A recent post by the Northern Doctor continues to enthral me. The post is about a bail-out fund for NHS hospitals whose financial future is threatened by the Private Finance Initiative. I like his use of “tripartite” policy to describe the drive to privatise the NHS and other parts of the state. This trend is not restricted to the NHS, with a police station in Lincolnshire being farmed out to the private sector today, and welfare to work schemes also being farmed out to the private sector agencies. Private prisons and utilities have been common-place for years. It is clear that this privatisation policy is common to all three major English parties, (I am not sure of the opinions of Plaid, Scottish Nationalists, Ulster parties, or the other minor British parties such as UKIP, BNP and Greens).
Many or most of these policies developed under the New Labour Government of 1997-2010, and the Liberal-Conservative Coalition has merely continued these. It is clear that whatever they say in opposition all three parties agree that privatisation is the way to provide services in the future.
Then Health Secretary (now shadow health secretary) Andy Burnham launching a new PFI project in Teeside.
So why have all three parties come to this conclusion? There are several possibilities.
The first is that this is genuinely a better way to provide services. I am willing to consider that this is at least a possibility, and have posted in the past how this may be done.
A second possibility is that our politicians are under the influence of shadowy health corporations from overseas. But surely the Labour party is at least as open to influence from the trade unions?
A third possibility is that there is no choice when faced with the finances of the welfare state, at least if the party wants to keep the welfare state in existence until the next election. Destruction of the welfare state would be popular with a small minority but is likely to be electorally difficult, and politicians do like to remain in power, it being the point of the game.
If a person, family or organisation is spending more than its income then there are three ways to stay solvent. Earn more money, spend less money or sell assets. Our government struggles to increase income as economic growth is flat, and taxes are high enough to kill it further. Even Ed Balls is asking for tax cuts in the budget. Despite all the hype about “cuts” government spending is going to rise over the course of this parliament. Other than borrowing, which is just taxation deferred to our children, the alternative is asset sales.
And the infrastructure of the NHS is an asset that can be sold off to balance the books, at least in the short term. If you cannot live within your means then you have to sell the family silver.
Del-Boy Brown
I am wondering if one of the paradoxes of this desire by politicians to stave off a major destruction of the welfare state is the part-privatisation of the same. Perhaps the financial lunacy of the PFI scheme is such that no private company would want to take on the liability, and is the protector of the NHS. At least in the short term.
Dr Phil
The trade unions no longer have the influence that they did, Dr Phil. The factories, shipyards and mines where they recruited members have gone and old Labour as you would call it, is dying a slow death. Yes, there are unions in other places but they don’t encourage the same solidarity that having your life depending on your fellow worker encourages. I also think that Westminster is dying a slow death because of first-past-the-post politics. When politicians are guaranteed seats, it encourages laziness and also encourages opportunists who want a direct line to decision making in government. PR would have energised Westminster, given some of the smaller parties a voice and kept them on their toes, but I don’t think we’re going to see another vote on that for a generation. Of course, America has been trying to break into the health market in Britain for years and that’s part of it as well, but I think what essentially you are seeing is the death of the old British political system. It’s not representing those who elect them and is as divorced from its voters as a QC is divorced from his clients. Sorry, rambled on a bit here, but good post.
Dear Julie,
Feel free to ramble on, I often do.
The trade unions are not based in heavy industries and the mines as they were in my youth in Fulchester. Those industries are gone, and will not return, at least in numbers employed. The Unions are strong in the public sector, and as well as their financial muscle have a large number of Labour MPs as members. I think that the Labour party listens to them more in opposition than government.
I think that a welfare state and old style NHS can only be tenable on the basis of sound finances, and tripartite consensus, and perhaps not in a world where goods, services and people can move so freely across borders. My protestant roots and loathing of debt makes me very wary of a lot of these part private deals such as PFI. These are the equivalent of hocking the family silver to the pawnbroker for a high interest payday loan. The longer we put off the reckoning the worse it will be.
I share your suspicion of modern politics, though as you know see the defects differently. I do not know what the remedy is, and not convinced that PR is the answer. It reinforces the party whip, such as on the list seats in Scotland or the European Parliament
The way that politics has changed up here, Dr Phil, is that parties are not obsessed with getting an overall majority, although they welcome that when it happens. I remember the note of panic in the reporting when it turned out that there was no overall majority in Westminster and what were they all going to do – a coalition was seen as essential. What I find interesting is the way in which the Westminster Lib Dems played their hand compared with the Scottish Conservatives up here with Annabel Goldie. In England, the Lib Dems went for coalition government and tied themselves to the Conservatives for better or for worse, whereas the Scottish Conservatives played the part of honest broker in Holyrood and did things like voting the budget through in return for Salmond giving concessions on various policies; One of those was £100 million for drugs rehab. It worked very well and despite her marmish appearance, to me Annabel Goldie was a smart modern political thinker and the way ahead. Compare that with the mess the Lib Dems have got themselves in. They have had to vote through the likes of the education bill and will probably do the same on the HSCB; they are disliked by their coalition partners and despised by the voters who see them as selling out for a taste of power. Imagine the power they would have had if they had gone for the role of honest broker and simply voted with the Conservatives if they agreed with them and against them if they didn’t. But it didn’t happen because the mindset of Westminster is geared to adversarial politics and cannot contemplate consensus government. It’s all or nothing; no inbetween and I think there has been a huge missed opportunity for the Lib Dems. I also think they are going to be finished as a party come the next elections.
I am interested that you refer to the lib dems being in coalition in England. Westminster is not an English parliament, but if it were restricted to English seats would have a Conservative majority.
Proportional Representation is certainly fairer on Scottish Tories in the Scottish parliament than the FPTP system in the UK parliament. I would support PR if it were an Irish type STV system with no party lists. Irish politicians behave no better than our own though. I think the fault of our democracy could not be fixed by a simple change in voting system.
I forgot to mention my views on the Lib Dems, and as an orange book liberal my views havent changed much over the year since i posted this: http://drphilyerboots.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/the-strange-death-of-the-liberal-party/?preview=true&preview_id=333&preview_nonce=5e901cf184