lord of the blog

« House of Lords reform | Main | Light relief from the House »

Friday, July 07, 2006

Responses

My apologies for a lack of posts on this site recently. Andrew Baker says the site "has lost some of its edge". I tend to agree which is why I have been thinking how best to revitalise and/or restructure it.

I want to continue placing extract from the Lords debates/questions on the site but I would like to return to wider political debates. My problem is keeping up with the demands of those activities. It may be that I should devote a specific period of time in each week for general posts and just add Lords debates as and when they happen.

Looking at some of the comments on disillusionment makes me want to try putting Labour policies in the context of a process of what we are trying to achieve. I could waste a lot of time explaining to Martin Hoscik that we are not "privatising schools" but he will never believe that because it doesn't fit with his view of the world.

The schools debate is part of this much wider debate about the reform of the public sector. The central political threat we face (and is also faced by the public sector itself) is that having poured money into services like education there are still far too many parents opting out, or expressing dissatisfaction. So you don't need to be too bright to see that a future Tory government will be well placed to say "Look. You have all paid the tax but it hasn't worked therefore let us abandon the public sector approach".

The other problem related to this is that people are focusing on specific failures at this point in time. I don't object to that because we have got into serious problems with some aspects of policy, eg the Home Office issue.

This however, ignores the longer term strategy on most of our policies. So the story of overseas aid and Africa is an ongoing story. The moves on family and child poverty are far more positive then many allege and are going in the right direction.

The changes made to our society by this government are important and long lasting and not just in financial or organisational terms but in attitudes and values. That is why David Cameron has dramatically shifted the Tory Party's position on so many issues. But don't assume he is carrying all his members with him. Look at the election result in Bromley. Or consider The attitude of the Conservative Peers even to the election of a Speaker in the Lords. Ask yourself how many Conservative Peers have still not come to terms with a black woman as leader of the Lords. When Tony Blair appointed her it was more then mutterings that reached the other end of Westminster!

Final point. I was asked about the Probation Service. The abandonment of training by Michael Howard when he was Home Secretary damaged the ethos and functioning of the service. I would not rule out buying in services because we already do that with Family Courts and if we didn't the quality of service would deteriorate - and it is not as good as it ought to be right now.

I think the Left really does have to focus on quality of service rather then whether we provide it directly through a state organisation or by the state via contractual arrangements. I am still critical of my own failings as a councilor in the 1970's when I spent time trying to justify why it was necessary to keep council housing as it was rather then focus on the quality of service. Telling tenants that they were lucky they weren't in the private sector was no substitute for not doing the repairs properly or on time.

That is why Margaret Thatcher was so successful in getting many Council tenants to vote for a Tory government. Buying your own house was a more attractive political option then hearing an explanation from me as to why the public sector was better!

"ask yourself how many tory peers...black women leader of the lords". Just how many Clive? How many labour peers? Or is racism/sexism only plausible on the right side of the house?

You are entirely correct, Labour does have to prove it is giving 'value for money' on service, because it takes the decision for you, and if you are going to have a decision made by someone else it better be a good one. I understand the idea of state-provision, indeed I agree with the policy of helping those on low wages/in need of help, however I do feel that there is scant justification for the government controlling an industry that could be ran as a private business. It worked for so many of the 20-odd industries privatised in the 80s.

Even though the railways have been a rather poorly privatised industry, there is still no reason why a government should own the system. Sure regulate and introduce 'requirements' but let competition commence. So Labour do need to show they are doing a good job, but when an industry is provided by government we struggle to compare our services to a benchmark, choosing to look at nations with hugely varied circumstances, or small-time private industries that offer services to a niche client-base.

I would like, from Labour and Tory, more grand-scheme politics, more positive politics and more promotive policy, I feel that your blog helps to show a positive side of politics and promotes policy, rather than trashes opposition policy, so Clive you should spread the good word to your colleagues - be a little more like you (or maybe they already are?).