Cameron promises gentle approach to public service reform

David Cameron has set out his vision for the public services today in a speech to a conference sponsored by The Guardian.  He emphasised three themes for Conservative policy towards schools and hospitals:

1. More responsibility for professionals;
2. More localisation of power;
3. A gradual approach to reform to that changes are given the opportunity to succeed.

The speech began with a warm tribute to the NHS and its cross-party origins:

"The NHS is a truly non-party institution. It was inspired by a Liberal - William Beveridge - planned by a Conservative - Henry Willink - and introduced by a Labour minister, Nye Bevan.  Of course the three parties, then and now, have disagreements about how the NHS should be organised.  But we all share an absolute belief in its aims and values. It is one of the institutions - like the monarchy or the BBC - which binds us together as a nation. And the same goes for all our great public services."

The key section of the Conservative leader's speech promised a Disraelian pace of public service reform:

"In 1867, after he had secured the passage of the Reform Bill enfranchising working class voters for the first time, Benjamin Disraeli said this: "In a progressive country, change is constant; and the great question is, not whether you should resist change which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws and the traditions of the people, or in deference to abstract principles and arbitrary and general doctrines."  That is the spirit in which I approach the reform of the public services. I take inspiration from an earlier phase of reform - the changes to trade union law in the 1980s. Big bang reform was a failure. One-step-at-a-time trade union reform was a great success. Ferdinand Mount has called this the "long runway approach to political change", and the alternative "vertical take off followed by crash landing"."

The Guardian has interpreted this section of the speech as an attempt to "woo" public sector workers demoralised by constant change and reform.

David Cameron undertook to keep a number of Labour innovations - including Foundation Hospitals (but to increase their number), City Academies and trust schools (but to extend their freedoms), the  Decent Homes Initiative and the purchaser-provider split in penal policy.

The party's overall approach is summarised in this section:

"I want to briefly sketch the outline of an alternative design.  This alternative is - if I may borrow from the socialist phrase-book - the New Jerusalem: the liberal-conservative ideal.  It involves a diversity of independent, locally accountable institutions, providing public services according to their own ideas of what works and their own experience of what their users want.  It involves a government which acts as a regulator of services, not a monopoly provider - monitoring service standards on behalf of the public, but not always delivering them.  As George Osborne has said, it involves a Treasury which acts as a department for value for money, rather than trying to run every department and public agency from the centre.

It involves, most of all, individuals and families who are empowered with choice.  Pluralism on the supply side is matched with freedom on the demand side.  The public become, not the passive recipients of state services, but the active agents of their own life.

They are trusted to make the right choices for themselves and their families. They become doers, not the done-for.  Responsible, engaged, informed - in a word, adult.   And out of this messy creativity, this multitude of personal choices, comes what we all - left, right and non-aligned - want for our country.  Great public services for all. Decent local schools, which everyone, rich and poor, Muslim and Christian, wants to send their children too.

Housing which leads the world in beauty, in environmentalism, in comfort. Prisons which work, not just at keeping criminals off the streets, but at returning them to the streets reformed and healthy and employable. Local hospitals which are the envy of the world - but not the envy of the neighbouring town, because all hospitals in Britain reach the highest standards.  And this is the great paradox - out of freedom, comes equality. Those who oppose diversity argue that it will lead to inequalities. Yet surely we must accept that the attempt to eliminate inequality by central planning has failed. True equality is not the formal and oppressive standardisation of Fordism, but the natural balancing-out that comes from diversity."

Comments

[Mike Smithson]

That's a terrible picture of your leader Tim. Anybody would think that you did not like him.

[Priam]

Good stuff. If he comes through with the policies based on this then I'll be very happy indeed.

[Andrew Clarke]

"Good stuff. If he comes through with the policies based on this then I'll be very happy indeed."

That's not the point. He thinks what he has listed are the policies.

This depressingly unambitious list is why Project Cameron is going nowhere. No ambition to reform the public services. No ambition to lower taxes. Just vague aspirations and stupid ideas dressed up as reform, like making the NHS "independent."

Assuming the polls ever turn away from hung parliament territory before or after the general election, a Cameron-led government would shrink away from the challenges of the time, like so many other "consensual" Tory governments have.

[Valedictoryan]

Perfectly pitched.

[Andrew Clarke]

From The Guardian:

"The Tory leader used the closing address of the Guardian's two-day public service summit to promise that he would avoid Tony Blair's "mistake" of introducing a radical shake-up of public services the minute he came to power."

Since Blair introduced no such radical shake-ups, the "mistake" to which Cameron refers is leading people to believe that Britain's run down, under-performing public services would be radically reformed when in fact Blair and Cameron have never had such plans.

[Rachel Joyce]

I think the 3 points are just right. Gradual reform must however have a final objective (such as proper localisation). One of the problems of NuLab in the past 10 years is the absence of a real plan for public services(other than demoralisation of professionals and dumbing down of almost everything) which is why policies are yo-yo'ed and often contradictory at the same time.
As long as DC does have a final objective in sight in the lines of the first 2 points, I'll be happy with the gradual introduction.

[Richard Carey]

I'm pleased to see not just that we're treating the British people as adults here, but also taking an adult approach to public sercice reform. By this I mean not that we would agree with Labour's approach (far from it!), but that we're not making the same mistake that Blair did. Blair wasted his first term tearing up all Tory programmes, whether they worked or not, on the basis that they were Tory programmes. Then he wasted his second and third terms trying to re-introduce many of them with an unhealthy dose of bureaucracy and lack of respect for individual choice thrown in.

We shouldn't copy this frenzy of pointless reorganisation - if it works, don't tear it up purely because it says "New Labour" on the label. If it doesn't work,and alot of it doesn't, find something better - and let's face it, in giving more responsibility and freedom to professionals on the ground, in trusting people and in more local control we have some great starting points for that.

Plurality, innovation, localism - it's a good foundation for policy.

[James]

Criticising Blair for his "radical shake-up" of public services is a bit like having a go at George Bush for his consensual policies in the Middle East. Even Blair himself admits that he wishes he'd gone further in pressing for reform in public services (for reform read greater private sector involvement).

[Richard Carey]

Blair himself admits that he wishes he'd gone further in pressing for reform in public services

That may be true - and if it is, this might be the first time I've publicly agreed with him!

But in the context of DC's speech above, I wonder if the biggest problems wrought by Blairite reform have not been due to its timidity, but due to the rapid stream of tiny reforms, each designed to grab that day's headlines.

Leaving frontline staff in our public services in a state of perpetual revoluton while never giving them freedom to genuinely innovate has to be the worst of both worlds.

[Rob Turner]

"I wonder if the biggest problems wrought by Blairite reform have not been due to its timidity, but due to the rapid stream of tiny reforms, each designed to grab that day's headlines"

Even if Blair's timidity was not a problem (which is hard to accept as the case) then the solution is not the slow stream of tiny reforms that Cameron is proposing.

[Richard Carey]

Even if Blair's timidity was not a problem (which is hard to accept as the case) then the solution is not the slow stream of tiny reforms that Cameron is proposing.

I apologise if I mis-wrote above - I should have said: "I wonder if the biggest problems wrought by Blairite reform have not just been due to its timidity, but due to the rapid stream of tiny reforms, each designed to grab that day's headlines"

Small reforms in themselves are not so much the problem - small reforms can have a big impact if they are only small because they are done on the local level. But the unwillingness of New Labour to allow any reform the relevant time to bed in on a case-by-case basis is very similar to their continual drive to pile legislation on top of legislation instead of genuinely reforming services from the ground up.

[RedSam]

Is DC actually proposing anything new? He says that he disagrees with the way Blair is doing it, yet he won't reverse any of the key reforms of the current Government...

Sounds to me like its all talk and no action - especially as the public services are in need of reform, and Labour are moving forward with this.

[sjm]

Note: 'a government which is not a monopoly provider'. I like that statement very much, and anyone who wants to understand what Cameron is doing should start reading carefully what he is saying - because he is laying down markers without frightening the horses.

We've lost three elections by going in with guns blazing, and it hasn't worked. I'm somewhat to the right of Gengis Khan, but I still think we should be trying to understand Cameron and not condemn him.

[Opinicus]

@Valedictoryan
Perfectly pitched.

I don't suppose you could have done it better if you had written it yourself.

[WRONG]

"We've lost three elections by going in with guns blazing"

WRONG. Major, Hague and Howard were afraid of real reform, just like this one.

[EML]

I haven't read or heard the whole speech, but, from the extracts that the Editor has displayed, it sounds very good.

I particularly like Cameron's citing of Disraeli:

"In a progressive country, change is constant; and the great question is, not whether you should resist change which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws and the traditions of the people, or in deference to abstract principles and arbitrary and general doctrines."

The worst thing about socialism is its adherents' full-on pursuit of ideological perfection (i.e. Cameron's euphemistic "abstract principles"), without regard to present cicumstances and how the change would impact on these. What I think is the conservative way is definately what Cameron has outlined. It is clear he does have an ideal, he is idealistic (i.e. the "liberal-conservative ideal"), but he wants gradual change, reflecting constant progress in society and its customs and traditions, not forcing it through with central government.

Cameron has recently banged-on about the main difference he sees between Labour and the Conservatives: the former's socialistic top-down dictatorial approach, and the latter's social responsibility, sharing power between the people and the government. I think this is merely a reflection of the bigger difference between the two parties: Labour's ideological clunking fist against the Conservatives' pragmatic idealism.

[sjm]

Oh sorry, from where I've been standing right at the heart of election battles for the last 20 years, I thought we'd lost the last three. Silly old me. Quite obviously the, we don't need a new approach.

[Margaret on the Gullotine]

SJM - [i]Oh sorry, from where I've been standing right at the heart of election battles for the last 20 years, I thought we'd lost the last three. Silly old me. Quite obviously the, we don't need a new approach.[/i]

Isn't it obvious? We lost the last three elections because we [i]weren't right-wing or loud enough![/i] Simple! If we'd adopted a policy based on "Never, ever, bloody anything, ever", we'd be in.

[Rudyard.]

Cameron has really said nothing of substance since he came on the scene as the Leader.

Perhaps though,the deal he has cut with the hated LIB-DEMS will bring fruit,if it doesn't,it will certainly bring a fourth election defeat and probably political oblivion as well.

It's time to piss,or,get off the pot for Cameron and give the next in line the chance to lead,perhaps they really would take us out of the EPP and do something to get our fishing grounds returned to us.

[Mark McCartney]

>>if I may borrow from the socialist phrase-book - the New Jerusalem: the liberal-conservative ideal.<<

No surprise there. Socialist claptrap followed by the familiar vacuous waffle and no hint of a policy.

Cameron seems to have gone for a more pretentious speechwriter than usual. If I'd been in the audience I'd have floored Dave by asking him to tell us all about the historical giant Henry Willink (yet another Eton Boy).

"Fordism" is another Marxist term BTW. What a total sellout today's party has become.

[Mark McCartney]

And if Dave had been asked about Willink (who was Minister of Health until 1945 and charged with implementing the Beveridge Report) I wonder if he would have told us the following:

When Labour came into office in 1945, they presented their own plan in preference to Willink's, although they had supported it up until that point. The principal difference was that Willink's plan talked of a "publicly organised" rather than a "publicly provided" service, whereas Labour's plan brought hospitals into full national ownership. Bevan did however make concessions to General practitioners. Willink said in Parliament that the NHS would, "destroy so much in this country that we value."

[DavidDPB]

"The principal difference was that Willink's plan talked of a "publicly organised" rather than a "publicly provided" service, whereas Labour's plan brought hospitals into full national ownership"

You mean something like

"It involves a government which acts as a regulator of services, not a monopoly provider"

Cameron quotes a classic definition of conservatism by Disraeli, and apparently he's not conservative enough..........

[Jack Stone]

God that will really win us the election. Promise to take us out of the EPP, very few know what that even is and get our fishing grounds back, something I doubt is on the minds of many outside the fishing communities.
The only way to win the election is fight Labour on public services and the quality of life by having clear, moderate policys that will attract moderate hard working people to vote for the party not policys that only appeal to the loney right.

[Rudyard.]

Jack,the EPP and the return of our Fishing grounds were only mentioned by myself because Cameron used those two points when he wanted support to win the Leadership election.

I know it and so does the rest of the country,suggest you accept the facts that Cameron can not be relied on when giving his word on anything.

Come election time,the electorate will view Cameron as a Conservative who is not to be trusted.

In short,Cameron is already truly seen in the image of Bliar by most,and, as a Conservative-LibDem pro EU fan.

He,along with the thirty percent or so who are still supporting him will be the kiss of death for conservatism and the Conservative Party as we have known it in this country.

God help us if that happens.

[Rudyard.]

By the way Jack Stone,did you mean policies that appeal to "the lonely right?

Or,the lonely night?

Or,perhaps,the loonie right?

[David Sergeant]

"No surprise there. Socialist claptrap followed by the familiar vacuous waffle and no hint of a policy." 10.09

Just picked up this one saying as an example of some of the comments. I presume they are made by people who have been living in Antartica for the last 10 years. For a start, letting people localy make their own choices has never been socialism. Then there is the fact that evolution rather than revolution has always been the Conservative way.

At the the last election a small proposal to semi- privatise some aspect of the NHS got us nowhere. But what gets me about these silly (and they really are childish and silly) comments is that they never actually propose anything just throw insults about. Must be because Cameron is on the right track.

[Rudyard.]

Yeah,Sarge,Camoron is on the right track,if you say so, ok.

If you have a desire to be lulled into a false sense of security and well being you can believe that.

In the meantime the rest of us are admitting the truth and recognising the fact that nothing is being said that can be solidly banked,nothing is in the offing for bringing in new support,we are hearing dross and drivel,and,nothing of substance that will imply our aims for Government.

Mr Cameron is a Salesperson,nothing more.

He is the poorest example of a Conservative Leader we have ever had.

The Labour Party are silent and awaiting another victory while the Lib-Dems hover in the background,waiting to become the second political party of this Country.

[Valedictoryan]

Rudyard, since you have such fun playing with names, shall we have a competition to see what we can make out of P Wyatt? Are both the t's meant to be at the end?

[matt wright]

Very good approach by DC. Absolutely spot-on in terms of what is needed.

Matt

[matt wright]

Sorry just read Rudyard. What a complete load of drivel. Labour are worried sick as he would know if he actually got out a bit more. Labour councillors tell me this all the time, in many parts they have no helpers at all, in others councillors are resigning or looking to defect. As for the Lib Dems they are losing votes to us like a sieve now that we are becoming the mainstream party of Britain and not the shrill cold idealogues that scared them off. This can be seen in many local elections across the country. Does Rudyard live on a parralel universe or something?

Matt

[Hug a Druggie]

Spot on DC. What a wonderful man you are.