No Conservative should ever use the expression "post-code lottery"

That's a conclusion from an article by Christina Dykes for the Local Government Chronicle (PDF of full piece):

"The expression 'post-code lottery' should be banned from the Conservative lexicon.  Conservatism is all about pragmatism, not centralised control.  If localism is to be realised then a variation in service deliveries and priorities should be expected."

Christina also wants Conservatives to stop using the term "equality":

"The term 'equality' also means something different to Conservatives and to old and new Labour.  To the latter it means equality of outcome; to the former it means equality of opportunity.  Nonetheless I know many Conservative administrations where boxes are blindly ticked when it comes to doling out public money to single issue groups on the basis of equality rather than need."

So much public sector speak is now designed to confuse and intimidate.  Christina Dykes is right.  Tories need to break through the jargon and say what we mean to voters.

Comments

[Yet Another Anon]

Certainly, giving the power to local schools and hospitals to run their own budgets and decide treatment priorities inevitably means variations from one part of the country to another, the general public have a tendency to complain both that there are variations locally, and that Whitehall is trying to control everything centrally and so not allowing doctors, teachers etc... to manage things the best way for people in their local area, and politicians generally have indulged the general public by promising decentralisation and also standardisation and the fact is that where there is decentralisation it will result in some variety and if it didn't there wouldn't be much point in doing it in the first place, an element of local variation means that a number of different methodologies can be seen in practice and local schools and hospitals will then be able to pick from the best resulting in national improvements.

[StevenAdams]

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but why are decentralisation and standardisation mutually exclusive? Why can local organisations not be given resources and flexibility, but only within nationally acceptable parameters? That would not be un-Conservative?

[Mark Wadsworth]

Excellent article, excellent. If some areas are doing worse than others, then by definition some are doing better. So the badly performing areas have a template to copy. It's all about trial and error and small, incremental improvements. Rather than giant leaps backwards as under the present government.

[Yet Another Anon]

but why are decentralisation and standardisation mutually exclusive?
The more decentralised the system, the less scope there is for standardisation, beyond a certain point standardisation would rely on voluntary standardisation locally to a national standard - through proper decentralisation, funding would be decentralised and people on the ground would be left more to fail or succeed. This would mean that because of local policies, some areas would do worse than under a centralised system and some would do better, otherwise if there is no variation then obviously claims of decentralisation would be a sham and no real power would have been given. A hospital decides to buy a particular set of drugs, they get it wrong and maybe it doesn't work properly or it costs too much, maybe in another area a hospital secures a good supply cheaply. One decides to do a particular sort of operation that nowhere else does, this means differences, allow money raising locally and some areas will be more successful in raising money than others.

[Praguetory]

I think I understand, but I use the term postcode lottery for national decisions such as the awarding of direct grants, bursaries, Lottery Funds etc. To have to move from Basingstoke to Wales to qualify for certain types of nationally controlled grants is an example of a postcode lottery. Similarly with provision of health services, Post Offices and many other state or pseudo-state services. What's the better term to describe these Labour imposed unfairnesses?

[David Sergeant]

This is a profoundly important point. If a Conservative government frees up local management in schools and hospitals you can be sure that Labour and the BBC will be hovering like vultures for the first foulup and demanding government "action". If there is no immediate foulup they will find two nearby hospitals with a noticable difference in - anything, and demand government action.

From day one there will be a need for crisis teams with political outlook to turn out, analise, propose (local) action and, yes, spin. I apreciate that Tories are not happy with this sort of thing but, bearing in mind the dodgy basis of the Labour/BBC aproach, fire will need to be fought with fire or more and more socialist type centralised political control will slowly accumulate.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Praguetory makes an excellent point, this is the other meaning of the term!

Which, in fact, is not a postcode lottery, it's a "Do you have a Labour MP and a Labour local council?" lottery.