was certainly a triumph. The three would be chancellors clashed over how quickly the deficit should be cut, tax and what to do with the banks but there was concensus – the candidates were “all agreed that the cuts would have to be tougher than those imposed by Baroness Thatcher in the 1980s.”

In a fiesty hour-long debate the chancellors started off by talking about their personal qualities but it really got going when Alistair Darling and Vincent Cable ganged up on George Osborne to heap derision on the Conservatives’ proposed tax cut. Then the Chancellor attacked Osborne saying he “did not have a single penny in the bank” to pay for his plan to reduce National Insurance contributions and that he was taking a terrible risk… and with Osborne on the ropes Cable weighed in.

Vince Cable went from strength to strength by simply telling the truth. He won the most applause by presenting himself as the man who saw the recession coming, adding “we are not beholden to either the super-rich or militant unions” and winning the biggest cheer of the night when he described people unhappy with 50p tax as “pin-striped Scargills”.

They all criticised the financial sector and the banks in particular came under heavy fire. There was also consensus on public sector pensions until Darling pointed out the Tories’ failure to support Labour on care for the elderly. Osborne then accused Darling of stealing the Tories policy on stamp-duty, Darling replied with “there’s nothing like cross-party consensus Geroge” getting his biggest laugh of the night.

Darling did boob on the death tax and Osborne’s position on child tax credits still remains confusing.

So what’s my verdict?  Well, Darling made no big mistakes. There were a couple of decent gags that got a few laughs from the audience and some flashes of passion, which may have surprised some. Osborne stood his ground and certainly looked calm. However, he made little of the National Insurance announcement and sometimes looked like he was being ganged up on. Cable threw and landed the most punches, and in my opinion secured his place as the people’s favourite by smashing MPs and bankers, and clobbering Osborne over his IHT cut.

This was always going to be a warm-up to the main event; the leaders’ debates. Although I don’t think they will have the same drama and impact as the US Presidential debates they will certainly be interesting.

One last quick note Krishnan Guru-Murthy was excellent and played it really well… Watch Ask the Chancellors!

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

healthy debate?

By Henry Kippin

The Telegraph runs through David Cameron’s 20 NHS pledges today, based on the first instalment of the Conservative draft manifesto.  Some policies are really interesting, some are less so, and there is obviously the issue of how the expensive bits get paid for.  Alisdair Darling has already had a go at picking apart Conservative spending plans this morning, in what looks like the opening two salvos in longest election campaign for a good while.

From an analytical perspective, its interesting (and welcome) to see the Conservatives addressing the issue of health inequalities, which, as Cameron said today, are as wide as in Victorian era Britain.  But there is a big question with the Tory approach: to what extent can you really address health inequality through the levers of the NHS?  For the worst off communities, poor public health and low life expectancy are a condition of multiple, entrenched inequalities – the clumping together of worklessness, social problems, poor housing and educational underachievement, amongst other things.

It would be a welcome progression to see any of the main parties making more concerted efforts to attack these inequalities.  Better childcare is key, and so are preventative measures to deal with complex health and social care needs.  These are difficult issues, and well done to the Tories for pulling them into their manifesto.  Across the political spectrum, maybe more people seem are accepting at least the basic premise of the Spirit Level thesis – that a more equal society is a happier and better place to live.  This is just the beginning of the campaign season, but the initial sparring over some serious issues should give us hope for the rest.

divider Older Posts »

To subscribe to email updates of this blog, enter your email address below:

Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Recent posts
  • Archive