|
|
Labour must not allow the public to be deceived by Tory warm words about progressiveness, Yvette Cooper said last night at a debate in parliament held jointly by Progress and Policy Exchange.
'It's not enough to have warm words about the ends, you have to be prepared to do something about it and recognise that policies require money,' said the chief secretary to the treasury. 'My definition of being progressive includes a sense of anger about inequality and not one-nation Tory concern for the poor. Widening equality of opportunity for all is fundamental and something the Tories are not prepared to sign up to.'
Shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt hit back, saying that a sense of anger and injustice about inequality was the exact reason he was in politics.
Hunt claimed that by denying the Tories meant what they said about poverty and inequality, Cooper was making the same mistake his party made before the 1997 election when they portrayed Tony Blair as a red-eyed socialist. 'We were wrong and the country was right. The country has sensed the Conservatives have changed.'
The Guardian's Jonathan Freedland conceded the Tories had shifted to a more progressive position, but only so far. While the party advocated progressive ends such as social justice, they were 'nowhere near a progressive place on means,' he said, talking about a broken society but disavowing the tools necessary to fix it - collective action. 'Saying the voluntary sector should fill in for government is a hollow claim in the UK, it's effectively saying we will leave people to chill wind of an empty landscape where only the strongest survive.'
He added: 'Where is the social enterprise or business paying for a couple's bonus? Where is the company which will pay for health visitors? When the rubber hits the road, you are left imagining that charities are going to do it. It's confusion.'
Hunt insisted the choice was between a bottom-up and top-down approach to provision. 'The Conservatives are not retreating to a Victorian system, we are the accepting state's responsibility to sort out problems,' he said, adding that the last 11 years had shown that problems couldn't be solved with money and targets, but required partnership with the voluntary and private sectors.
Anthony Browne, director of Policy Exchange, claimed it was rightwing policies that did most to help those in poverty and branded the left's policies counter-productive. Championing workers over users had led to ineffective public services which the middle classes had bought their way out of; the welfare system had encouraged people to languish on benefits; housing policy 'traps people and kills off aspiration'; and pouring aid into developing countries rather than allowing them to benefit from globalisation.
'Helping the poor has been one of the great achievements of the right. The left have actually been deeply regressive,' Browne said.
Hunt echoed these views, claiming that 'you can't say any party has a monopoly on social reform', citing the introduction by the Tories of the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act (although an audience member insisted the Tories did not bring in the Act and had in fact opposed it). The shadow culture secretary also claimed that Margaret Thatcher had introduced meritocracy to the country by such measures as enabling people to buy their own homes.
Cooper flatly disagreed with this, citing evidence that showed that social mobility had decreased under Thatcher, and concluding that the former Tory PM reversed meritocratic trends and presided over high unemployment.
Both sides agreed that it was significant this debate was taking place at all. 'It's testimony to the work of Labour that the debate has shifted,' said Cooper, noting that John Major, William Hague and Michael Howard had not tried to claim progressive credentials. 'The Tories are trying to claim to be progressive because the country is more progressive than 20 years ago.'
Freedland said the debate's topic should sound warning bells for Labour. 'It's coming to something when Labour even has to argue for itself as the progressive party. I say, with a heavy heart, that Labour now has to argue for why it's a progressive party.'
John Denham told a packed Progress meeting on Tuesday that he was optimistic about Labour’s prospects and branded talk about whether Gordon Brown should remain leader ‘damaging’ and ‘ridiculous’.
At a debate held to discuss how Labour can win back support in the south following May 1’s dismal election performance, the secretary of state for innovation, universities and skills insisted it was futile to debate which group of voters – core or new - Labour should target.
‘I am optimistic that we can win in the south as long as we talk with confidence about the society we want to create for southern voters,’ he said. ‘At heart we either believe we belong - and therefore win - or we don’t believe we belong - and therefore lose.’
Denham said Labour must not forget that it had governed well in the south, citing policies such as the minimum wage and investment in public services that had resulted in higher living standards. ‘I am absolutely certain there is not a single constituency in south-east England where there is not a clear majority of people who have been better off in the last 10 years than they would have been under the Tories.’
Charles Clarke – whose cover story in this month’s Progress magazine has been widely trailed in the media – agreed that Labour’s poor showing in the elections did not mean the electorate failed to recognize the party’s achievements since 1997. ‘May 1st was a slap in the face from an electorate that wants us to succeed but feels we stumbled,’ said the former home secretary.
He added that the government could only regain the electorate’s confidence by conducting politics differently and avoiding the politics of triangulation, setting out clearly what it is trying to achieve and focusing on long-term issues. Clarke’s specific proposals included a radical change in attitude to sustainable transport and energy, increasing confidence in the criminal justice system and addressing short-term errors – saying that problems should be addressed ‘in the same spirit’ as the chancellor’s recent statement dealing with the 10p tax controversy.
Joan Ryan MP, vice-chair of Labour’s campaigns team, argued that effective political campaigning would be fundamental to any recovery as it would enable the party to keep in step with the issues voters cared about.
‘If your main issue is not what voters think is the main issue, you don’t get their trust and you can’t give political leadership,’ she said, adding that it had been proved many times the party did best when it had established relationships with voters on the ground, in places like Slough, Oxford, Hastings and Enfield & Haringey.
Talk of vision was important, said Ryan, but had to be accompanied by a relationship with the electorate. ‘We need a thorough going change of attitude to campaigning. The electorate will abandon us if it’s all ideas and they don’t see delivery.’
YouGov’s Peter Kellner, who also contributed to the latest edition of Progress, said the underlying issue that mattered to voters in the south was the economy, stupid, with pessimism at its highest rate in 40 years. This was a curious state of affairs, Kellner explained, since the economy was not in the dire state it was in the early 90s or early 80s. And while people were feeling the pinch from rising costs in essential goods such as milk, bread and petrol, the major cause of pessimism was that voters had become frightened about the economy, ‘blaming the government for not taking action to forestall horrors they fear lie ahead’.
Labour’s fate at the next general election would be decided over the next nine to 12 months, said Kellner, pointing out that after Black Wednesday in 1992 the Tories hit the ‘point of no return’ – unable to recover its reputation even though the economy faired pretty well between 1993-1997.
Labour had not reached the point of no return yet, said Kellner, but if the economy didn’t soon show signs of recovery, it could reach that point later this year.
Kellner urged the party to stop using statistics – ‘any claim based on numbers is apt to be disbelieved’ – and outline its concrete achievements such as Sure Start, the minimum wage and civil partnerships. ‘It’s not a bad record and Gordon was behind a lot of it as chancellor. Let’s get away from this self-indulgent crap about Gordon [and the leadership]. We need to persuade people that the taxes they’ve paid are used effectively.’
The EU is proving its worth on the issue of climate change, environment minister Phil Woolas told a packed meeting in parliament on Monday, jointly hosted by Progress and the Green Alliance.
Woolas said the reputation of the EU had been ‘hugely enhanced’ in the developing world because of the leadership it had shown. ‘Climate change does not respect national boundaries in consequences or solutions,’ he said. ‘The world - and especially developing world - is looking to the EU for leadership and brokerage in this debate.’
While the threat posed by climate change was ‘terrifying’ it presented ‘the best opportunity we have for true internationalism,’ the minister said. ‘The EU has been criticised for having a policy for its membership and not for the world - this issue is changing that. The level of international solidarity is greater than on any issue since the Treaty of Rome.’
The question for those on the reactionary side of politics, said Woolas, was what policy they had that recognised the international nature of climate change. The answer, he claimed, was that they didn’t have one.
Stephen Hale, director of the Green Alliance, said the problem of climate change was ultimately one of political imagination – framing a story that could be understood by the public and a framework within which to act.
While the EU had been the single most important player so far in tackling climate change – with initiatives such as the Kyoto treaty and the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) – Hale said its climate change project was in a fragile state. ‘There isn’t the depth of political support needed or the policy framework needed. The EU doesn’t yet have the policies or strategies in place to deliver emissions reductions or to persuade the big players to do so.’
Hale described Europe as the ‘global dealmaker’, arguing that no other player on the world stage could bring an agreement together on climate change. Futhermore, the issue presented the EU with an ‘open goal’ when it came to gaining public support, with the evidence clearly demonstrating that that the public wanted the EU take action on climate change.
Hale outlined four particular actions the EU needed to take: do more to deliver aspirations for greater renewable energy; impose greater stringency in reductions in the ETS; put in place the necessary finance for investment in carbon capture and storage; give serious amounts of money to cover transition costs to a carbon economy, particularly for India and China.
The rhetoric about climate change will remain strong, said Hale, but the EU is about to reach a moment of truth on substance.
Margaret Gilmore, associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Policy Studies and former BBC home affairs correspondent, outlined some of the security issues surrounding climate change. The floods seen in the UK last July demonstrated the severity of climate change, she said, adding that the issue is going up the security agenda.
However, Gilmore cited a recent report on floods indicating that the government’s strategy to deal severe weather incidents – that could see 300,000 evacuated from their homes - falls well behind its strategy to deal with terrorist attacks.
‘We have to work with our European partners but we have to put our own house in order first,’ she said.
Simon Tilford, chief economist at the Centre for European Reform, said the measures enacted by the EU so far had not been perfect but were far better than if 27 countries had been attempting to act alone. ‘Winning domestic support when other countries are not taking similar action would be politically impossible,’ he argued.
Tilford said that carbon capture storage would be vital if the EU countries were to reduce their emissions levels by the necessary amount before 2050. This would require a European network of storage facilities and could therefore only be done at a European level, he said. ‘EU-level financial support would help and there would be no better way to make use of its money.’
Woolas said the price of carbon was essential to ensuring sustainability. ‘This isn’t a fringe activity, it’s got to be mainstream in trade throughout the world.’
But Hale warned against relying too much on the carbon price which he said was not going to reach the level necessary to drive investments in the technologies needed. What were needed, in addition, were regulation and money – through radical reform of the EU budget and by auctioning revenues.
Whatever the differences about how the EU should act to tackle climate change, most panellists agreed that the issue presented a problem for the right. Woolas argued that it was not possible to tackle climate change and be a protectionist while Patricia Hewitt, chairing the meeting, branded the Tories’ professed concern for the environment as posturing since they were sceptical about the very means by which the problem could be dealt with – government and EU action.
She also issued a challenge to progressives ‘to ensure we can mobilize consent we need at a European level and public political consent for a shift to low carbon economy.’
While it was important for the EU to take effective action to combat climate change, the panellists added that the issue presented the EU, often derided as self-interested and ineffective, to demonstrate its importance in the modern world. As Hale pointed out: ‘It can demonstrate to the people of Europe that they now have their money spent on something they care about.’
At Labour party spring conference Progress partnered with the Local Government Association and the Leadership Centre for Local Government to deliver two events – one on the Children’s Plan, the other on the prospects for delivering the government’s target of three million new homes.
John Merry, Leader of Salford Council, kicked off the discussion on the Children’s Plan by explaining how local government is generally better than Whitehall at delivering the kind of ‘joined-up government’ the Plan advocates. He was excited that plans for delivery of the Children’s Plan are helping push local government up the agenda.
Rita Krishna, Cabinet Member for Children's Services in Hackney, was pleased that the Plan was taking the focus away from capital projects and building towards the nature of the services provided within them. The Plan’s breadth, and its focus on poverty, accountability and the workforce were to be commended.
Minister for Children Kevin Brennan started by saying that much of the content of the Plan will be very familiar to high-performing councils. They led the way on restructuring services to make them children-focused – only last summer did Whitehall catch up with creation of the DCSF.
Politicians need to lead the way by proclaiming positive messages about our children to counter the relentlessly negative coverage they receive in the media. The Plan can’t be accused of lacking ambition – the aim is to make Britain the best place for children to grow up in the world.
Sarah Tough from the Institute of Education raised some interesting questions about some of the topics she felt the Plan might have neglected or avoided. There is still a long way to go to narrow gaps in attainment, and reform of excessive testing and assessment is long overdue. School admissions policies are contributing to social segregation and without change will make narrowing the attainment gap impossible. Sarah suggested that incentives are needed for teachers to teach in ‘difficult’ schools – these incentives could be time or training, rather than simply financial.
Responding to questions about how councils could deliver the Plan, panel members agreed that strong leadership that aimed to influence all services in an area was crucial to delivering a ‘joined-up’ vision like the Plan.
At this point the Secretary of State Ed Balls joined the discussion. He admitted that the government had been guilty of sending mixed messages about the importance of local government in the past – and that now that should change.
Ed set out methods by which children might be prevented from falling behind in the future. Early intervention is key, as is a curriculum that motivates young people. He was confident that diplomas would help shape this. More needs to be done to motivate parents of 8 – 10 year olds, who have been somewhat neglected.
One questioner from Devon was concerned that academies are too free to exclude difficult pupils – Ed Balls refuted this, arguing that academies’ intakes were more ‘difficult’ than the average for their area. In the end raising standards across all schools was the best answer to the problem of admissions. A new initiative is that all local authorities will have to have a strategy for dealing with low-achieving schools in their areas.
In response to a complaint about central government encouraging outsourcing services, Ed robustly defended the policy, arguing that all organisations, including trade unions, go to specialist outsourced organisations to help them deliver services at the best value. Outsourcing need not devalue the ethos of public service.
Ed admitted that there was a debate to be had about how information was collected but as resolute in defending the concept of collecting detailed information on performance – without it it would be impossible to deal with educational disadvantage. At that point the event had to draw to a close as conference’s plenary session began, at which Ed spoke and declared his full support for the academy programme.
Later in the afternoon delegates reconvened in a packed room for a discussion on the delivery of the government’s ambitious plan for three million new homes.
Housing minister Caroline Flint began by declaring her desire to move away from talking about ‘units’ built, and to start talking about homes, and their places in communities and local infrastructure.
Labour urgently needs to expose the opportunism of the Tories and Liberal Democrats on this issue – their consistent local opposition to any development just doesn’t fit with their supposed support for the building targets.
Caroline was excited that she will shortly be announcing the shortlist for sites for the new eco towns. These will contain 30-50% affordable housing, and every home will be less than a ten minute walk from services. In addition, the DCLG will be undertaking a review of the private rented sector, and Caroline will be working to encourage more tenant control over their housing.
Adrian Harvey was keen to stress CABE’s message that we need to build neighbourhoods and places, and not just homes. These places have to economically and socially sustainable, or local government will be left to pick up the pieces of the resulting social failure. We simply can’t afford to get this wrong – but all the evidence shows that we are getting this wrong. CABE’s studies suggest that a fifth of new development is unsustainable, and that a third should never have been approved as it did not meet planning guidelines. The majority of new development is just mediocre, and only a tiny proportion is good or excellent.
The biggest failure is that new developments lack character, a sense of place, and good quality public space. Design is not about aesthetics, it’s entirely functional. The criteria for good design are robustness, functionality, and delight. To convince the public that new development is an asset it has to be good.
Currently the housing market is dysfunctional. Local authorities are the real ‘consumers’, and it’s up to them to demand improvements. They CAN do this!
Tony Newman began by criticising the Planning Inspectorate – ‘the best that can be said of them is that they are inconsistent’. Without good quality guidance and support from planners councillors are placed in a difficult position. Tony cautioned that even though we are talking about three million new homes, 90% of housing that will exist in ten year’s time is already built. We’re beginning this building programme at the possible peak of the market as the buy-to-let market is beginning to unravel. There are still many additional unresolved issues in housing – such as housing benefit reform.
One complaint coming across in questions from the audience was how developers are building too much housing that does not meet the most pressing demands of their areas. Basildon has seen a preponderance of town centre flats, and Hertfordshire a glut of massive executive homes, when affordable family houses are what are most needed. Adrian Harvey made the point that the market is dysfunctional, developers do not know what is needed, and that councils need to spell out to developers what they should be building.
The packed room was testament to the growing importance of housing as a political issue, which was recognised by Gordon Brown’s appointment of the Housing Minister to the cabinet this summer. Councillors seem to be greatly interested in the issue, but many were confused and intimidated by the planning system and developers, and were keen to see more guidance as to how they should implement Labour’s housing strategy at the local level.
‘To think somehow that proportional representation is Viagra for a flaccid electorate not voting in great numbers, that’s a terrible mistake,’ said Stephen Pound MP at Tuesday night’s Commons event asking, is it time for Labour ditch First Past The Post?
The MP for Ealing North argued that the reasons behind low voter turnout ran deeper than the technicalities of the voting system. ‘It’s when politics matters less to people that they don’t vote. Our job is to make politics relevant to people.’
The debate, held in association with Make Votes Count, was prompted by the recent publication of the government’s review of voting systems.
Much of the discussion - also featuring contributions from Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee, justice minister Michael Wills and UCL Constitutional Unit director Robert Hazell - revolved around how the problem of voter disengagement could be addressed and whether a change in electoral system would provide a remedy.
Toynbee said that Labour should have ditched FPTP when it came to power in 1997 but that during those heady days it could not conceive of a time when it might benefit from electoral reform. ‘If it’s a hung parliament next time, it will look very cynical if the parties come round to PR just to hold onto power.’
Toynbee said that under FPTP parties to ‘descend on the centre ground where the shade of difference of what is said is so infinitesimal’ in a bid to capture the tiny number of swing voters. ‘There are big differences at heart but the voting system makes the parties cross-dress.’
Wills reminded those present that since 1997 Labour had implemented significant electoral reform, such as new voting systems for elections in Scotland, Wales and London. But he said the recent review of voting systems had not identified any one system as superior. ‘It should not be about parties choosing a system that will most advantage themselves, it’s about a voting system that delivers democracy for all of us. It’s important that constitutional change is done as much as possible on the basis of consensus.’
Wills described it as ‘profoundly patronising’ to voters to suggest that adopting particular voting systems would lead to particular results. Voters are very sophisticated and get the change they want under the current system, he said, citing the ground-shifting 1997 election as evidence.
Addressing the practicalities of achieving electoral reform, Professor Hazell offered electoral reformers some difficult facts to swallow. He identified five steps that would need to be taken – developing an alternative system, legislating to authorise a referendum, holding the referendum, a second parliamentary vote to implement the change in the event of a ‘yes’ vote, and conducting boundary reviews.
Hazell pointed out that a referendum could not simply be sprung upon the public, but must be preceded by an education campaign, thus lengthening the process further. In the even of the public voting for a change in voting system, it would take at least a year – and probably longer – for the necessary legislation to be implemented and for boundaries to change.
However, Wills insisted that a change in voting system need not take so long. ‘It could be done very quickly if the political will was there,’ he said. ‘We would need a referendum but it could in theory be done before the next election.’
Wills also contended Toynbee’s assertion that a more proportional voting system would lead to a more plural politics, less clustered around the centre-ground. ‘Actually, that sort of system produces coalition governments and it would lead to parties having to ditch their policies once they are in a coalition.’
One audience member passionately argued that the only way to increase voter turnout is to make voting compulsory. ‘You drive on the left, you pay your taxes, you don’t punch people in the face and you vote in elections,’ he said.
Wills responded that he did not advocate compulsory voting but said the government was about to consult on whether it should be brought in. Hazell affirmed that ‘compulsory voting is the only serious and reliable way of increasing turnout’ but questioned how the public would respond to the idea. ‘It was introduced in Australia 100 years ago, in a more deferential age. I don’t know if Brits would welcome the introduction of compulsory voting.’
Pound warned against ‘aspiring to purity that is unattainable’, adding that ‘not all problems can be resolved by changing the system because there is something fundamentally wrong with democracy.’
However, the debate clearly made an impression on this traditionally adamant opponent of electoral reform. ‘I came here a die heard First Past the Post-er, but two or three of the contributors tonight have given me serious ground for thought,’ he said, rounding off a lively and stimulating night’s debate.
The day after Super Tuesday, a panel of sleep-deprived but distinguished speakers gathered in Parliament to discuss the Democrats' chances of winning back the White House in what all agreed is the most captivating US election contest for decades.
Rachelle Valladeres, the former international chair of Democrats Abroad, opened by citing the New York Times' headline of that morning - 'Clinton/Obama trade victories' - demonstrating just how close the race is for the Democrat nomination. Valladeres, who has not yet disclosed publicly which candidate she is backing, argued that it is good for the party to have a contested election for its nomination since it engages party members who feel their votes are making a difference.
Fabian Society general secretary Sunder Katwala summed up the general mood of pundits by stating that 'nobody knows anything' about the outcome of the Democratic contest. With strong positions on key issues such as the economy and healthcare, the Democrats could by all means win power again, said Katwala, but history shows that the party has a habit of losing elections it should win.
Katwala added that the likely prospect of McCain snapping up the Republican nomination was bad news for Democrats since he was clearly the most electable of candidates on the right. Nevertheless, he added that there were still massive dividing lines between the two parties, notably on national security, healthcare and the role of government.
Time Magazine's London bureau chief, Catherine Mayer, told the audience she had been up all night covering the Super Tuesday votes. 'What's keeping me awake is the excitement around the election,' she said, locating the cause of such excitement in the strength of candidates on offer. Interest in the race had gone way beyond the Westminster bubble, she claimed, citing a visit to an east London comprehensive school at which a teenager had told her he was supporting Obama.
However, Mayer warned of the risk of a potentially destructive rancour developing between the Clinton and Obama camps, saying that they should redirect their ferocity away from each other and towards the real opposition - the Republicans.
Mayer agreed that McCain is the Republican candidate who would prove most palatable on a national level and therefore the most difficult to beat. While there is clear water between McCain and the Democrats, said Mayer, the water is not as clear as it might be, noting the 71-year-old's more liberal stance on issues such as climate change and torture. She added the depressing but realistic possibility that being a white male might also work to McCain's advantage electorally, appealing to a section of middle America that might not be ready to put a woman or an African American in the White House.
Dr Niall Palmer, a leading expert on American politics at Brunel University, agreed with the other speakers that this was the most interesting race in years, although dissented from the view that McCain's nomination was a foregone conclusion, pointing out the level of ill-feeling directed towards him in parts of the Republican camp.
Palmer offered an analysis of what the race said about the political psychologies of the respective parties. 'The Republicans may be embarking on a period of inner soul-searching and coming to terms with the fact it is not a united party,' he said. 'Splits could open up and become very serious.'
On the Democrat side, Palmer emphasised that, despite the Obama/Clinton rivalry, the party is displaying a unity of purpose he hadn't seen for some time, as well as greater freedom to speak in progressive terms. 'There is a willingness to say things that 15 or 20 years ago candidates wouldn't dare to for fear of being branded too liberal,' he noted.
Denis McShane expressed skepticism about Obama, saying he did not know what the Illinois senator stood for. He echoed Mayer's point about the impact that the prejudices of some segments of America could have on his electability. 'Hilary does well with the white working class. Is your average mid-westerner in a pick up truck ready to vote black?'
McShane was particularly unimpressed by the Democrat candidates' foreign policy positions, citing their 'vacuous policy statements' in this area. On a more optimistic note, the former foreign office minister emphasized that a new incumbent in the White House would present 'a fantastic opportunity' for Europe to forge a new partnership with the US.
A member of the audience asked how likely it is that the loser of Democratic race will become vice-presidential candidate. Valladeres reminded the audience that who becomes the vice-presidential candidate is strictly the choice of the presidential candidate but said she would be surprised if Obama or Clinton chose each other. Mayer said she was not convinced that Obama and Clinton running together would be a dream ticket, saying that there would be a strategic benefit in picking a running mate who would appeal to the aforementioned pickup driver demographic.
Asked to predict the outcome of both the nomination contests and the final election, the panel were divided. McShane and Palmer both predicted a McCain vs Clinton contest with the Democratic candidate winning while Mayer thought it would be the same race but with McCain emerging victorious. Valladeres predicted a democrat would win the White House, but wouldn't say which, while Katwala did not want to write off Obama just yet.
While the panel were optimistic that a Democrat could win back the White House, it would be fair to say the majority were lukewarm towards Obama. Palmer perhaps summed up this mood, comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter whose 1976 campaign focused on himself as the embodiment of hope but did not deliver once elected. 'There is a danger that people buy the Obama rhetoric and then find out what's there,' he said. 'With Hilary, we know what's there, she's more of a known quantity. I'd be unwilling to entrust the immediate post-Bush epoch to a hope.'
Last Saturday I gave up my footie time to spend a stimulating day at the centre-left's first gathering of the year (click here for the official report). The highlight for me (as a quality of life campaigner) was the interest shown by London's Deputy Mayor, Nicky Gavron, and James Purnell in the well-being issue which is now creeping up the political agenda. As a founder member of SERA I also appreciated David Miliband's star performance.
On the other hand I found that trying to be fair to Tony Blair in my conversations with those around me was like being in that old sci-fi movie, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers.You know, the one where aliens have taken over the bodies of friends and loved ones in a local community and just when the hero thinks he has found someone who believes his story they turn round to reveal the mark at the back of their neck. There is an obvious link here with my previous posting.
Thanks to those of you who attended last night's excellent seminar, 'A healthy debate: Does the NHS need a constitution?' Aside from the slightly hackneyed pun in the title (for which I take responsibility!), the level of discussion was very high and very interesting.
Andy Burnham, the minister who recently floated the idea in a recent Progress pamphlet, conceded that the idea was still a formative one, and that the process of debating what the constitution would contain would serve as a way of setting down the NHS's underlying values. Amazingly, surely fundamental ideals such as the service being free at the point of use, based on need not the ability to pay, and that is comprehensive, have never been codified.
The commitment of its staff and the public to these ideals, which Will Hutton later described as being something similar to the notion of 'public value', could be enshrined in any constitution. But this is the point at which some of the more sceptical contributors - such as John Carvel, Vanessa Bourne and Margaret Jay - interjected.
There were dangers: a constitution of broad values might amount to little more than what Bourne termed 'tokenism'. It needed to be specific and backed up by sanction, should any of the principles be breached. Yet Baroness Jay raised the opposite danger - if it were a 'rulebook', it might be over-prescriptive, whereas the management of successful organisations was usually too 'fluid and complex' to be written down.
Another, associated issue is this: who would have the power to interpret such a constitution? Will Hutton briefly mentioned the US constitution as a document which continually sparks debate as to its interpretation, far from having a 'depoliticizing' effect. But surely some kind of 'constitutional court' for the NHS would be unfeasible and undesirable, sparking endless wrangling as to the real implications of certain broad underpinning values.
John Carvel and Will Hutton instigated a lively discussion on how 'independent' the NHS could be from political control. Certainly, a constitution could pose dangers for democratic accountability, but there again, there was agreement that Ministers had shown themselves to be capable of some very poor managerial decisions, when it came to the NHS.
Post any thoughts below!
|
|
