What I would like to hear from Mr Darling

December 9, 2009 by
Filed under: Politics, The RSA 

As we all await Mr Darling’s action-packed pre-budget report the focus is on cuts and taxes. Depending on their political orientation and the briefing they have received, newspapers can choose whether to highlight an attack on city bonuses, constraints on public spending or general increases in taxation.  

The overall thrust of the package seems right; spending constraint but imposed gradually so as not to choke off recovery, tax increases weighted towards those who can most afford them. Indeed, it is interesting to speculate how different a Conservative pre-budget report would have been in these circumstances.

But there are some other messages I would like to hear from Mr Darling. And, to be honest, I’m not holding my breath.

Apparently the Chancellor will say that health, education and policing will be protected from cuts and may even have small increases in funding over the next three years. I understand the politics of this. It is in line with the Government’s commitment to guaranteed entitlements in these services. But it may not be the best policy. As SOLACE and CIPFA warned this morning, the consequence is that other local government services take the brunt of the cuts in social spending. It could be non-statutory provision like youth services, public space, sport, leisure and culture that get squeezed. This in turn could lead to a deterioration in the public sphere, just as happened in many places in the early 80s. In terms of social impact it would be much better to force productivity gains in schools, hospital and police services (where, after years of budget increases, there is plenty of scope) than cuts that will weaken the social fabric.

SOLACE and CIPFA also warn this morning that as the state pulls back, citizens themselves – individually and collectively – will have to plug the gap. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. There is scope for many services to become more co-productive, by which I mean that their outcome is seen to be created by the combined efforts of state and citizen. But an imposed cuts package is the worst context in which to generate a constructive public debate about reconfiguring services. We should be having a national and local conversation about how citizen engagement can help protect service outcomes even while budgets are being cut. How much emphasis will we see today on the need for a richer public engagement about the choices we now face?

This links to the wider need for a story of social mobilisation. I have written before about the message Stein Ringen gave here at the RSA about Labour’s failure to mobilise public sector workers or the general public behind goals like eradicating child poverty. Labour aspirations were noble but too often they felt like things Government was doing to people rather than with them. I also wrote last week about how well people often respond when they face a shared crisis.

It is not easy for either Mr Darling or Mr Brown, but there needs to be a sense today of the Government seeking to get people behind the mission of safeguarding society while reducing debt. The measure of a Government’s worth is not just whether it can have good ideas or pull new policies out of a hat but whether it can engage and mobilise the population.

Share

No related posts.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

4 Comments on What I would like to hear from Mr Darling

  1. Steve on Wed, 9th Dec 2009 1:57 pm

    2. I would much rather there be cuts to health, education, and policing if it means these services learn to operate more efficiently which I believe is theoretically possible.

    It does give of a hypocritical message as the public is being encouraged from a number of sources to cut back on all aspects of life, when the government can exempt these services. Surely a better message is to recognize how important these services are and show that they can be made leaner and still operate at the same level?

    Like you say a way this can be done is to engage the community at a local level. If a local community feels safer it can probably do with a smaller police presence. Parents can help support their schools with time and community spirit as much as anonymous government pounds could.

    Government and the people they govern should be in conversation with each other, not in conflict. It’s sadly a problem at both ends. The government doesn’t trust the people to make rational decisions (to be fair it is a hard thing to expect sometimes) and people don’t trust the government for a torrent of reasons.

    That’s the real problem – how can we trust again? With trust the transaction costs of nearly everything are lowered.

  2. Aidan on Wed, 9th Dec 2009 3:11 pm

    3. The potential for co-production of services by citizen and state is interesting but needs to recognise the squeeze on people’s time who are working, bringing up families, keeping up a semblance of a social life and volunteering. I speak as a working father of 2 toddlers who hasn’t a whole lot of spare hours in the week to give. And i only work between 35-40 hours per week in paid employment, my brother in the private sector often puts in 70+ hrs per week. Government needs to realise that if it really needs citizens to give more unpaid labour to underpin the social fabric then work life balance and the culture of work needs to be addressed to allow it to happen

  3. matthew taylor on Wed, 9th Dec 2009 5:37 pm

    4. Thanks Aiden. I agree. If my cold/man flu doesn’t get the better of me I am flying to Stockholm tomorrow to do a speech. I am hoping to read on the way David Halpen’s book ‘The Hidden Wealth of Nations’ which does, I think, explore the links between the formal economy and what Avner Offer calls ‘the economy of regard’ . Thanks Steve I agree entirely

  4. Livy on Wed, 9th Dec 2009 7:28 pm

    5. Steve,

    You almost put your finger on it.

    Government doesn’t trust the people because only 60% of them vote, and only half of those know why they do. Any elected official who has personally spent five minutes with average voters is secretly relieved not to be one of them, and would probably concur with Churchill’s favourite argument against democracy. Contrary to what the media thinks they’re not overwhelmingly anxious about public apathy, they sometimes count on it and often plan strategy around it.

    It isn’t ‘government’ people in the UK distrust; it’s the political elite who they feel are detached to the point of autism. As a nation that is predominantly left of centre or ‘progressive’ we actually tolerate a surprisingly high level of state intervention in our lives (Brown still plans to re-visit the idea of a ‘presumed consent’ law in regard to organ donation). Distrust of government usually relates to national security and our military interventions abroad; characterised most embarrassingly by the extreme sandal wearing lefties who believe things like G.W. Bush masterminded the 9/11 attacks.

    It’s the other way around for the right. Their distrust stems from libertarian values. So even if an‘opt out’ system for organ harvesting saves more lives, they fundamentally believe that there are some things more important than a human life.

    But enough of the specious arguments.

    Aiden, interesting take. Robert Putnam over at Harvard actually calculated that every 10 minutes of commuting to work cuts all forms of social involvement by 10% – so 10% fewer drinks with friends, family meals, social activities. Longer journeys to work and society becoming ever more atomised will just be detrimental to your ‘social capital’; the sum of all your connections and your trust in your fellow man.

    Bristolians always thank their bus driver, when they get on as well as off the bus. Londoners can’t even look the guy in the eye.

    Just a thought.

    As for Halpern and a ‘Happiness Index’… I’m not so sure it will make poor people feel any better unless we can also ban street advertising like Bhutan.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!