An evening with friends
We had some friends round and the conversation turned to how do we explain to people on the door why they should vote Labour? Like many older men I woke up at about 4am needing the toilet and then started to think about this problem.
If we go back too far it comes to what mechanisms do we believe that will give us a better society. Go back a bit further and you can start arguing about what this means. To me, at a gut level, it is about treating people with dignity and feeling that everybody deserves somewhere clean and warm to live, food, clothing and good health care. That is all very practical but I was also going to say a good education but what I mean is no necessarily a formal education but a chance to develop those talents which they have.
Probably most people have some sympathy with those goals whatever their political views, so many of the differences come down to how do we achieve them. Probably we also all agree that somebody has to do some work to produce the goods that we need, whether it is the food we eat or the houses we live in or the clothes we wear. But then, I now I shouldn't start sentences with "but", what is the best way to produce them and how do we distribute the wealth.
At one end there are those who claim to believe in a "free market". I always use quotation marks around free markets since very few people are sure what they mean. Perhaps the mythical idea that the producers bring their good to a market and those who want to buy the good wander around and bargain and that in the end everything works out for the best. This like many ideas is entirely mythical for all sorts of reasons. The "free market" that most people think they believe in is just a short hand way of saying keep the government out. Let private individuals do their own thing and all will be well. Really that doesn't work very well either, whether they like it or not there is a need for government, see what has happened in Somalia,even the most right-wing talk about a failed state, perhaps even the supporters of Ayn Rand would believe in the "state".
I end up concluding that we do really believe in the "state" but can the state provide a society we want to live in? It seems a long way from the question how do we argue for a Labour government on the doorstep but my feeling is that unless you know why you believe something how can you explain it to other people. So lets go back to what people should have, to repeat T it is about treating people with dignity and feeling that everybody deserves somewhere clean and warm to live, food, clothing and good health care. Can we provide a society in which this happens with a minimalist state. The answer quite simply no! With a minimalist state the produce of society accrues to the most powerful and they will use it as they see fit not to the benefit of all.
Some might argue that this is fair, after all they must have some talents which make them rich and powerful so we will all benefit from that. However there seems to be very little evidence that this happens, that is why the rich tend to remain rich, people forget that most wealth in the UK is not earned wealth but inherited so most people have no particular talent except to be born to people who are already rich. With a minimalist state the powerful get more powerful and divisions grow and inequality gets greater.
The argument of New Labour is that people wanted a fairer society and good housing and schools and health but did not care how it was provided. The state should fund it but who actually gave the service did not matter. This combined with "efficiency" led to the idea that the state would pay for the services but the private sector would provide them efficiently. Also it was important to bring competition into the system because that is what drives up standards in the "free market". The trouble is that both these ideas are fatally flawed from the perspective of providing good services to everybody.
Why do I argue this, what is my reasoning. This is an argument that I have used in earlier blogs but perhaps it is useful to make the point again. Competition and the "free market" depends on unsuccessful
operators going bust and the successful ways growing. How does that work in health and education, by the time they have gone bust you are dead! One of the discussions last night was about getting the best surgeons but how do we know who is the best surgeon or the best doctor. You might have friends who know but most people won't. Do we want surgeons competing in some league table so they look better than their colleagues? The evidence seems to be that practice makes perfect, that is the more times a surgeon does an operation, the better they get! Who do they practice on? The poor and ignorant, we hope they practice whilst being carefully supervised. Do we want surgeons advertising cheap operations, like dodgy second-hand car dealers? It seems clear to me that we require a different mechanism to provide high quality health care for all. If you just want it for the rich and powerful there is no problem, the private sector will provide.
This is rather long and rambling, it is now nearly 6am and to misquote Pascal I don't have the energy to write a shorter blog. Where New Labour got it wrong was to believe that the private sector and competition would improve public services and whilst there might be an argument to get over short-term emergencies a long term dependency on the private sector won't deliver. I suppose my argument has to be that only the Labour Party, with all its inadequacies, can provide a long term commitment to good public services.
If we go back too far it comes to what mechanisms do we believe that will give us a better society. Go back a bit further and you can start arguing about what this means. To me, at a gut level, it is about treating people with dignity and feeling that everybody deserves somewhere clean and warm to live, food, clothing and good health care. That is all very practical but I was also going to say a good education but what I mean is no necessarily a formal education but a chance to develop those talents which they have.
Probably most people have some sympathy with those goals whatever their political views, so many of the differences come down to how do we achieve them. Probably we also all agree that somebody has to do some work to produce the goods that we need, whether it is the food we eat or the houses we live in or the clothes we wear. But then, I now I shouldn't start sentences with "but", what is the best way to produce them and how do we distribute the wealth.
At one end there are those who claim to believe in a "free market". I always use quotation marks around free markets since very few people are sure what they mean. Perhaps the mythical idea that the producers bring their good to a market and those who want to buy the good wander around and bargain and that in the end everything works out for the best. This like many ideas is entirely mythical for all sorts of reasons. The "free market" that most people think they believe in is just a short hand way of saying keep the government out. Let private individuals do their own thing and all will be well. Really that doesn't work very well either, whether they like it or not there is a need for government, see what has happened in Somalia,even the most right-wing talk about a failed state, perhaps even the supporters of Ayn Rand would believe in the "state".
I end up concluding that we do really believe in the "state" but can the state provide a society we want to live in? It seems a long way from the question how do we argue for a Labour government on the doorstep but my feeling is that unless you know why you believe something how can you explain it to other people. So lets go back to what people should have, to repeat T it is about treating people with dignity and feeling that everybody deserves somewhere clean and warm to live, food, clothing and good health care. Can we provide a society in which this happens with a minimalist state. The answer quite simply no! With a minimalist state the produce of society accrues to the most powerful and they will use it as they see fit not to the benefit of all.
Some might argue that this is fair, after all they must have some talents which make them rich and powerful so we will all benefit from that. However there seems to be very little evidence that this happens, that is why the rich tend to remain rich, people forget that most wealth in the UK is not earned wealth but inherited so most people have no particular talent except to be born to people who are already rich. With a minimalist state the powerful get more powerful and divisions grow and inequality gets greater.
The argument of New Labour is that people wanted a fairer society and good housing and schools and health but did not care how it was provided. The state should fund it but who actually gave the service did not matter. This combined with "efficiency" led to the idea that the state would pay for the services but the private sector would provide them efficiently. Also it was important to bring competition into the system because that is what drives up standards in the "free market". The trouble is that both these ideas are fatally flawed from the perspective of providing good services to everybody.
Why do I argue this, what is my reasoning. This is an argument that I have used in earlier blogs but perhaps it is useful to make the point again. Competition and the "free market" depends on unsuccessful
operators going bust and the successful ways growing. How does that work in health and education, by the time they have gone bust you are dead! One of the discussions last night was about getting the best surgeons but how do we know who is the best surgeon or the best doctor. You might have friends who know but most people won't. Do we want surgeons competing in some league table so they look better than their colleagues? The evidence seems to be that practice makes perfect, that is the more times a surgeon does an operation, the better they get! Who do they practice on? The poor and ignorant, we hope they practice whilst being carefully supervised. Do we want surgeons advertising cheap operations, like dodgy second-hand car dealers? It seems clear to me that we require a different mechanism to provide high quality health care for all. If you just want it for the rich and powerful there is no problem, the private sector will provide.
This is rather long and rambling, it is now nearly 6am and to misquote Pascal I don't have the energy to write a shorter blog. Where New Labour got it wrong was to believe that the private sector and competition would improve public services and whilst there might be an argument to get over short-term emergencies a long term dependency on the private sector won't deliver. I suppose my argument has to be that only the Labour Party, with all its inadequacies, can provide a long term commitment to good public services.
Labels: Vote Labour
posted by Unknown at
9:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home