You are in the company
of
Roger Warren Evans
Roger Warren Evans
|
|
You are in the company
of
Roger Warren Evans |
|
| Part of www.LivePolitics.net < Back to Home Page |
|
|
item0041B 712, 713 6 May 2003
This week sees another skirmish in the War of Foundation Hospitals. Sadly, the rebelling Labour backbenchers have - this time - got the wrong end of this particular stick, so have the trade unions. Let's go back to the proverbial Square One. Throughout the UK, our system of "local government" is in disarray. The Government is right to view the prospects with dismay: its LG 2000 Act reforms have failed to improve the situation. The "local Council state" still operates on the same principles as guided the Victorians, when they invented it. They conceived of local government (from the pre-Victorian Municipal Corporations Act 1835, to the formation of County and District Councils 1888/1894) as a way of "relieving Westminster" of painful local detailed concerns. The Commons was a place for gentlemen who ruled the Empire - they wanted nothing to do with drains, and refuse disposal, and water supply, and parks, and libraries, even schools - such mundanities were for the lesser local gentry to organise, without troubling Parliament. They therefore created a range of multi-purpose Councils, of which the urban "County Borough" (1888) was the prime example. These councils were multi-purpose "local states", with their own local electorates, their own local mandates. Their job was to keep local affairs off the Westminster Agenda. That model began to date, even before the ink was dry. For the Westminster State immediately began to grow. In 1906, the new Labour MPs campaigned for free school meals - then as Chancellor of the Exchequer David Lloyd George invented Old Age Pensions in 1908 - which was a massive new intervention by Westminster. Those pensions were funded by the Government centrally, but local agents (some of whom were elected Councils, but not necessarily) were appointed to administer the system. In 1911, the first national system of health insurance was launched. In 1919 the Westminster state first dipped its toe into the provision of public housing. And the Great Depression put the national "Dole" firmly into the political spotlight, superseding local systems of relief. The tentacles of the Westminster State were gradually extending. Then in 1945, the political world changed - with demands for Westminster to become intimately involved with the administration of the entire post-Beveridge "Welfare State", to administer local town planning, oversee the provision of working-class housing, running hospitals and local health services. Those demands have accelerated since then, yet the ramshackle Victorian "local Council state" has not been radically changed. True, some 1400 local multi-purpose councils were replaced in 1974 with 450 local multi-purpose councils, and there was further pruning in 1993 - the figure is now 410, still multi-purpose. In essence, however, it is the same ol' Victorian system, designed for the fin de siecle local VIPs and squirarchy - and now operated by a motley crew of aspiring local citizens and opportunistic politicians.  That system is
on its last legs, constitutionally and politically. It
has a good innings, for over a century. Labour seeks to displace it -
and I agree that it should be displaced.
In my view, it represents a system which has passed beyond the point of no
return. It is demoralising those who seek to work within it, both as
lay councillors and as professional officers.
Foundation hospitals
from part of that process of displacement.
Apart from that, there should be a multiplicity of representative institutions, relying principally upon democratic elective appointment. These would rapidly supersede the Victorian Councils which are disintegrating, before our very eyes. Their procedures would be designed to facilitate rank-and-file lay participation, with evening and weekend meetings, and citizen-friendly timetables. The the Trustee/Councillors should in all cases be placed in command of the professionals, who would serve the Trusts as employees. There would be created a rich matrix of public service opportunities, for all citizens. These trusts need not be territorially bound to common boundaries (as with local Councils) for their functional requirements vary greatly.
These would all be coordinated by the professional politicians, elected to serve at provincial and small-regional level. And there would be a statutory bar upon dual mandates: professional politicians would be required to vacate all their local Trusteeships, upon election.
Do you have any experience of this great century-long political saga? Drop me a line
7 May 2003 The International Optimism Agenda Globalisation has one consequence which no UK political party has yet grasped. It is that we must now cast all our manifestoes, both on the Right and on the Left, in terms which make sense globally. “Politics in one country” is no longer enough. I have made my own attempt to shape such an international political agenda, which would bring hope to all the peoples of the world (do not accuse me of timidity…) The result is that many of my middle-class liberal concerns find no specific place in the script. Civil liberties take a back seat, given this perspective, as do many traditional political freedoms - except indirectly, as a function of the Fifth Principle. But I have tried to be as honest as I can. And this is what the roll-call looks like – my slogans focus on -
For the young
- their entitlement is good peri-natal care, nurture and education,
encompassing the food and water needed for children to thrive and grow to
adulthood - this entitlement resonates in every society, in the priorities
and ambitions of every human being - the definition of adulthood is bound to
vary from society to society, and countries will long remain grievously
unequal in the extent of the assurance they can give to their young – but
every child is entitled to an equitable share of available societal
resources, in the struggle to reach adulthood.
For the old - the assurance of continued support in old age, as earning capacity declines - for human beings, as highly intelligent sentient creatures, the fear of impoverishment in old age is a common anxiety - the indications are that all societies will gravitate towards the payment of a state-guaranteed old age pension, and move away from reliance upon informal family systems - again, societies vary greatly, but all people are entitled to an equitable share of societal resources for the relief of anxiety and poverty in the closing years of life.
For the worker
- the assurance that employers will not abuse their power,
and that the loss of employment will not
trigger an immediate descent into poverty - the promotion of supportive
systems of all kinds, minimising the fear of unemployment and consequential
impoverishment;
For all,
healthcare
- a full personal life presupposes the ability to counter illness and
injury, coupled with access to protection against the ravages of illness and
disease - while societies differ very widely in their approaches to disease
and ill-health, nevertheless the individual is entitled to enjoy a
reasonable share, throughout the whole of life, of appropriate therapeutic
resources;
For every
citizen, the right to take part in the ordering of society
-
the full, fair and free opportunity to participate equally in the
life of society and its governance - political traditions and practices vary
widely throughout the globe, generating different opportunities for citizen
participation, but each human being is entitled to play an appropriate part
in the governance of society.
What do you think? Have I got it right? Drop me a line
|
|
|
|
Created by GMID Design & Communication COPYRIGHT NOTICE
|
New
NB
Some of my friends are puzzled my apparent conversion to the Blairite
Cause. Let me explain myself more fully.
The real
question is - What should replace it? Will the new
state be an improvement upon the old? Will the democratic processes be
effective? With foundation
hospitals, the issue is not merely one of health provision - it
is whether or not they succeed as new
institutions of participatory democracy...
That is the
Question. The new state should engage local citizens, on a scale
hitherto never before conceived, in the governance of their own local communities -
without requiring them to become professional politicians.
Equally, the professional politicians must be given high-level responsible work
to do - most of them waste their time on a thousand minor local tasks which
should be handled by local representatives, and not by the denizens of
Westminster at all - check out my own vision of