Politics of provision

[Marmora Man]

At the risk of being bitten / shot down I'd like to propose to this forum that "This house believes that good things come from private rather than public provision"

Having joined the EDF about 6 weeks or so ago I have noticed a tendency toward an anti private sector stance - except when it refers to small businesses in LL or elsewhere locally, which seems inconsistent. A discussion would be interesting.

Points for discussion / rebuttal:

1. The state / government has a duty to provide certain services - but it should keep its activities (and thus taxes) to the absolute minimum. EG: Security (internal - policing & prisons, external - military forces); a certain amount of regulation (standards of cleanliness in hospitals, schools, safety & HSAW issues, possibly rental rates in housing, set taxes, manage foreign policy, provide a "safety net" for those that need it and that's about it.

2. Most people prefer to be left alone by government. By themselves most people will adopt a sensible lifestyle, try to do good, look after their family and be be nice to their neighbours / neighbourhood. Social engineering (from Tory right or Labour left doesn't work).

3. Small businesses, if successful, become big businesses. They become successful by serving customers well not because they are part of some global right wing business conspiracy to do over the average punter.

4. Hospitals and schools are about the only major services that government still directly controls. Neither are meeting expectations. Let them free (subject to a regulatory framework - see 1 above) and let the market decide. (NOTE: Roads and railways are technically within government control but almost all farmed out to agencies / PFI companies)

5. We do not need a national ID card scheme database.

That's this morning grump over. I'm off to read the Torygraph over a glass of port.

[Marmora Man]

-- moved topic --

[mockney piers]

Move to the Lounge..

Potentially very interest debate ahead, but not East Dulwich specific.

[Administrator]

Lounged

[SeanMacGabhann]

Despite what I suspect is a major gap between our politics, this a very well constructed post you bring to the table MM. At time of writing I am the first reply but knowing this place I'll be on page 2 by the time I click post so most of arguments will be redundant - but, in order:

1) "Absolute minimum" is a fluid concept, no? But even by your list of minimums, you go beyond what many anti-nanny state campaigners would accept. To fold in point number 2, I personally am unconvinced of anywhere in the world where a tiny state exists and it's citizens live harmoniously but I am open to suggestions. Social Engineering is an emotive term which most of us would obviously be against but good government reflects the concerns of the many and can influence the remainder - that's called leading and is something we need more of IMO

3) To me this is the touches on the essence of human nature. In my experience (both as a customer and a close relative of start-up companies) a small business happens to know it's customers and it's employees and it's very reason for being in business beyond JUST making money. Inevitably as it grows it has to delegate much of this and at some point a tipping point is reached and no-one knows the customers, the employees or the raison d-etre of the teh whoel business - and doesn't care as long as money rolls in. If it doesn't roll in, then start doing a sideline and watch as the very people who liked what you were abandon you (see WH Smith, Boots etc)

4) Utterly against this. Nowhere does private care manage health services well (and once again the NHS is far from perfect but is still miles better than the meeeja would have us believe - again private companies denigrating something with the idea of getting it's hands on it perhaps?)

As for education - let's all attend a school where we are all taught how to be good consumers (and yes I'm aware schools have already opened themselves to this accusation - thanks for that New Labour)

5) Agreed 100%

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

I can only agree with 5) disagree with 4) gona see about the rest wen I hav time

[mockney piers]

The first four are basically myths based on naive ideals of the 'small government' types (who curiously seem to have a penchant for big military and police, should we let the market sort them out too?).

I can't say I agree with any of the questions apart from the control question 5.

If I look to successful societies I tend to look toward Scandinavia where their state provision and personal liberty don't seem to be tied together on some inversely proportioned sliding scale.

[JoeChuff]

Disagree with all except 5). Markets sometimes provide the best solution and sometimes don't - it is inappropriate to see them as the magic bullet that solves all. It's an unpopular viewpoint perhaps, but I think we simply have to accept that the provision of public services can either be efficient or equal - it is very difficult for it to be both. Given the choice, I choose equal, even if I must pay more taxes.

I am almost certainly in a minority in not preferring to be left alone by the government. I love the nanny state. Quite frankly I wish they would introduce mandatory bedtimes, so that I wouldn't feel so tired after staying up to watch Family Guy on BBC3. However even if I did prefer to be left alone by the state, I'm not sure I would prefer for everyone else to be left alone by the state. The state (when it works) protects me from the greed and duplicity of individuals. It is a repository for our best intentions, a hedge against dog-eat-dog. It may not always work, but there is no equivalent in the private sector. So I must accept some regulation of my own behaviour in order to be protected against the behaviour of others (and I'm not talking about basic criminal activity like theft and murder - I'm talking about being exploited by those with more power, like employers and landlords.)

[mockney piers]

Good points. Market forces work essentially through self interest. I want this, i want to pay the least for this. I want to provide this at max price that competition allows so that I may make the most money.

Society really only functions well at pretty much the polar opposite. I personally love the idea of anarchism but am not stupid enough to think that it can actually function at any level up from the village frankly. It also depends on everyone 'buying in' (eek see how the market is even eating into our language) to an equable society where unselfish interest in the greater good reigns.

This makes the market provision of social service a non-starter imho. Witness a previous thread about how people will only be interested in saving our grandchildrens' future if the market can, or even (laughs head off) government will ensure that energy efficient light bulbs are cheap enough to attract them.

A market's interests and society's interests rarely coincide. I sure as hell don't want that for health, policing, defence or education.

[JoeChuff]

I do, however, share MM's consternation at the anti-private-sector-except-my-local-organic-trinket-shop angle. I suggest that preferences for small over big shops is almost entirely aesthetic rather than ideological/ethical, and those who prefer smaller shops would save themselves headaches and looking a bit sanctimonious by accepting this. Nothing wrong with preferring the ambiance of W. Rose to the Sainsbury's meat counter, but don't pretend you're Mother Teresa because of it!

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

If we are going for minimal state intervention, let me get a few AK47's and round up my mates and we'll start the land/property/wealth distribution programme straight away.

Or are you just talking about minimum state intervention re economics and maxiumum state intervention re chavs with weapons?

[SeanMacGabhann]

JoeChuff - minority ? Looks like you are in the majority with the rest of us on the thread so far

Come on MM - time for another post

[mockney piers]

Oops, didn't really read point 3.

Actually I find the whole global conspiracy thing of chains rather tiresome too. Witness poor old Fopp, an independent store providing what peoplpe want, was slagged off here with the dreaded 'chain' moniker. It was basically a bloke, who experienced success, tried to spread the formula nationwide and overstretched himself.

Some businesses are genuinely into conspiracies and underhanded dealings. Notably the arms and oil industries. Pharmaceuticals have also been known to wander into, what can politely be described as amoral territory.

But chains, yeah, they're small businesses that became big and at some point, as sean so eloquently says, reached a tipping point. They're not doing anything in principal* that a small independent retailer's doing, marking up goods and making money off the margins, just doing it impersonally.

*although, yes in practice they're sometimes price-fixing, or bullying their producers etc, but you know...in principal.

[JoeChuff]

haha i'm in a minority in that I openly welcome more nannying from the state - I need it!

That's an interesting point about libertarians, though. I've met a few committed libertarians, and without exception (so far) they are well educated, sensible, self-disciplined and responsible people. Two have been former US marines. If everyone was like them, then minimal state intervention would probably work. But unfortunately, most people are not.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

I just want to give you the ISEC definition of Globalisation cos i think it's spot on!

1: the process by which governments give away the rights of their citizens in favour of speculative investors and transnational corporations.

2. the erosion of wages, social welfare standards and environmental regulations for the sake of international trade.

3. the imposition worldwide of a consumer monoculture. Widely but falsely believed to be irrevocable. See also financial melt-down, casino economy, Third World debt, and race to the bottom.

Individual companies have more wealth than many nation states, Mistsubishi, GM and Ford all have economies larger than Denmark, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, South Africa. Norway, Finland or Chile (to name a few) and corporate sales account for 2/3 of global trade.

Trade and services agreements like WTO, NAFTA, FTAA and Gats all over-ride soveriegn states' powers to regulate their labour market, health & social services, environment and economy, so yes I'd like less intervention, by pulling out of all of these protections of corporate profit.

[mockney piers]

Surely you want different state intervention. With no regulation of the labour market things would be in a sorry state indeed; i'm picturing John Steinbeck here.

[Marmora Man]

Wanted to test the waters with my original post. Clearly my libertarian instincts are not shared by the majority.

I'll try to summarise my personal world view.

1. I'm an individual and do not want the government to make decisions on my behalf.

2. I am prepared to take responsbility for my decisions - good or bad and do not expect to be rescued by government.

3. I recognise that not everyone is so fortunate but believe that families, communities, local charity groups / churches and individuals are better placed to help their neighbour than central government (cf: tax credit fiasco, child support agency fiasco, any government IT project fiasco) and would do so more often and with greater will if the current nanny state let up a bit (preferably a lot)

4. Let more people keep more of their taxes and they'll spend the money more sensibly than will the government. Raising tax thresholds to, say, ?10,000 would do far more for the low paid individually and as a group than any amount of government hand outs. Such a "tax cut" could probably almost be funded out of the savings on the bureaucracy and errors that the current tax credit system incurs.

5. Businesses - big and small together pay more tax than total personal taxation and also contribute to society in the services / goods they provide, the employment and training they provide and, less often, in the buildings and premises thy create (I love looking at the Gerkin on the skyline and some of the new skyscrapers that big busines will bring to London look pretty nifty too). For these reasons I support their activities - tho' if they fail to deliver to their promises / my expectations you will see me in full on complaint mode until I'm satisfied - recent battles and wins include Virgin Media and their cable TV service, Virgin Trains and B&Q.

6. Public sector services are generally poorer than private sector services because of the inherent bureaucracy and tendency toward unnecessary administration. The NHS in concept (equality, equity and free at the point of delivery) is excellent - it's the management of the service that is so bad. I have no problem with taxes funding healthcare - but not government managing it. If the government were to use taxation to fund the care but allow private sector providers to deliver the care we would see a major improvement in service levels.

7. I have worked in public and private healthcare sectors here and abroad and it is these experiences that have led to my absolute conviction that business does it better than government. I will admit that I make an assumption that what I have seen in healthcare translates across to education, but what I've learnt is that the 1960s / 1970s state education level of service, quality, ethos and expectation that I was fortunate enough to enjoy was not easily found for my two children over the last 10 years.

Finally, I enjoy shopping on Lordship Lane because I get to know the shopkeepers and they get to know me. The relationship(s) make for a better experience. In its own way LL and EDF is an example of what I mean. It functions very well without a government. If Goose Green were to flood tomorrow would we all sit back and expect "them" / "the government" to do something or would local neighbours, churches, scout groups, pubs & restaurants et al turn to and help clothe, feed and house any victims. My sunny optimistic nature assumes that the latter would apply because we are a pretty self reliant community. Yes the government funded fire brigade would also be there - but it doesn't have to be government funded - there are plenty of models of volunteer / locally funded rescue services (the RNLI is just one).

[DaveR]

"That's an interesting point about libertarians, though. I've met a few committed libertarians, and without exception (so far) they are well educated, sensible, self-disciplined and responsible people. Two have been former US marines. If everyone was like them, then minimal state intervention would probably work. But unfortunately, most people are not."

If this is true, why is it that most people are not? Could it be because everybody expects 'the government' to solve their problems? Maybe most of us would discover some self-dicsipline if we had to take repsonsibility for our own lives and decisions.

Also, why do people always lump the essential principles of a market economy together with the unacceptable behaviour of some companies? The poorest people in a market-based democracy are invariably richer than the poorest in an equivalent authitarian state, and they know it. Slagging off market economics is a luxury availalbe only to developed world whingers.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Let me appropriate some land and I'll be happy to discover self-discipline and take responsibility for my life and that of my family, but the anti-state-interventionists, would want the state to intervene and stop me. I'm not allowed to do it my way, I am only allowed to be free to look after me and mine within the constraints of their laws.

I can't hunt or gather my food. I'm locked into a system in which I have no freedom, where the only thing important is economic growth benefiting the elite, who enact laws that stop us from taking what they have legally (cos they make the laws) appropriated from us. So until we get back real freedom, yeh I expect something back.

[SeanMacGabhann]

DaveR - the debate has been going so well - no need to degenerate into yah boo sucks type language

"The poorest people in a market-based democracy are invariably richer than the poorest in an equivalent authitarian state, and they know it. Slagging off market economics is a luxury availalbe only to developed world whingers"

If we DO have the luxury of "slagging off market economics" - or as I would prefer to describe it "addressing the obvious problems affecting even the best run economy", then that doesn't mean we should ignore it.

To address a specific point of MM's - namely:

"I have worked in public and private healthcare sectors here and abroad and it is these experiences that have led to my absolute conviction that business does it better than government. I will admit that I make an assumption that what I have seen in healthcare translates across to education, but what I've learnt is that the 1960s / 1970s state education level of service, quality, ethos and expectation that I was fortunate enough to enjoy was not easily found for my two children over the last 10 years."

This sounds suspiciously like someone who was never on the receiving end of the care in question. To reverse it - would I rather be a poor person needing medical care in the US or in the UK?

Ok if you have money and are used to certain levels of comfort then the rough and tumble of the NHS might be an affront to your senses - but considering what it is providing to everyone it's a small price to pay IMO

As for the 60s/70s ethos found in your education but not in your children's - is it not possible that the higher levels of taxation in that period meant a bigger fund for education, thus nurturing the staff and ethos you describe? I'm not saying that's the only factor but if the state ran a pretty good education system then, what's to stop it now?

[Jonboy]

MM, I am fearful for your long term safety, both in this virtual world and also in the real ED world. The expression of interest in such loony-right ideals as smaller government, a privately managed NHS and a market ecomomy will upset many of the militant Trots who hang out in here.

Try to bear in mind always when in this forum that market forces are evil. They allow people to freely choose what to buy, and where to buy it from. As an example, the evil emporium White Stuff will offer a range of clothes. If they are not what people want to buy, the shop will close. This is morally wrong. The shop should be prevented from opening in the first place, to protect us all from the evil intentions of its owners, viz, an interest in offering us a place to buy clothes.

Your crazy high-Tory spoutings will endanger all of us who have so far managed to be more discreet. Please, stop now as you put all of us in danger.

For the love of God MM, go back to Fulham. If you must stay here, then contact me. A bunch of us crazy neo-cons meet in secret at the top of One Tree Hill each week to read the Spectator - you're more than welcome to join us if you can be trusted.

[SeanMacGabhann]

as deranged a representation of the opinions on here as I would have expected there JB

Many of the people posting on this thread have supported the White Stuff opening

However as a concerned fan of democracy yourself, there is nowt wrong with discussing the potential dangers of big business corrupting the democratic process is there?

[mockney piers]

Exactly Sean. I've no doubt that private health care is 'better', ie cleaner with shorter waiting lists (though a goodly number of surgeons actually work for both and thus every private operation they perform adds to an NHS waiting list) than public.

But that's only available to the few.

If you can afford it then good for you (I've had health insurance through jobs for best part of a decade, and touch wood have not had cause to use it). I still pay my national insurance and am proud to do so.

But to say that therefore the market should provide health in this country is a = b b=c therefore a = c (NHS is struggling, private health care is good, therefore private healthcare will provide a better national service)

and entirely missing the point that Nationalised health is just that, for the nation, not for those who can afford it.

Like Sean says, assuming you couldn't afford private health care/insurance, where would you rather fall ill or have an accident. I for one wouldn't fancy it in the states. I'd also refer you to one Dr Reddy who has made a $300 billion fortune by having his hospitals suspend services such as chemotherapy, a birthing centre and mental health care as insufficiently profitable, and refusing treatment to uninsured patients, or is that customers?

[mockney piers]

err and another good point sean, as the world moved on during my lengthy rant.

Yep, pretty broad cross section of opinion on the forum.

I personally wish White Stuff all the best, I just think their clothes are sh!t. Should my mid-life crisis hit home soon and I feel the need to spend a fortune to look like a goan drop-out or a welly-brigader at the Henley regatta, then I'm sure I'll partake.

[citizenED]

Like JoeChuff, I like being nannied by the state. Democratic(sic) decisions made by well-meaning professional people tend to be fairer than decisions made by individuals. EG I am in my car and I want to park - markings on the road tell me where i can and where i can't. If it was left to me I might park in a place that is inconvenient to other people. EG I fancy buliding a big extention to my house. It seems reasonable to me but how do i know it is reasonable to my neighbours? Planning regulations give me the opportunity to find out. EG I am an employer and I think it is reasonable not to employ that disabled person. Someone else will employ them. Actually all the employers think like me so no disabled people get a job. Employment law guides me on what is fair.

Marmora Man, you state that you are an individual and do not want the government to make decisions on your behalf. Can I ask whether you afford that same privilege to everyone else?

citizen