Very interesting fringe meeting last night on the Case for Lower Taxes. During the Q&A, someone “closely associated with” the Forsyth Tax Commission more or less confirmed they were recommending £19.5bn of tax cuts.
He also said the Commission did not accept such cuts would conflict with economic stability. They are easily affordable, even without counting the offsetting revenue growth tax cuts almost always generate, or the longer-term dynamic effects of lower taxes on economic growth.
As we blogged yesterday - and this week’s debates have put it up in seafront lights - the supposed conflict between tax cuts and stability is not an economic point. It is entirely political. Our top team fears that by arguing the economic truth, they would risk being portrayed as taking Britain back to boom and bust economics. It’s a sad commentary on our political process.
Two other interesting fringe events. First, Reform’s session with Andrew Lansley on the NHS, where Andrew gave a very clear presentation of the Party’s health reform agenda. Unfortunately, it is exactly the same agenda that Labour is so unsuccessfully pursuing already – tax-funded, free-at-the-point-of-use, centrally rationed treatments (NICE), commissioning “gatekeeper” GPs, and payment by results for hospitals.
Never mind all those fabled policy reviews: we’ve already ruled out the most exciting innovative ideas that could make a real difference. No competing social insurers, no co-payment, no putting the money in the hands of consumers. Apparently, to persuade voters “the NHS is safe in our hands” we have to avoid promising the only solutions that would actually work. There’ll be more of the same in David Cameron’s final speech this afternoon.
It’s pretty much the same in education. At yesterday’s lively Bow Group fringe, the splendid Chris Woodhead went up against David Willetts. With a lifetime of experience in education, Woodhead persuasively argued the case for giving the power to parents rather than politicians and bureaucrats, and giving ordinary state school parents the same rights enjoyed by rich parents in the independent sector. In other words, school vouchers.
But Willetts is not going to deliver anything like that. Confessing he’d once been “mesmerised” by vouchers, he’s now talking a very different language, the language of political control over not just the curriculum, but also school organisation (e.g. the vogue for synthetic phonics, and streaming). What’s the difference from Labour’s policies? None, other than “well, we’ll jolly well do this stuff, whereas they just talk about it”. Hmmm.
Do we really want an education system where the only choice most parents have is at the ballot box, between competing management teams offering virtually indistinguishable top-down policies?
PS Thanks to our esteemed Editor, Tyler nearly got famous this morning with a slot on the Today programme - I got my hair done and everything. Sadly, I was “stood down”: they must have taken a look at my telly tax rants on Burning Our Money and added me to their dangerous nutter list. Ah well.
Thanks for your report, Wat - even if it is all rather depressing.
Posted by: Richard Weatherill | October 04, 2006 at 11:52 AM
A report that seems to capture the flavour of the conference. As I'm stuck in Lancashire and having my conference experience badly mediated through "Auntie Beeb" thanks for this Wat.
Let's hope that some of the current thinking on health and education that you outline develops somewhat in the next 12 months.
Posted by: Adrian Owens | October 04, 2006 at 12:11 PM
I had a quick conversation on the steps of the Highcliff a couple of nights ago with a close DC aide - what resources, I asked, are being given to support the public service reform policy group, bearing in mind that Zac is bankrolling stacks of reserchers on the quality of life review? The answer, BTW, is that at present there's only one person co-ordinating it full-time. She's very bright and energetic, but she's not Superwoman and she has to cover health, education, social care and social housing.
But I was assured this didn't matter very much - "there won't be much differential between us and the government on public services - we'll be doing the same but we'll just do it better" (I paraphrase).
We have identified public services as a key battleground at the next election. We might need a more compelling narrative than that. Certainly the work & ideas that all the volunteers on the public services group are contributing deserve no less.
Posted by: Simon Chapman | October 04, 2006 at 12:23 PM
No surprises there, Wat. The strategy is classic Butskellite managerialism: "we will do exactly what Labour is doing but manage it a bit better" - loosely translated as the orderly (hopefully but remember Sept 1992) administration of ongoing decline.
Osborne claims to be worried about competitiveness and Cameron says trust the professionals in education and healthcare. Somehow I don't think they endorsing Eric Anderson, Cameron's old headmaster at Eton, who said yesterday that reintroducing selective state education is crucial if the UK is to meet the challenge from China and India.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | October 04, 2006 at 12:29 PM
Despite all of the waffle about change, Msrs Cameron and Osborne are the worst sort of conservatives - unthinking reactionaries. Lower taxes? Flatter taxes? Good grief, no! - steady as she goes, keep ploughing Gordon Brown's course.
Posted by: John Coles | October 04, 2006 at 12:53 PM
"e.g. the vogue for synthetic phonics, and streaming"
At least these approaches actually work which is some consolation.
Agreed though that the removal of political control is the most desirable path.
Posted by: Richard | October 04, 2006 at 01:06 PM
Wat
Blacklisted by the (Gordon) Brown Broadcasting Corporation? You must be proud
Posted by: Serf | October 04, 2006 at 01:16 PM
Simon's comments above are worrying.
In West Lancashire we are starting a political discussion group (along with a good curry!) to make our contribution to the policy review groups. We start tomorrow with the public services policy group.
The comments made by the DC aide to Simon appear to reinforce the cynics in their view that at least some of these policy groups are constrained in their remit and will merely pay lip-service to inviting comments and consultation having pre-conceived proposals in mind.
Taking the public services policy group as an example. Only late last week did they publish a document for consultation. It is written in a language guaranteed to put off all but the most determined, and asks for responses by 20th October.
Given conference this week, people will have barely 2 weeks to respond - this when the policy group won't itself report fully until the middle of next year - what sort of consultation is this?
We've set up monthly discussions to provide responses to each of the 6 policy groups but I hope that the others operate in a more welcoming and open manner than Stephen Dorrell's group.
Posted by: Adrian Owens | October 04, 2006 at 01:44 PM
I love these comments threads.
Enjoy your curries - but please don't imagine that your ideas will have any impact on anything or anyone.
All three parties have now clearly been captured by "professional" politicians whose only - ONLY - concern is getting and, once gotten, keeping power. Whatever it takes.
The Tories should win next time on the "time for a change" ticket. But what will actually change? Nothing.
Posted by: Chris | October 04, 2006 at 02:02 PM
I got the impression from watching most of the speeches and interviews, but from Willetts's and Cameron's in particular, that the NHS wouldn't be tinkered with too much, except ensuring that hospitals were given the option to gain Foundation status, but Blair's recent education reforms would be taken a bit further.
Did Mr Willetts specifically rule out too much more change?
Posted by: EML | October 04, 2006 at 05:03 PM
"the NHS wouldn't be tinkered with too much, except ensuring that hospitals were given the option to gain Foundation status,"
05:03
Well I hope it is, massive savings in the running costs can be made by simplifying its structure and scrapping targets etc, with regards to Foundation status, what does that really mean, isn't it a modern name for what were Teaching Hospitals?
Posted by: Paul Kennedy | October 04, 2006 at 07:41 PM
Two other interesting fringe events. First, Reform’s session with Andrew Lansley on the NHS, where Andrew gave a very clear presentation of the Party’s health reform agenda. Unfortunately, it is exactly the same agenda that Labour is so unsuccessfully pursuing already – tax-funded, free-at-the-point-of-use, centrally rationed treatments (NICE), commissioning “gatekeeper” GPs, and payment by results for hospitals.
Never mind all those fabled policy reviews: we’ve already ruled out the most exciting innovative ideas that could make a real difference. No competing social insurers, no co-payment, no putting the money in the hands of consumers. Apparently, to persuade voters “the NHS is safe in our hands” we have to avoid promising the only solutions that would actually work.
+++++++
Oh dear, oh dear, that is so depressing. More tinkering on the edges, maintain the bureaucracy, same comrades, different lapel colours.
Frankly, Gordon's plans might have more meat on the bone.
Dear, oh dear.
John
Posted by: Dr John Crippen | October 04, 2006 at 08:30 PM