New leader, new members, wins in the Lords – the fightback is on. But Liberal Democrats shouldn’t ditch the crucial debate about what the party is for.
A values-driven blueprint for opposition is essential, but doesn’t answer the killer question. If the Lib Dems didn’t exist, why invent them? The party cannot simply become a vessel for virtue signalling. I believe that a bold, liberal vision should rest on a progressive case for a smaller central state.
This ambition is usually framed negatively – but a smaller state is a positive ideal. I once joined a group exercise involving best-case and worst-case scenarios. The facilitator recalled running the exercise with two police forces. The first group’s ‘Hell’ scenario was ‘No police’. The second group cited exactly the same – as their ‘Heaven’ scenario. I hope Lib Dems would embrace the latter: how can the state focus not on self-perpetuation, but on supporting society to solve problems?
I’m not suggesting a campaign to abolish the police. But surely the long-term aim of such an institution should be to try – though perhaps never manage – to put itself out of a job? Lib Dem justice policy exemplifies a strong, distinctive liberal approach on reducing reoffending and reforming drug laws. These policies aim to reduce demand at source for ‘regrettable necessities’ such as policing, rather than indulging in hollow, expensive ‘tough on crime’ posturing.
The party should extend this approach to more policy areas, openly aspiring to a smaller central state and setting out a liberal vision for how to get there. Not through simplistic, disjointed budget cuts, or obsessing about state expenditure as a percentage of GDP, but through policies which empower individuals and communities; increase resilience and independence; challenge vested interests; respect subsidiarity and disperse power; and resonate through practical effect, not symbolic weight.
That means seeking the best outcomes, not joining a spending arms race on health, education and pensions as we have since 2005. It means devoting serious energy to addressing market failures and championing evidence-based but sometimes unpopular measures, resisting the easy option of regulation and targets – contrast the recent ‘five green laws’ to the previous campaign for a ‘green tax switch’. It means engaging with the detail of decentralising power – a crucial liberal priority on which Lib Dems were drowned out in Government – and ignoring ineffective centralist relics like the Regional Growth Fund, bizarrely featured in the 2015 manifesto. It means taking on Whitehall fiefdoms to transform public services. And it means tax and spending policies with clear, transparent revenue-raising and behavioural impacts – designed to maximise public benefit, not burnish a populist conception of fairness.
Despite the ‘small state’ tag often lazily – and erroneously – attached to the Conservatives, it is the Liberal Democrats who can make a virtue of this approach to policymaking. Following the Budget, Allister Heath described George Osborne’s ‘attempts to marry, not entirely coherently, a smaller state with extensive government intervention’. The pursuit of fiscal conservativism, without a counterbalancing vision of what a smaller state means and how to get there, is politically dishonest, socially destructive and something that Liberal Democrats must oppose. But the party should also use its freedom from the constraints of coalition to develop and communicate the positive small-state vision which the country needs.
* Max Parish is a pseudonym for a policy professional and Lib Dem member who is in a politically restricted post.
132 Comments
Encore!
Oh dear. Perhaps your addressing this to the wrong party.
A sensible and balanced argument which most people won’t read as they steam into making angry, “you’re a Tory” comments based on the headline.
Let’s build the free, fair, equal, green, sustainable decentralised Liberal Democratic society as envisaged in the Preamble to our constitution and elsewhere and then see how big the state is/needs to be.
I fear the approach set out above may be somewhat placing the cart before the horse.
Lol lol. The Uber Orange Bookers are not going away! To be honest, I don’t mind, as a counterweight to some of the left’s anti market thinking.
Most of the public believe in a smaller state, but this is because of the deficit, not as a political end in itself.
I just think there’s too many things to spend money on to have “reducing the state” as an end in itself. A medium sized state is the pragmatic option and it will provide us with security too.
“The party should extend this approach to more policy areas, openly aspiring to a smaller central state and setting out a liberal vision for how to get there. Not through simplistic, disjointed budget cuts, or obsessing about state expenditure as a percentage of GDP, but through policies which empower individuals and communities; increase resilience and independence; challenge vested interests; respect subsidiarity and disperse power; and resonate through practical effect, not symbolic weight.”
It sums up just how much personal animosity and antipathy towards the so-called ‘Orange Bookers’ poisons the minds of some Liberal Democrats that the above will be shot down in flames.
Just as a police force is a necessity because of social circumstances, so too is the state. And just as steadily reducing crime will reduce the need for a police force, so will steadily increasing individual wellbeing and prosperity reduce the need for a strong central state. The question for Liberals is surely how to achieve prosperity and wellbeing for all, equitably shared and distributed amongst all the people in our country.
@Neil
Perhaps you are if you think we’re a party that don’t appreciate a plurality of beliefs.
Stephen, I see your point – of course if there was less crime we’d need a smaller police force, but the problem is when people say they want a “small state”, people link it to cuts in benefits for the vulnerable, or cuts in their state wages, so most don’t want to support it.
“Perhaps you are if you think we’re a party that don’t appreciate a plurality of beliefs.”
He’s definitely talking about the LibDems then…
@Eddie “but the problem is when people say they want a “small state”, people link it to cuts in benefits for the vulnerable, or cuts in their state wages, so most don’t want to support it.”
Labour see the State as an end in itself; the Tories as something to be done away with. We (should) see it as something to have where necessary and only when necessary, as I believe the preamble makes explicit.
The arguments then tend towards necessity. This is easy to argue for in some cases but very difficult in others, and in those areas “Turkeys won’t vote for Christmas”
Eddie – ‘when people say they want a “small state”, people link it to cuts in benefits for the vulnerable, or cuts in their state wages’ – I want the benefits bill to be reduced but I want to do it by helping people to become economically self-reliant and responsible. Offering a helping hand up, not kicking away the crutch, if you will.
There are practical things we can do to reduce the long-term revenue spending of the state as well – e.g. building more social housing to reduce the housing benefit bill, investing in prevention and healthy living now so people are less reliant on the NHS in later life, and investing in green tech now so that our longer term expenditure on energy and finite resource is reduced. It’s about thinking intelligently and spending taxpayers’ money smarter, not taking a hammer to the edifice of the state indiscriminately.
Ultimately I see the state as an enabling tool for those individuals who need it to achieve the maximum amount of liberty and freedom in their lives that they can. If that makes me a Tory in the eyes of some, then so be it – that’s a fault of those who lazily assume not wanting to spend ever more money = conservatism, not of mine.
Excellent post. It really ought to be quite obvious that in a perfect world we wouldn’t need a police force – as there wouldn’t be any crime there would be no need. Likewise, in a perfect world we wouldn’t need a state…disagreements and other problems would either not arise or they would be quickly solved by citizens themselves in local negotiation, arbitration and independent courts.
The state, then, needs to exist to the extent that society is imperfect. The more imperfect society, the bigger the state that is needed to mitigate against that society’s imperfections. A state like Somalia or Afghanistan could do with a much bigger state. Developed states, assuming they are progressing, solving problems and moving forward, should therefore be needing less and less of a state.
If we are actually moving forwards, then we should expect to see the size of the state shrinking (Note that the raw national tax take as % of GDP is only a rough indication of the size of the state; there are numerous other factors). If it isn’t shrinking, then either we aren’t actually moving forwards, or we are doing something wrong – and both wasting money and infringing liberty unnecessarily.
Stephen, thanks, it is a newly sophisticated way of putting the argument. Well, new to me anyway. I am going to use it to counter the left: a big state is a sign of an inefficient society. The ideal society doesn’t need a big state.
Thanks to the author of this article for making the same argument too.
Addition to my above post: it isn’t the action of shrinking the state, that makes society more perfect; any more than shrinking the police force cuts crime (expect, perhaps in America!) Rather, a shrinking state (or police force) should be a natural consequence of progress in society.
@Eddie Sammon “Well, new to me anyway. I am going to use it to counter the left: a big state is a sign of an inefficient society. ”
But the left want a big state to ensure people behave how they want them to behave.
@Mark Wright “Rather, a shrinking state (or police force) should be a natural consequence of progress in society.”
And herein lies the problem; if there is less crime, and fewer police officers are required, police officers don’t want to be put out of a job. So they will vote for whomever says they will provide more police officers because crime isn’t really falling.
“a big state is a sign of an inefficient society.”
Eddie, that’s a fantastic way of putting it and one I will happily use myself from now on!
I fully agree with both of Mark’s posts, too.
For me the key phrasing here is the smaller central state, emphasis on central. While I might be happy with the proportion of the economy that is ‘public’ or ‘not private’, or even might see benefit in expanding ‘not private’ into other areas of society, I totally agree that the central state is not the ideal structure through which to run this public endeavour. Localism is the thing.
The big state is not an end in and of itself for liberalism. If you read the intellectual founders of socialism, its not really their aim either. But for both sides, it is a valid means to an end. As other commentators have said, big states signify inefficient societies that need interventions. They don’t necessarily cause the inefficiency, although they can prolong it if they are mismanaged. And shrinking them doesn’t automagically reduce the inefficiency. But the liberal utopia is surely a society in which everyone is sufficiently free from ignorance, poverty and conformity that they don’t need much in the way of intervention to set things right.
Ideological hacking away at the state-based interventions to free people from circumstances beyond their control won’t help, but neither will ideological attachment to structures that have served their purpose. The trick of course is in figuring out when something has actually served its purpose and phasing it out without simply re-introducing the problem that structure was brought in to solve.
Given that most of state spending is directed to our pensioners and will only increase given our aging population, how would you envision reducing those costs Max?
I hate to interrupt this sixth form debating club, but back in the real world, how can a market, for example, provide the best quality education for all, given that access is entirely dependent on the wealth of the parents? It can’t. That’s why why have a redistributive taxation system to take money from the older generation to protect meritocracy and future prosperity in the economy from the market that seeks to destroy it by entrenching privilege. There isn’t a Liberal in the western world that believes that the removal of State education except, seemingly, on this thread.
If your party is serious about wanting to win its voters back then the names of the individuals above need to be noted down and they need to be either removed or silenced from speaking in its name. You cannot have a political party that exists with an enemy within that seeks to destroy it and everything it stands for.
Max Parish
That means seeking the best outcomes, not joining a spending arms race on health, education and pensions as we have since 2005.
What are the rises in average cost of private health and private education in the decade? I think you will find they are substantially higher than the rise in spending on state provision of these services. So if private provision, facing market forces competition, can’t keep costs down, why do you suppose it would be so easy-peasy for state providers to do it, so easy-peasy that when they have kept cost rises lower than the private sector you call it an “spending arms race”?
Max Parish
This ambition is usually framed negatively – but a smaller state is a positive ideal.
What, in any case do you mean by “state” and why do you think the division between that and “non-state” is so important? In many cases whether something is legally state provided or not does not make a big difference. Why carry on arguing as if it’s the most important political issue? The rise of big business means the state is just one of several powers that rule us. I think it would be more useful to lump the state and the corporate world together as one entity, because that’s how most people see it. It could be called the “Establishment”. Just like in the feudal days when the “state” would be the King and the aristocracy.
Steve, I would happily enter a competition to produce the most electorally popular manifesto, because it is the main thing I care about.
However, the argument that if a society needs a big state then something is not right is a good one. This is better than just being happy with a big redistributive state. It is as if Gordon Brown economics is the height of human actualisation.
@Steve “I hate to interrupt this sixth form debating club, but back in the real world, how can a market, for example, provide the best quality education for all, given that access is entirely dependent on the wealth of the parents?”
Our current state education system is dependent on the wealth of the parents, given that access to the best schools is determined by the ability to afford a house in catchment.
A truly meritocratic system might use other measures, such as academic ability, for example.
Stephen Howse 5th Aug ’15 – 2:04pm …………..There are practical things we can do to reduce the long-term revenue spending of the state as well – e.g. building more social housing to reduce the housing benefit bill, investing in prevention and healthy living now so people are less reliant on the NHS in later life, and investing in green tech now so that our longer term expenditure on energy and finite resource is reduced……..
These are signs of a ‘larger state’….Who, if not the state, will invest in social, affordable homes? The removal of ‘state owned homes’ is THE major cause of the housing crisis…
“If your party is serious about wanting to win its voters back then the names of the individuals above need to be noted down and they need to be either removed or silenced from speaking in its name.”
Such a display of liberal tolerance and open-mindedness.
Whilst we believe that authority should interfere in people’s lives as little as possible, we are an internationalist party, which believes that people should co-operate with each other, however far apart they live. This is becoming increasingly important in an ever more globalised world. Communities need to be open in their dealings with other communities. Ultimately, humanity is simply a very large community. In a globalised world, life is made less stressful if, where appropriate, regulations are made compatible. What increases bureaucracy is not regulations being compatible between nations, but the reverse.
Having said that, the provision of infrastructure and facilities is essentially a local matter and is best dealt with by the communities which they are going to serve.
I am intrigued as to how this article seems to assume the ‘state’ and ‘democracy’ exist in separate boxes, and how much how big the people of the ‘state’ (or indeed different parts of it) want their ‘state’ to be seems to be treated as irrelevant.
@Matt (Bristol) if “the people” want a big state, then they are free to vote for big state parties. We aren’t; or shouldn’t be.
“However, the argument that if a society needs a big state then something is not right is a good one.”
Is it really? Does it hold any more substance than simply stating, for the sake of it and without any supporting arguments, that if a society needs a big private sector then something is not right? Not in my opinion.
Anyway, sorry if I’m seeming even more irritable than normal, but how far does tolerance stretch? If I joined the Lib Dems and started commenting next to one of those bird-things that, for example,shoplifters should be hanged, or maybe that workhouses should be reintroduced to teach the poor a lesson, would you all be happy with me commenting under the party name? Is there any kind of a line in the sand when it comes to the tolerance of absurd opinion?
@Steve “Is it really? Does it hold any more substance than simply stating, for the sake of it and without any supporting arguments, that if a society needs a big private sector then something is not right? Not in my opinion.”
Yes it does – on the basis that where a need exists, people, either acting mutually or through a company, will seek to fulfil it in their own self-interest.
@Steve “Is there any kind of a line in the sand when it comes to the tolerance of absurd opinion?”
The concept of the state as a safety net has a long Liberal tradition – including Beveridge – and not many would class that as an absurd opinion.
Steve, isn’t it a bit of a simplistic caricature, to respond to the idea that a liberal state retreats from where it is not needed with the charge that everybody here believes in a solely market based education system? I mean, it would be a cheap shot for me to then turn around and accuse you of wanting soviet-style collectivisation and the resulting queues for bread and failed five-year planning.
I mean, while the socialist idea of what society looks like in the post-scarcity stateless utopia its philosophy outlines isn’t very liberal, the notion of a society freed from scarcity that no longer needs the traditional organs of state coercion is common to both ideologies. I would say that as utopias, we don’t necessarily expect to actually make society function like them after a term of majority government, clearly I’m not saying abolish the state now. But as a broad strokes outlines of what our ideas would mean in an ideal world I think they’re useful.
I think the idea that ‘bigness’ in the state is on-off, a binary choice is intriguing and probably false.
The USA has allegedly a ‘small state’ model but a huuuge military and quite a complicated judiciary.
And if in a state where the active state involvement in, say, social care, is pretty small, but a very large non-state organisation or patchwork of organisations is state-sanctioned to carry out that work on behalf of the state (as with the Catholic church in Ireland in the past) – are we OK with that because the money backing that work does not come from ‘the state’?
T-J
“I mean, it would be a cheap shot for me to then turn around and accuse you of wanting soviet-style collectivisation and the resulting queues for bread and failed five-year planning.”
I’m not the one calling for an increased size of the state, so it would be a deliberate distortion to accuse me of wanting soviet-style collectivisation. On the other hand, people on this thread are calling for a smaller state, so to accuse them of doing so is accurate.
@TCO
“Yes it does – on the basis that where a need exists, people, either acting mutually or through a company, will seek to fulfil it in their own self-interest.”
What absolute tosh. On what planet does a ten year old child find the best education for themselves when they are at a serious financial disadvantage to other children? They have a need – they don’t have the cash.
Hi Steve, I know what you mean, and, I think the article went too far in suggesting that the long term aim of the police should be to “put itself out of a job”, but I’m in favour of keeping small state Lib Dems in the party. It’s not because I believe in it myself, it is because it acts as a counter weight to other views that I disagree with and principled debate is good.
Just to be transparent: I am not a member of the party, mainly due to personal reasons, but I maintain a keen interest.
TCO, I agree with what you have put there, particularly: “Labour see the State as an end in itself; the Tories as something to be done away with. We (should) see it as something to have where necessary and only when necessary”.
“New leader, new members, wins in the Lords – the fightback is on. ” No it is not.
We need to achieve Tim Farron’s wish for lots of local election wins .
TCO:
@Matt (Bristol) if “the people” want a big state, then they are free to vote for big state parties. We aren’t; or shouldn’t be.
Completely don’t agree. I can see totally that promoting the possibility of a smaller state as one of a range of options for the future of our democracy is well within the remit of the party — but I would say that driving forward a smaller state in the face of public opposition, and basically saying ‘vote for the other guy if you don’t want it’ is in my tiny, small opinion, antithetical to the liberal, democratic tradition. There needs to be consent from the people to the schemes of their rulers, and the rulers of a state need to be prepared to allow diversity in the expressions of the state, not pushing one model onto all the people on the basis of majority rule.
@ cllr mark wright
I don’t understand this, lib dem councillors and MPs always say things like this and they sound good. But when it comes to putting these ideas of cutting unnessessary state interferences into practice they’re against every single one. Some examples:
Housing. We could let builders build and not block housing developments and seek to tie the process up in as much red tape as possible. But in practice they almost always promise to block development and make things as difficult as possible.
Drugs. We could let adults use recreational drugs thst are less harmful than alcohol such as cannabis. But in practice the lib dems are almost always in favour of kicking in more people’s doors for this and seeing more arrests.
Free speech. We could let people say want they like and let other members of the public challenge or ridicule them when they say bad things. But in practice almost all lib dems are in favour of the government increasing the amount of things people are not allowed to say and want the government to dictate what you are and aren’t allowed to say.
How do you square these examples and the many others with your previous statement about wanting the state to do less and less?
Perhaps the reason there can be such conflict in the views expressed in this thread is explained by this article on the budget:
Robbed by George Osborne… while the royals play decoy
“That many of these [big] businesses routinely avoid paying corporation tax and, as the Guardian reported last week, are still handed £93bn in grants and hidden subsidies is simply further evidence of
why Britain has one of the most deferential, meek and supine citizenries in the world.
While most of Europe has experienced revolutions and other social convulsions, we and our ancestors have dutifully fought in the wars of empire and avarice and have our tummies tickled by the insincere smiles of a Walt Disney royal family.
Once, for a few golden decades, we had a Labour party that intervened to ensure working people might have a few of the benefits that had been the exclusive entitlements of the aristocracy: good health, decent homes, proper wages and a solid education. That party no longer exists and the final proof of its demise was written in Osborne’s budget. That some of Labour’s big ideas for alleviating austerity and inequality found their way into the spending plans of this latterday Sheriff of Nottingham tells us all we need to know of the extent of the harrowing of Labour. How radical can your plans be if they’re acceptable to George Osborne?”
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/12/budget-george-osborne-poverty-royal-family-decoy
The party should neither be “small-state” *nor* “big-state”, because when a policy suggestion comes up, the questions we should be asking aren’t “will this make the state larger or smaller?”
Rather, we should be asking how they serve the goals set out in the preamble to the constitution. We should be asking of policies:
Does this make society fairer?
Does it make society freer?
Does it make society more open?
Does it increase one of liberty, equality and community, without doing more damage to one of the others?
Does it help reduce enslavement by poverty, ignorance or conformity?
Some increases in the size of the state (for example universal education or healthcare) have undoubtedly done those things. Other increases in the size of the state (drug laws, ID cards, expenditure on military adventures abroad) have done the opposite. “Small government” versus “big government” is, like “left” versus “right”, orthogonal to those goals, and should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
In this magical world of small government no mention is made of big business. How curious.
It all seems rather woolly to me. Corporate power needs to be curtailed by state enforced regulations, the 2007-9 banking crises proves that.
Regulation of of course is an imperfect solution to market failures – of which there are many. However we resort to regulation because often there is no other way, unless you want to go the whole hog and nationalise.
I just want to thank Andrew Hockey for posting pretty much what I would. The state (and the free market) are means to an end but too many people treat them as ends in themselves, ignoring the people they exist to serve.
“I believe that a bold, liberal vision should rest on a progressive case for a smaller central state.”
Really? That sounds suspiciously like ‘Liberal Vision’ = smaller state.
For the foreseeable future I would rather see the ‘bold Liberal Democrat vision’ resting upon the harnessing of the liberal powers of the state to empower individuals and communities against the illiberal forces of the state, global corporations and anywhere else they may be found.
Well said:
A Social Liberal 5th Aug ’15 – 2:44pm
Matthew Huntbach 5th Aug ’15 – 3:41pm / 5th Aug ’15 – 3:49pm
expats 5th Aug ’15 – 4:08pm
Richard Sangster 5th Aug ’15 – 4:14pm
Matt (Bristol) 5th Aug ’15 – 4:24pm / Matt (Bristol) 5th Aug ’15 – 4:55pm / Matt (Bristol) 5th Aug ’15 – 5:05pm
Richard Underhill 5th Aug ’15 – 4:58pm
John Roffey 5th Aug ’15 – 6:07pm
Andrew Hickey 5th Aug ’15 – 6:18pm
Geoffrey Payne 5th Aug ’15 – 7:16pm
Nick 5th Aug ’15 – 8:04pm
Many excellent and positive mainstream social justice Liberal Democratic points.
Fair enough, Steve. Although my point was more that you somehow leapt from the idea that the state should retreat from where it isn’t needed but extend to where it is useful to the notion that somehow we all favour privatising all the schools. That I think was enough of a deliberate distortion on your part to raise comment, which was what my suggested response was trying to highlight.
@T-J
But spending less money not mean spending less money on health and education? – the article mentions: “That means seeking the best outcomes, not joining a spending arms race on health, education “. Less money on education means greater private provision to fill the gap or a lower standard of state education. The latter is precisely what I fear the Tories desire when they want to reduce the size of the state – they want state provision of health and education to be the bare bones US-style safety net. Then I read comments from TCO that “The concept of the state as a safety net has a long Liberal tradition ” and this confirms my fears that those opinions are not confined to the back-benches of the Tory party but also exist within the Lib Dems – a party I had hoped to vote for again under Farron.
To me, a safety-net education system is the opposite of a true Liberal approach. Liberalism is surely about providing the best and most equal opportunity for all, not consigning a greater part of the population to serfdom by denying them access to the opportunities enjoyed by the children of the wealthy.
I don’t think I’ll ever understand why some in this party create so many strawmen whenever anyone talks about having a smaller state. Do you genuinely think this means privatising the education system, or laughing merrily while the poor are forced into slums?
Hey what a great idea….. this smaller state….. Let’s put it in the next Focus leaflet……
Sell off the army as mercenaries,….. sell the Navy to Putin….. compulsory geronticide for older persons to save on pensions (special discount on Inheritance tax if opted for at 70 rather than 75….). Corbyn would be gone in four years and we could cut back on all those expensive carers sponging on the national minimum wage and tax credits…. Oh, Uncle Adolf had a way with the disabled. Compulsory sterilisation for the ‘feeble minded’ – don’t laugh – Churchill proposed this to Asquith in 1910 (fortunately HHA had more sense). All of this could save money and we could reduce the top rate of tax for billionaires like Richard Desmond (God Bless) and wow, we’d have a smaller state.
Cutting the size of the police force saves money. If you have less police, ergo, it follows the crime figures will go down……..waiting for Teresa to make that claim anytime soon. Of course the smaller state has been achieved in Leicestershire where they only investigate burglaries on even numbers in a street (see today’s Daily Telegraph). Not announced of course – and surprise surprise, the Police Commissioner wasn’t informed……. To be fair, if it had been announced supporters of the small state burglars profession would have restricted their activities to odd numbers only…(intelligence researched market forces).
I wish said Leicester burglars could be persuaded to nick a few copies of the Orange Book and file them away safely………..As for the anonymous Mr Parish…. .. ‘When will they ever learn’. The Orange bookers had their chance after 2010 and what a fine mess it got the party in.
PS Has anybody heard what happened to Dave’s ‘Big Society’ ? – Do you suppose ‘Mr Parish’ is a cover for a Dave re-launch.
Well of course if there was no crime you could shrink the police etc. But this is a fantasy argument. As for the rest of It, the size of the state is neither here nor there or liberal or illiberal, It’s what the state does that’s important just as there is nothing innately liberal or illiberal about private individuals, who can be just as oppressive as any despot. Personally, I would like to see a nicer fairer world. To me the main argument should be about how to devolve power away from the undue influence of wealth so we don’t go from democracy to rule by oligarchy or end up with some sort of kleptocracy. How for instance does a private individual end up owning land or water and why we enshrine this right in law is, to me at least, a much more interesting basis for argument than the size of the state
David,
The “Big Society” is inextricably entangled with the “Northern Powerhouse” I suspect!
From 1945 to 1979 the state was much bigger than it is now. Coal, electricity, gas, railways, buses, water and much more were publicly owned under both Labour and Conservative governments. During that period we had the lowest unemployment we have ever had. This was partly due to the employment provided by those same nationalised industries. The public sector was then subjected to relentless attack by Thatcherites and their friends in the media for years. Inefficient, overpaid, employ far too many people, cost the state too much and these successful industries were then sold off cheaply to the Tories’ friends and guess what? Unemployment rocketed and the concept of public service all but vanished from the privatised industries.
Now there were alternatives to privatisation, but even our party didn’t fight for them and now whenever it is suggested that for example the railways ( which were in fact the most efficient in Europe when they were privatised) should be brought back into public ownership, the idea is pooh poohed by our party as ‘old fashioned’ ‘out of date’ ‘unaffordable’ and we continue to have a ridiculous system whereby track and train are separated and there is no competition – which is what the privatisation was supposed to achieve.
So if you are going to start a debate about the size of the state, you have to begin by defining what you mean by the state and who will provide services needed by people like education, health and social care, pensions, housing and the like in the smaller state envisaged. Quite honestly the privatised industries are not a shining example of service provision as they have led to poor service and massive shareholder and management profit and extravagant salaries and bonuses. I am sure there are ways of reducing the interference of the state in some areas and of handing power back to people through devolution and federal structures.
This thread has yet to begin touching on the real debate and is just offering up hostages to fortune to our political enemies.
Good thoughtful post by Mick Taylor.
Prediction –
If the Party pursues the notion of the smaller state it will die.
1. A great many traditional radical Liberals – some of whom came back when there was a prospect of change post May – will finally walk off in despair. The Greens, the SNP (yes) and a Corbyn Labour will benefit.
2. Why vote for a ‘small state’ party with 8 MP’s when you can get an existing one in Government with over 300. ?
@Harry Samuels
“I don’t think I’ll ever understand why some in this party create so many strawmen whenever anyone talks about having a smaller state. Do you genuinely think this means privatising the education system, or laughing merrily while the poor are forced into slums?”
Unless you think that money grows on trees then reducing the size of the state directly implies that there will be an increase in private provision where the state has withdrawn and there is sufficient demand and a reduction in the quality of services for those who cannot afford the market rate. That is basic economics. It most certainly is not a straw man.
Steve, one point is that by ‘the state’, we don’t just mean ‘health and education’ and nothing else. Another is that more spending doesn’t always result in more success – it is clear from the New Labour years that after a certain point, structural flaws rather than underfunding become the limiting factors in performance and delivery. To take health right now for example, funding is currently the most limiting factor and some expansion is needed to meed the demands of an ageing society. Spending more is fine if its needed to achieve the outcomes we want, but the arms race approach, ‘you’ll spend £8bn? Well we’ll spend £16bn!’ isn’t the right way to address the problems.
To me, an education system that can be described adequately as a ‘safety net’ *is* one that provides equal opportunity for all children regardless of their parents’ wealth. It might sound luxurious for a safety net, but the safety it should provide is safety from being unfairly disadvantaged in life. I reject any Tory notion that such equality is anything less than a basic minimum and I would demand non-profit operation from any educational institution, although I suspect we’d still disagree over the role of non-state owned/operated schools in an educational policy.
Actually education is a good example of where enlargement of the state in one area can allow it to shrink without negative consequences elsewhere – a workforce educated to meet the needs of the modern world and equipped to continue learning through adulthood is one that inherently will require less intervention later in life, after all. And the resulting successful economy will need less support and generate more wealth and tax revenue for more people, and so on. That’s the point of the article. No to mindlessly slashing at things just because they’re ‘state’, but also no to just proposing ever larger sums to one-up the other parties on spending as if money is all that matters in policy – we believe outcomes could be improved while spending the same amount if control of the spending and the decisions were more decentralised, for example.
(well, I say ‘that’s the point of the article’… Putting words in whoever wrote it’s mouth, but that’s how I read it anyway.)
@Mick Taylor
I don’t think many people would argue that the current rail framework can’t be improved… But have a look at this graph of rail usage:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/GBR_rail_passenegers_by_year.gif
You are harking back to a golden age that didn’t exist.
@T-J
You must have read a different article to me. The one I read has the title: “A smaller state is a liberal ideal to be proud of – the question is how you get there”
i.e. the size of the state is the liberal outcome – nothing to do with value for money – nothing to do with targeted spending enabling spending to be reduced in other areas as an outcome. No. a smaller state is, apparently, a more ‘liberal’ state, which makes about as much sense as saying that a purple state is a more liberal state.
@Steve I note you’ve not responded to my point about the current state school system providing only selection by ability to pay inflated housing costs
Well, Steve, in the end goal of a society completely free of poverty, ignorance and conformity it is hard to imagine what a state might do, except watch for any backsliding on that freedom. Because you’re not really free from those ills if the only thing standing between you and them is a state intervention, you’re free of them when they structurally do not exist in the society that has been created.
Obviously we don’t live in such a society and won’t do in any credible foreseeable. But as I said before, a future society where the traditional organs of state coercion have withered away through lack of use is an end goal liberalism and socialism have in common. The trick is, as the critically important second half of the title says, how you get there.
A smaller state is not a liberal ideal it is a libertarian idea and we should not pretend otherwise. However we should be pursuing policies to empower individuals and communities, challenging vested interest and dispersing power. It is not liberal to use taxation policy to change behaviour. It is liberal to use taxation policy to break up power bases and increase opportunity for the disadvantaged. Market regulation is a liberal tool to control power.
A liberal approach would to be to increase the number of elected representatives and so involve more people in the decision making of governments and abolishing elective dictatorships. If it was easier to get elected then a wider cross-section of the community might get elected. If everyone elected took part in the decision making process then more people will wish to be elected. Therefore having more people elected to the different levels of government will mean that governments in total will be bigger.
@ Stephen Howse
“Just as a police force is a necessity because of social circumstances, so too is the state. And just as steadily reducing crime will reduce the need for a police force, so will steadily increasing individual wellbeing and prosperity reduce the need for a strong central state. The question for Liberals is surely how to achieve prosperity and wellbeing for all, equitably shared and distributed amongst all the people in our country.”
Is there any evidence that wellbeing and prosperity for everyone can increase, coupled with a more equal society without a large role for government (the state) at all its different levels?
An interesting “acedemic” essay on classic liberalism. But in the real world the UK isn’t ready for this type of pure liberalism. Perhaps in a country far,far away with a pure society, pure market and unicorns it would work.
What Mick Taylor said !
Mick Taylor 5th Aug ’15 – 10:42pm
If I was about to organise a trip to the Conference for 20,000 new members of the Liberal Democrats – would I arrange a private jet, charter an entire train, hire a fleet of coaches or book an ocean liner?
Or perhaos use Über to arrange sufficient dubious, fly-by-night, mini-cab merchants?
A bicycle would be smaller than all of those — would that make the bicycle best – because it is smaller?
Or would the small-state enthusiasts complain because the transport has not been reduced to a uni-cycle?
@Michael BG “If everyone elected took part in the decision making process then more people will wish to be elected. Therefore having more people elected to the different levels of government will mean that governments in total will be bigger.”
This presupposes that there is a large body of people desperate to become elected representatives. The evidence for this isn’t strong.
@William Jones “An interesting “acedemic” [sic] essay on classic liberalism. But in the real world the UK isn’t ready for this type of pure liberalism. Perhaps in a country far,far away with a pure society, pure market and unicorns it would work.”
Perhaps in the “real world UK” people have been told for too long, by politicians left and right, that more government is always the answer to their problems, so find it difficult to make the mental shift required to consider their problems in a different way.
William Jones
Before WW2 crime was remarkably low in Britain because people were honest. The saying ” I may be poor but I am honest ” was common. Prior to the mid 60s there was very little graffiti, litter or vandalism. Before WW1, for many people there was little evidence of the state apart from the postman. It was the need to fight and win WW1 and 2 which greatly increased the need for the state.
If one looks at crime prior to the 1980s it was very easy to steal cars. Making cars more difficult to steal and introducing double glazing to homes which can be locked , has greatly reduced theft , not the police. Disease related to obesity has increased because people lack the ability to control what they eat and are too lazy to exercise.
If one wants a small state then one needs an emotionally mature , industrious , honest helpful and responsible populace which would reduce the demand for the Police, health services , welfare and waste management services.
@John Tilley “If I was about to organise a trip to the Conference for 20,000 new members of the Liberal Democrats – would I arrange a private jet, charter an entire train, hire a fleet of coaches or book an ocean liner?
Or perhaos use Über to arrange sufficient dubious, fly-by-night, mini-cab merchants? A bicycle would be smaller than all of those — would that make the bicycle best – because it is smaller? Or would the small-state enthusiasts complain because the transport has not been reduced to a uni-cycle?”
And here we have the thinking of a big-state enthusiast neatly encapsulated.
I wouldn’t be organising anything for 20,000 members, John. I would expect the 20,000 members to organise that transport for themselves, choosing the most suitable method according to taste, convenience and budget.
If some of those 20,000 members were unable to get to conference because they couldn’t afford it, or needed advice about how best to go there, I would put them in touch with others who might be able to help them or help to organise a fund to support those who might need such assistance.
What I absolutely would not be doing is telling them what they should be doing and providing only one way to do it.
I think many of the naysayers may be missing the pint here. To suggest that reducing state involvement in people’s lives must mean abandoning state education is a bizarre leap of logic.
I’m sure the writer isn’t suggesting smashing away at help for the needy either. What I think he/she is saying is the following:
1. Government led solutions shouldn’t be regarded as an end in themselves.
2. As a general rule, liberals should seek to empower people where possible, rather than the state.
One point that was missing from above seems to be the concept of ‘harm’, a key part of liberalism. If a reduction in state activity might cause harm, then liberals should ask questions.
Additionally, I find myself reluctantly agreeing with some of the points made by David Wallace, especially on housing. We’re often too quick to latch onto populist issues, local and national, (often ones that result in illiberal state intervention) diluting our identity as a liberal party.
Charlie
Some facts which spoil your glowing version of the 1930s when the sun always shone and people were so jolly honest.
“Recorded crime in-creased by 5 per cent a year between 1915 and 1930; by 7 per cent between 1930 and 1948”
– See more at:
http://www.historytoday.com/victor-bailey/crime-20th-century-britain#sthash.TpWclytk.dpuf
@Max Wilkinson
“I think many of the naysayers may be missing the pint here. To suggest that reducing state involvement in people’s lives must mean abandoning state education is a bizarre leap of logic.”
It’s not bizarre in the slightest. On what grounds can state spending be reduced without affecting areas such as education?
“1. Government led solutions shouldn’t be regarded as an end in themselves.”
Straw man. Nobody in this discussion has said that. On the other hand, we do have an article calling for a smaller state as an end in itself. You are attacking your own argument.
“2. As a general rule, liberals should seek to empower people where possible, rather than the state.”
Nonsense. The ‘state’ and the ‘people’ are not opposites. If, in a particular area, the state empowers people, e.g. through funding of education through progressive taxation, then its withdrawal will help to enslave people. You have created a false dichotomy; one that flies in the face of evidence-based policy and one that flies in the face of the questions posed by Andrew Hickey.
@Charlie “Before WW2 crime was remarkably low in Britain because people were honest.”
I think the reality is that in a pre-consumer society, there was very little for people to steal. And the opportunity to travel to areas with richer pickings was limited because people didn’t have the transport to get to and from those areas and take their ill-gotten gains away.
I do like what Andrew Hickey writes.
To put it another way, I am considerably more interested in the purpose, accountability, flexibility, humanity and accessibility of these things that together we call the ‘state’ than I am in an abstract measurement of their ‘size’.
If I thought the state was the answer under all circumstances I would be arguing for the nationalisation of Trinity House and the RNLI, to take 2 examples. If I thought the state ought always to be the minimum size possible, I would be arguing for an immediate cessation of grammar schools without democratic consultation in all parts of the country, purely on the grounds of inefficient duplication of buildings and resources.
This binary choice the article presents is a false choice.
However, the article is right to point to the funding-promises ‘arms race’ which does not always help the political debate, in part because of the ‘castles in air’ approach of many political parties. One way to address htis is with the costing of manifestoes by the OBR or another regulator-type body. But wouldn’t that be an enlargement of the state?
@Steve “On what grounds can state spending be reduced without affecting areas such as education? ”
By looking at areas that the state doesn’t need to provide, and by getting better value from the money it does spend.
“”Government led solutions shouldn’t be regarded as an end in themselves.”
Straw man. Nobody in this discussion has said that.”
But you start every argument with the presumption that the state must provide.
“Nonsense. The ‘state’ and the ‘people’ are not opposites. If, in a particular area, the state empowers people, e.g. through funding of education through progressive taxation, then its withdrawal will help to enslave people. ”
Nonsense. The State can tax people and provide funding, but provide that funding to the people to enable them to choose from a range of providers rather than offer them a one-size-fits-all solution. Progressive taxation and state-funding; multiple provision. A very Liberal solution.
@Matt (Bristol) “If I thought the state ought always to be the minimum size possible, I would be arguing for an immediate cessation of grammar schools without democratic consultation in all parts of the country, purely on the grounds of inefficient duplication of buildings and resources. ”
You’ve lost me. Why single out grammar schools, and not all state-provided schools?
I do love these ‘small state’ arguments…..They are always so plausible until the reality of implementation takes over…
Max Wilkinson6th Aug ’15 – 9:20am
“I think many of the naysayers may be missing the pint here. ”
Whereas the ‘yeysayers’ have clearly had rather too much of the said pint 🙂
TCO
There is evidence that the bombing in WW2 led to gangs looting homes and even the dead: this is how Mad F Frazer started his career in crime. Many of those who evaded conscription were criminals. In the countryside , people often did not lock their homes when went into the village .
The problem with the state is that it is monopoly and the employees do not admit their mistakes. The failures in the NHS due to aquired infections are largely because people have not admitted there are problems: in particular Mid Staffs. The increase in the life expectancy of the industrial working classes by up to 20 years s in the period of 1860-1914 was due to improved sanitation yet the importance of cleanliness appeared to have been forgotten in some hospitals.
One way of improving the State is to treat every manager like a ship’s captain. Th captain is responsible for any mistakes by the crew but is able to fire those not good enough. The reason why the RNLI is so good is that many of the crew are fishermen and have the best possible knowledge of the sea and coast and if they make a mistake , they will die.
When it comes to education , many British public and grammar schools have existed for centuries . If they did not do an adequate job children would not attend them and they would close down. Many public and private schools have closed because they did not provide a good enough education which is good. The fact that so many Labour politicians have chosen to educate their children either in grammar and public schools or comprehensives which were former grammar schools in affluent areas , shows why choice is important.
When it comes to the Police, how many of the problems because they lack competence in certain areas but people either lack the knowledge or confidence to point out their failings?
Irrespective of the size of the state, how can one make it work effectively when the employees will not admit their failings and politicians lack the ability or will to remedy the problem? The greatest beneficiaries of the increase in the size of the state since 1914, has been the people employed by it.
Charlie 6th Aug ’15 – 10:24am…….Irrespective of the size of the state, how can one make it work effectively when the employees will not admit their failings and politicians lack the ability or will to remedy the problem? The greatest beneficiaries of the increase in the size of the state since 1914, has been the people employed by it……
Reads like the Conservative handbook for beginners…. Private good; Public bad.
Of course the benefits of state education, pensions, healthcare, sanitation, welfare, etc. pale into insignificance compared to employee convenience
@TCO
“But you start every argument with the presumption that the state must provide.”
I haven’t started a single argument with the presumption that the state must provide. What I have done is attack the notion that the private sector must provide that is implicit in wanting to reduce the size of the state for the sake of reducing the size of the state. .
“Nonsense. The State can tax people and provide funding, but provide that funding to the people to enable them to choose from a range of providers rather than offer them a one-size-fits-all solution. Progressive taxation and state-funding; multiple provision. A very Liberal solution.”
This article is not about ‘choice’ or about a one-size-fits-all solution, it is about reducing the size of the state. However, let’s engage with your tangential argument – if everyone has a choice about which schools their children go to then how is it decided who gets in to the oversubscribed schools and who is left to go to the failing schools? That’s right – it’s down to how much the parents can afford to spend on a house in the right area. That is a removal of liberty for the children of the less well-off under the banner of a simplistic ideology that does not provide the choice it alludes to.
@Charlie I have a lot of sympathy for your arguments, not least those about education.
I think the “failure to admit failure” point is a good one, but its nor limited to the public sector. It also happens in the private sector; the issue is what is done about it and the consequences of not dealing with it, and how that differs between and within the sectors.
For example, one might argue that incompetence in the private sector leads (or should lead) to business failure or closure if that incompetence is not addressed. However the example of the Banks means this doesn’t always occur. The problem there, of course, is size, and why as a Liberal I seek to dismantle monopoly or monopolistic behaviour.
Your point about the Ship’s Captain is a good one. Fundamentally this boils down to organisation(al) size. I am aware of research that shows that the optimal size of a human organisation is around 200 – possibly evolutionary, on the basis that such a grouping is sufficient for everyone to be known to each other and to permit the bonds of trust and co-operation that are so beneficial to organisational performance. The key is to have as much autonomy as possible in larger organisations so this smaller grouping is the one that takes primacy.
@Steve “However, let’s engage with your tangential argument – if everyone has a choice about which schools their children go to then how is it decided who gets in to the oversubscribed schools and who is left to go to the failing schools? That’s right – it’s down to how much the parents can afford to spend on a house in the right area. That is a removal of liberty for the children of the less well-off under the banner of a simplistic ideology that does not provide the choice it alludes to.”
This is the situation we have now.
My argument is that to get round this problem you make access to schools determined on ability, and provide a school best suited to that child’s aptitudes.
For some that might be a top independent school (and the state should pay their fee if they were able to get in – yes, just like the assisted places scheme that was scrapped by Labour).
For others that would be a technically-oriented school. For yet others, that might be a very broad, general school. And for others again that might be an academically-focussed grammar school.
@Steve ” haven’t started a single argument with the presumption that the state must provide. What I have done is attack the notion that the private sector must provide that is implicit in wanting to reduce the size of the state for the sake of reducing the size of the state. .”
What about the mutual and voluntary sectors?
Was it just me who didn’t find this a challenging read? I seem to have been one of few who understood it.
To reiterate the key part of the article that distinguishes a liberal approach from a Tory one:
“Not through simplistic, disjointed budget cuts, or obsessing about state expenditure as a percentage of GDP, but through policies which empower individuals and communities; increase resilience and independence; challenge vested interests; respect subsidiarity and disperse power; and resonate through practical effect, not symbolic weight.”
@Steve – “if everyone has a choice about which schools their children go to then how is it decided who gets in to the oversubscribed schools and who is left to go to the failing schools?”
The “right on” (and non-liberal) answer to that question is obvious: deny everyone a choice by making the entire system a lottery and so cause significant disruption and inconvenience; just as we’ve seen in Brighton and Hove…
Max Wilkinson 6th Aug ’15 – 12:01pm …………..To reiterate the key part of the article that distinguishes a liberal approach from a Tory one:……………..
“Not through simplistic, disjointed budget cuts, or obsessing about state expenditure as a percentage of GDP, but through policies which empower individuals and communities; increase resilience and independence; challenge vested interests; respect subsidiarity and disperse power; and resonate through practical effect, not symbolic weight.”………….
…..Who could disagree with “empower individuals and communities; increase resilience and independence; challenge vested interests; respect subsidiarity and disperse power; and resonate through practical effect, not symbolic weight.” the only things missing are “Mom and apple pie”…
No details of ‘how’, just ‘lovely, flowery language…
@TCO
It’s a crude argument I know, and I think I meant ‘selective schools systems’, but what I was trying to suggest was that an argument that critiques the state purely from the utilitarian perspective of it size and perceived efficiency must surely look at those local authorities where there are multiple schools on multiple sites for children of the same age and think ‘there is duplication of recource and structures here; let us remove this unnecessarily unwieldy over-usage of recourse by the state’ (of course, this would not prevent streaming and selection within schools, so I did mis-speak.
I find it interesting that yourself, for eg, who is a proponent of grammar-school type models of education and of reducing the state, does not admit that many grammer school systems actually increase the state’s expenditure.
Now, I am not a fan of forms of selective education whereby seperate institutions are created that segregate people from one another, but I think if there is a democratic will for it in diffferent parts of the country, that diversity of systems could and maybe even should be permitted and even fostered (as it has been up to now).
But you do not seem to feel that diversity or democracy should stand in the way of state reduction across the board (unless your enthusiasm for the concept has led you somewhat to over-speak). This is not a liberal argument but a utilitarian argument.
And can some of those who are promoting the idea that the party should have as a driving aim the reduction in the size of the state please produce a definition of ‘size’? Is that in terms of its expenditure, its freedom of aciton, its legal powers, its legal responsbilities / duties, its variety of forms, or what?
I am not saying that the party should not critique the unquestioning growth of the state. But I am saying that this is not the same thing as assuming its longterm goal is to always in all circumstances to reduce the state (which is a concept capable of multiple definitions).
It would perhaps help if he specified what these policies are. Typically if you want to reduce the size of the state you implement a programme of privatisation and spending cuts.
Typically UK Liberals believe the best way to empower people is not to reduce the size of the state, but to decentralise it, bring the power of decision making closer to the people whom it effects through elected local government and government intervention to encourage more worker cooperatives and mutuals.
I apologise for the many typos and errors in the earlier post! I hope its coherent enough.
Charlie, with regard to your (legitimate) concerns about the NHS not being prepared to admit to failure – why do you think we have laws which places a duty and protection on NHS staff to whistle-blow, but does not extend either of these to private healthcare staff?
In the long run, who was being protected from ‘admitting failure’ by this law?
@Matt (Bristol) 6th Aug ’15 – 12:40pm
To take your specific point regarding Grammar Schools – under the Direct Grant scheme we had schools that accepted state-funded pupils that were, otherwise, independent schools (50% fee-paying, 25% county-funded and 25% central government funded). These were in the main the grammar schools that existed prior to post WW1 expansion and the 1944 Act. Following the abolition of selective education these schools were given the option of becoming comprehensive schools or returning to being independent schools. Most reluctantly chose the latter route in order to preserve the ethos and attributes of their schools, and sought to continue to admit less well-off pupils by using the assisted places scheme (until it was scrapped) and then through bursaries.
The position I would argue is in support of reducing state provision; that is, I have no objection to progressive taxation but would seek to see diversity of provision and funds following the service user.
@Geoffrey Payne “Typically UK Liberals believe the best way to empower people is not to reduce the size of the state, but to decentralise it, bring the power of decision making closer to the people whom it effects through elected local government and government intervention to encourage more worker cooperatives and mutuals.”
Co-operatives, mutuals and voluntary organisations are not “the state”, so what you are advocating is a reduction of the state. This is no different to offering plurality of provision, except that you choose to exclude private organisations from this list.
The best way to empower people is to provide them with the means to engage the services best suited to their needs and be agnostic about how those services are provided.
A smaller state is not a Liberal ideal. Liberty, equality, peace and community are Liberal ideals. A smaller or larger state can be a means to a Liberal end. Liberty, equality and community can be helped or hindered by the state or by the market or private or voluntary sector organisations. I agree that seeking regulatory solutions is often not the best way. I agree that we must push hard on devolution – and sort out our position better first. But devolution does not necessarily lead to a smaller state – just to a smaller central state.
Much depends on what you mean by ‘big’ and ‘small’. I am comfortable with ‘big’ measured in money when it corresponds to an efficient health service, good education and decent welfare etc. But that doesn’t mean it should be bigger than it has to be – in other words to be ‘big’ in the sense of ‘obese’. To explain …
I once worked for a subsidiary of a well-known UK company. Although I didn’t have much to do with the parent group, it was obviously grossly overstaffed – but that didn’t make it efficient. For instance one time we put up a proposal that would have made megabucks. The parent company board agreed it was a great idea but concluded (rightly in my view!) that the group wasn’t nimble enough to execute it. Later, (by which time I had moved on) a new chief executive eventually tackled the flab with quite astonishing results – within two years the headcount was halved and the company nearly doubled in size as it took advantage of its new-found nimbleness.
I think the public see the government as horribly bloated so we ought to proposes solutions. The Conservatives understand this but use it as cover to attack their pet hates and hand big chunks of the public sector to their cronies despite lack of evidence for the said cronies’ efficiency.
Following on from my earlier comment another way another way a state can be big is when it creates an unnecessarily BIG FOOTPRINT in people’s lives. That may involve being big in money terms but often it doesn’t. And it’s something that, for all their claims to be the party of small government, the Conservatives do big time.
Much of this is driven by the top-down control-freak instincts of much of Whitehall. (Sadly, the Lib Dems are as culpable as anyone else.) Hence the proliferation of insane numbers of measures that are mandated on everyone and reported up the line so that the Men from the Ministry can monitor and control events. Targets are puppetry for civil servants and ministers, creating the ability to pull the strings while staying at a safe (i.e. deniable) distance from the inevitable resulting mess-ups. Hence in part also the tilt towards the big players (companies etc.) because these are easier (because less numerous and also more likely to have efficient bureaucracies) to engage with rather than smaller firms or ordinary folk. Hence also the ever-increasing number of ‘Czars’ to oversee this or that. They are the antithesis of pushing responsibility and authority down to the coal face.
This approach creates a tidal wave of paperwork and complexity that people have to somehow cope with but don’t expect them to be happy about it. For the many who aren’t wizzes at paperwork it pushes them relentlessly towards operating on the fringes where one of the core skills necessary is knowing which bits of the system can be ignored or circumvented. That amounts to a huge hidden overhead as many small businesses understand.
All in all this is remarkably reminiscent of the Soviet system. It didn’t work for them and isn’t working for us – what a surprise!
There are better ways of doing things but it will require a revolution in thinking. Is Farron up for it? We shall see.
Gordon, by any chance are you talking about the difference between a “grand” state and a “gros” state?
I suppose what socialists would call “grand” conservatives and many liberals would call “gros” (gross).
Bit of a French lesson for people there!
@ TCO 6 Aug 15 8.33am
“This presupposes that there is a large body of people desperate to become elected representatives. The evidence for this isn’t strong.”
They may be lots of reasons why people don’t consider that they could make a difference by being elected to public office. One of them I believe is that they don’t think being elected will mean that they will be taking part in making the decisions. Another is the thought of representing lots of people. If they were elected by their road they might be keener. I don’t know of any societies where there is an elected representative for every road. To have such small constituencies or wards might be impractical but moving to smaller constituencies (wards) should help towards making those elected more representative of those who elected them and for them to be less remote.
@ TCO 6 Aug 15 9.51am
“By looking at areas that the state doesn’t need to provide, and by getting better value from the money it does spend.
“The State can tax people and provide funding, but provide that funding to the people to enable them to choose from a range of providers rather than offer them a one-size-fits-all solution. Progressive taxation and state-funding; multiple provision.”
Firstly the quest to get better value for money is also a goal of state provision. To have a state monopoly provides the normal economic benefits for the supplier when a monopoly.
Secondly, for there to be a number of providers there is some waste. Taking a very simplified example – all the producers of loaves might produce 100 loaves a day for a population of 100 people, so every individual will be able to buy a loaf if they want to. But some will not buy one than day because they don’t eat bread or because they still have enough left from yesterday.
So with health, I need to see a specialist. I do my market research; I interview a few specialists and decide which one suits me. The Specialist bills me and I pass this bill on for the government to pay and the government pays it no matter how high the bill is. This system gives me total choice, control and freedom but is ineffective and wasteful. It also assumes that I can carry out the market research to discover the best specialist for me.
Expats
I never said Public Good , Private Bad. The people who have benefited the most from unemployment and low pay are the civil servants working for state who distribute welfare payments. For those employed in distributing welfare payments would lose their jobs if the unemployed and low paid became well paid. As Cicero said “Cui Bono ?”
TCO
Thank you for your comments . Size is part of the problem. Once an organisation becomes a certain size it is difficult to assess whether it is performing well or poorly. It is quite possible for large organisations to perform extremely well in parts and be utterly useless in others. What I think is important is that people who make mistakes suffer the consequences . At Mid Staffs and other hospitals, mistakes by staff did not result in their death but that of the patients. In an occupation where mistakes can result in death or injury , people tend not to be indifferent or casual such as bomb disposal operators, trawler skipper or RNLI coxains : it does not matter whether it is private or public. I would suggest that as fewer people undertake jobs where they could be killed, maimed or injured people can afford to be less practical .
When it comes to the private sector , where there is competition , people have choice. The problem is where there is private monopoly and crony capitalism when there collusion between companies, politicians and state employees.
Once savers deposits are protected , I think there is no reason why we should not allow banks to go bust. Prior to 1987, merchant banks, stock brokers and jobbers were partnerships and when partners made mistakes , they lost money. Barings went bust because members of the family did not make the effort to understand and control N leeson which is as it should be. Once partnerships became PLCs , the risk taker were protected from their mistakes. The shareholders were the main losers.
There is always the risk that organisations can be run run for the benefit for their employees and not their clients. How many investment managers actually beat Tracker Funds and in fact benefit themselves more than the investors?
Once humans are insulated from the reality of their mistakes and know they will not suffer, they can become indifferent, and careless be they work in the public or private sector.
What do you actually mean by a small state? Are some of you railing against the public sector employees & managers who are so inefficient or do you believe that accountable government is impossible (it’s us who vote for it but…) If you think that decisions should be devolved to the appropriate level to efficiently reflect the needs of those people that is fine provided you are prepared to accept the impact or the vociferous usually articulate minorities.
I am 76 years old. All of the good things in my life have come from the stat starting with the post war Labour Government – lifetime employment, affordable housing, higher education up to the age of 26 and a decent occupational pension.
Some people think that the private sector is, by definition, more efficient. If this is the case can someone explain why we don’t manufacture our own British (volume ) motor cars, Busses (Mercedes now) large commercial ships, railway rolling stock (from Japan now) white goods, TVs. All of the s privately owned enterprises and more have gone. Can I suggest that incompetent British management is the cause despite the blame being heaped on the workforce which is now efficiently producing for foreign companies.
The State, intrudes. Financially, Socially, biologically and Intellectually. When we are born, when we die. Marriage, Driving, watching TV. It decides that we should go to war, while we have no choice and suffer. Is it the business of the state? if so why? Obviously, we need some sort of order and structures via the Law. The Laws that affect Liberty, seem to be too many, to tough. The laws and Justice, on serious matters of crime, seem to be useless.
The State should be a spark, that is only seeen when it is needed when no other option is there. Other than that people should be free to do as they please. within common sense and respect for others.
Example, if somebody had some drugs (or alcholic drink), for personal use, some say, it shouldn’t be a crime. But, if a person takes some drug, then drives or operates any machine and, the causes death or injury, clearly somebody has lost their Liberty. It is a personal duty, to never affect others Liberty, via your own, negative actions of taking subtances, illegal or otherwise. Also, there shouldn’t be laws that will encourage Euthanasia. Life should be protected. War, should be a ‘Us or Them’ priority for the state, we have to act, to protect the country. We shouldn’t attack for no ethical reason.
Simon Arnold
Excellent comments. I think any organisation and tradition needs to justify it’s existence and purpose.
I think your comments on Laws are very relevant and it appears too may appear to exist to employ lawyers. In 1215, 25 barons , the Lord Mayor of London and a few clerks drafted The Magna Carta which has influenced for th better , 800years of law making yet modern society appears to draft legislation on matters such as self defence and emptying waste bins which only attract ridicule.
Lincoln said ” Government of the people , for the people and by the people.” When the state( politicians and employees) is scared of the people there is democracy and when the people are scared of the state there is tyranny.
No I’m not looking back to a golden age that didn’t exist. Had British Rail been given the money that private rail companies have been given they would have been able to put in the much needed (and often sought) investment that the government consistently denied them. Yes, we have achieved growth in rail journeys but at about 2-3 times the expense it would have cost BR to do the same job. Just look at the rail services in France, Germany and Switzerland to see what state owned railways can achieve.
This ‘golden age’ argument is often used by people who think the private sector is the answer to everything! You ask the travelling public what they think about the farce that passes for rail services in this country and their constant refrain is ‘Bring Back British Rail’.
By the way, no-one appears to answered my challenge to start defining the state and explaining who should provide the services we need.
@Mick Taylor “Just look at the rail services in France, Germany and Switzerland to see what state owned railways can achieve.”
I’m not familiar with SNCF or SB but there is a fundamental difference between how Deutsche Bahn is structured and how British Rail was.
As I understand it, DB is to all effects a private company where the German government is the majority shareholder. It has considerable autonomy and is able to structure and pay, and go to market for investment, as any other private company would. Dividend returns are paid into the German exchequer.
British Rail was run like a branch of the Civil Service with considerable government interference.
Those of us who do nopt blindly accept the mass privatisation of former state industries are basically being accused of being ‘big staters’. This is of course nonsense. I actually think the wrong question is being asked. What Liberal Democrats should be asking is ‘what works’? Despite the protestations of the ‘small staters’ there is considerable evidence that some industries, especially natural monopolies like gas, water, electricity and railways work better when run as a public service than as private monopolies. Anyone who looks dispassionately at these industries in particular can see that there is no real competition and the result has been high prices, poor value for money and rotten public service. If anyone seriously believes that the current system of competition in the power industries is real they need to switch their attention to other countries where publicly owned companies provide excellent services at lower cost. It is surely telling that the current system allows a state run French power company to provide power in the UK.
Now before anyone rushes in, let me be clear that there are privatised companies that are better that way. The telecoms industry has seen an almost continuous fall in prices because of effective competition between BT and the myriad of mobile and satellite phone providers. It was clearly nonsense that Cable and Wireless was publicly owned and some of the privatisations made economic as well as political sense.
What I want is a serious case by case analysis of the institutions of the state – both those that are state run and those that were to see what the best way is to provide the services a modern and progressive society needs.
TCO’s argument in favour of a progessively-funded state working largely to make provision where possible through intermediaries is interesting (and to an extent this has always happened and is already happening in many walks of life) — and in fact, he is arguing somewhat for the ‘1930s Irish social care’ solution I mentioned above, except he sees the range of possible partners for the state as being multifold and feels there is in LibDemmery a prejudice against commercial providers.
Now (and with the example of Kid’s Company very much in mind) the problem of effective delivery rears its head.
In a hypothetical world where the state works as much as possible in all walks of life through partner institutions, it is possible that the powers and resposibilities the state would need to referee, regulate, audit, inspect, remove and replace (where neceesary) those providers and hold them to account effectively to ensure the citizen is receiving the required service that is right for their needs at the right level of quality an respecting their legal rights and personhood could actually end up being quite extensive, and possibly even sometimes intrusive and irritating to the citizen.
Is this not in fact a different form (a regulatory form rather than a provisionary form) of ‘big’ state, rather than a ‘smaller’ state?
@Matt (Bristol) you raise a pertinent point. Part of the problem with Kids Company, as I understand it, was a failure of internal governance because Charities are not held to the same standards of account (and accounting) as companies. So, for example, a company providing elderly care service is (or should be) subject to regulation and inspection.
I don’t think I’m actually that far away from some of the other posters here – who think I’ve got OB demon eyes – I’m pragmatic. There is a role for state provision, and even extension into some areas. But I think we as a party are often too wedded to one way or the other. We should be open to trying different solutions and legislating to make this easier to happen, whilst maintaining effective governance.
For example, I see that some volunteer mutual groups running heritage railways are looking to operate regular services to connect in with scheduled services.
@Matt (Bristol) “Is this not in fact a different form (a regulatory form rather than a provisionary form) of ‘big’ state, rather than a ‘smaller’ state?”
You raise an interesting point.
You might say it’s a descriptive rather than prescriptive form of the state. Certain standards should apply, but as long as those standards are met, providers are free to provide in the best way they see fit.
There are alternative models for this, of course – going back to the DB point above (when it’s released by the Mods). DB is a private company with an independent board, and a light-touch government owner who allow it autonomy. Which is a very Liberal approach.
Gordon
Much of this is driven by the top-down control-freak instincts of much of Whitehall. (Sadly, the Lib Dems are as culpable as anyone else.) Hence the proliferation of insane numbers of measures that are mandated on everyone and reported up the line so that the Men from the Ministry can monitor and control events. Targets are puppetry for civil servants and ministers …
Yes, but what you have missed out is that all this targetting and top-down pressure has been introduced by the sort of right-wing mentality of the author of this article. It has always been argued for on the grounds “public sector bad, private sector good, public sector full of lazy people who don’t have any pressures so don’t do a good job, so make the public sector more like the private sector by introducing all these targets, using them to remove job security, and they will cut costs and increase efficiency to pay for the budget cuts that we are making”.
Mick Taylor
Now before anyone rushes in, let me be clear that there are privatised companies that are better that way. The telecoms industry has seen an almost continuous fall in prices because of effective competition between BT and the myriad of mobile and satellite phone providers.
The computer industry has also seen an almost continuous fall in prices. I can buy a computer now which would cost a few days’ income where some years ago a computer with that power would cost a year’s income. But is that due to the computer manufacturing industry having been in public ownership and then privatised and opened to competition? No, it’s due to technological developments.
The free market fanatics always raise telecoms to argue the case “public sector bad, private sector good”, and it’s a bit suspicious that they do it so consistently with just this one example that you might wonder perhaps it’s the only real one they have – and they completely disregard, when they use it, the extent to which what they report as improvement is down to technological development rather than the ownership and management issues.
Simon Arnold
The State, intrudes. Financially, Socially, biologically and Intellectually. When we are born, when we die. Marriage, Driving, watching TV. It decides that we should go to war, while we have no choice and suffer.
So you think it would be better for any big company or private organisation to decide to go to war?
Gordon
I think the public see the government as horribly bloated so we ought to proposes solutions.
Is that because it is, or because they are continually told it is by the right wing press and the very well-funded right-wing pressure groups all pushing the “public sector bad, private sector good” line.
The Conservatives understand this but use it as cover to attack their pet hates and hand big chunks of the public sector to their cronies despite lack of evidence for the said cronies’ efficiency.
Consider the “finance industry”. What actually is it? What does it make? What does it do? It’s bureaucracy, the bureaucracy of capitalism. It exists to organise things so that other do the making and servicing of real things well. We need bureaucracy, in a complex society we need organisation. But bureaucrats often forget their job is service, and start thinking the job of everyone else is to service them. They will forever come up with arguments about why they are so essential and need to be well paid and there needs to be more of them. So, consider the bureaucracy of capitalism. Is it efficient? Does it need to be like that? Does there need to be so much of it with its bureaucrats so well paid? Or have they taken advantage of their position to build a cushy life for themselves at the expense of everyone else?
Isn’t it maybe the case that talking about the government being “horribly bloated” when actually we have seen Thatcherite cuts in it continuously for decades now is a distraction mechanism?
And when the free market fanatics argue back “but state spending as a proportion of GDP hasn’t gone down”, might that not be because those cuts aren’t working? That is, you make a cut which saves money on the budget in the short term, but the impact it has resulting in emergency demand for higher spending elsewhere later negates it several times over?
Mathew Huntbach
The problem in any organisation which does not have to provide an adequate service to survive is that it can become one where it ends up being run to service the employees.
The RN up to 1815 was very effectively run because if people made mistakes , especially where strong winds were blowing towards reefs or the shore , people could die. Admiral Byng was executed because he did not do a good enough job.
By the late 1970s , much of the nationalised industries were run for the benefit of the union leaders. If the union leaders had been interested in ensuring employment for their members they would have understood advances in technology and trade in the rest of the World. A classic example is that the ship builders failed to realise the closure of the Suez Canal for 8 years would increase the size of ships, especially oil and bulk ore carriers which combined with advances in construction in Japan and S Korea, meant ships went from 50,000T to 500,000T in 1-2 decades. The introduction of containers coincided with the development of larger ships which as meant a 90% reduction in the employment of dockers.
The increase in size of bulk ore carriers reduced the transport costs of coal and metal ore. The Mississippi River can take barges carrying 250, 000T. Ravenscraig was built inland and should have been on the coast.
By the mid 1980s , the average world price of coal was £32/T and British was £44. Overmanning of un and semiskilled workers put up prices. Post 1973 and the economic recession there was massive over supply in coal and iron. Consequently British, steel , coal and shipbuilding was over priced , had poor delivery record and the industries lost money. High steel and energy costs ( due to coal prices) and late delivery increased costs and delays for industries which were steel and energy intensive ( heavy steel fabrication for example).
The reason ship building stopped on the Thames in about 1860 was that the larger ships could not be launched. The reason why British shipyards lost out from the 1960s , was exactly the same reason London did in the 1860s: they could not large enough ships , quickly enough and enough of them.
Every organism has acycle of life. How does one ensure organisations do not exist for the sake of existing and to benefit their employees not their customers?
Matthew Huntbach. I wasn’t raising telecoms for the reason you suggest, but only to argue that not ALL privatisation has been bad. Much of it has viz: power, railways and water. As Liberals we ought to be able to distinguish between times when public sector provision is necessary and when the private sector can provide. Sadly many in this thread are just using dog whistles instead of reasoned argument.
@charlie. Showing that some nationalised industries were not operating as we might like them is not, per se, an argument for privatisation. It is an argument for reform and efficiency and possibly an argument for Trades Union reform as well. The problem with the Tory privatisation programme was that it didn’t distinguish between industries and threw out the good with the not so good. So a highly efficient British Rail was privatised in about the most stupid manner possible and rather inefficient water companies were allowed to make huge profits on an essential of life, instead of being obliged by ministers to make the efficiencies that were later forced on reluctant private owners..
I got a response saying that worker cooperatives and mutuals are not the state, which is true. However my point is that the state needs to intervene to encourage worker cooperatives and mutuals because without that intervention they are very rare indeed. The most widespread default for capitalism is top down authoritarian management of which the set up of the TV show The Apprentice is an extreme but not uncommon example.
Excellent points, Matthew [email protected]
A prime example of the stupidity of the ideological smaller state is the selling off of council houses at below market rates which leaves the tax-payer forking out even more to cover the cost of private sector rents in addition to the loss realised during the sale. There are countless other examples from the last three decades.
@Geoffrey Payne “The most widespread default for capitalism is top down authoritarian management of which the set up of the TV show The Apprentice is an extreme but not uncommon example.”
Isn’t this the most widespread default for any human endeavour? Or perhaps I mistook what happened in Russia, China, Eastern Europe, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela and any number of African countries.
Geoffrey Payne 7th Aug ’15 – 1:52pm
Did Alan Sugae copy the format from Donald Trump or someone similar when he was in New York?
Feedback from successful candidates is that businesses are not run that way, it is an elimination process in recruitment.
For those who believe that Housing Associations are the answer….
From “The Guardian”
“One of the largest housing associations in the UK last week announced it would no longer build social housing. Instead, its chief executive said, it will only build homes for sale, for rent at full market rates or for shared ownership.
Furthermore, Genesis housing association, which owns and manages about 33,000 homes around London and the south-east, will consider selling or raising the rents on its existing social homes once they become vacant.
Like all housing associations, Genesis was founded to provide cheap housing for the UK’s poor – but it’s now decided the poor are no longer its responsibility .The chief executive of Genesis reportedly said housing low-income families ‘won’t be my problem’
For some time many housing associations have argued that they will diversify into other markets (such as building homes for sale or shared ownership) to ensure that they can still deliver their core social purpose and values. This has meant many associations have become more commercial in their approach so as to create profits to invest in low-rent homes that poor and low-income people can afford.
The danger in this approach is “mission creep”. What starts off as a strategy to make money in order to fund social housing eventually becomes the main purpose of the organisation. I’ve referred to this before as the slow death of social housing and it is exactly what has happened at Genesis.
Mick Taylor
The 1963 Water Act pushed for investing in sewage treatment which would have pushed up the water rates. Labour run urban councils did not want to push up the rates so parts of the 1963 water act were not in acted. Eu water regulations forced water authorities to spend on improving treatment ,which would have been irrelevant if the 1963 water had act had been implemented . Also, like council runs landfills , sewage treatments works were run and regulated by water companies . Part of the reason for privatising water was that it enabled charges to be increased to pay for investment . Setting up the NRA created an independent regulator to control sewage works, steel works and coal mines which were major polluters. The worst run landfills were council one from 1974-1994: many leaked and there was illegal acceptance of waste at weekends for money. Crown immunity meant hospitals and M O D sites were not prosecuted for pollution. One cannot have an organisation which is gamekeeper and poacher.
The seamens, dockers and Clydeside strikes of the 1960s combined with the closure of the Suez Canal in 1967 and increase in ship size to up 500,000T meant construction moved to Japan. At 80,000T , the QE1 was the largest ship buil ton the Clyde.The increase in the size of bulk ore carriers led to reduction in cost of transport and hence cost of steel production, power generation and construction costs where steel was used, in many foreign countries Development of electronic and computer controlled equipment from the mid 1960s led to automation and reduction in the employment of un/semiskilled labour .A former draftsman told me he called a scab for learning how to use CAD, when he worked in the Barrow ship yards in the early 1980s.
Increased ship size led to the reduction in the number of seamen and to British companies employing foreigners : officers remained British. Strikes led to delay in delivery, poor quality and lost orders . Dock strikes encouraged the introduction of containers which can now be loaded automatically. Cars are made in Britain because unions have learnt their lessons; they cannot control the evolution of technology and trade, especially in other countries.
As TIm has said, small state = weak citizens. Couldn’t agree more.
Matthew Huntbach,
I think you’re mistaking the meaning of my earlier comments and leaping to unjustified assumptions about my views. An illustration may help.
The government has been boasting about plans to create 3 million apprenticeships. But why that number? Why not 2.5 or 3.5 million? I suspect the real reason is that it’s impressively large and it’s much easier to count inputs than useful outputs.
Yet on the radio recently Prof Alison Wolf, one of the country’s foremost experts in the field, was utterly damming saying it was a wholly irrelevant plan and that 100,000 “great apprenticeships” would be better than 3 million of the token sort the government plans.
It’s a total disgrace. Great for the top bureaucrats perhaps, probably hugely unrewarding for the junior ones who have to make the unworkable work. It’s seriously deficient in integrity and a fraud on both the youngsters and taxpayers. It’s also, in the sense I meant above, institutional bloat and obesity. Public funds would go a lot further if the government managed them responsibly. People get that and it makes them mad.
Of course you can’t ultimately separate the efficiency and integrity with which government works (or lack of in the above example) from macro outcomes. When government wastes money on eye-catching initiatives, on PFIs, on feather-bedding the City and the rest it creates an ever-growing ‘failure deadweight’ for the economy to carry. We see this in un- and under-employment, falling productivity, excessive housing costs, perma-crisis in the NHS etc.
There will always be concerns that the public sector doesn’t work as effectively as it should. The Conservatives make a virtue of (a) worrying about this (i.e. putting themselves on the side of the voters), and (b) having a plan. Their plan (privatisation, market disciplines, targets etc.) doesn’t work in any objective sense although it’s turned out to be immensely profitable for their cronies – which is a feature not a bug. Attacking them politically ought to be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.
To discuss how the economy should be run one has to use the much the same words the neoliberals use. Please don’t jump to the conclusion that means that those that do have the same agenda.
TCO – a top down form of management may well be the default behaviour for most societies whether capitalist or Marxist. That surely is the whole point of the Liberal Democrats – to use the democratic state to decentralise power because decentralisation will not happen otherwise.
Sorry Charlie, you still haven’t made the case for privatisation, because a determined government could have made the investment needed and introduced reform, as has happened in opther countries. What you fail to answer – and please bear in mind that for me this applies mainly to power, water and rail – is the argument that privatisation has resulted in excessive price rises, indecent salaries paid to executives and a focus on profit and not on customers. Whereas nationalised industries had an ethos of public service, private companies providing public services do not. They also provided work. It is actually better to pay people to work (and thereby pay taxes and contribute to the economy) than to pay them to be idle. Thatcher and the Tories ripped out the heart of the British economy by their relentless privatisation programme resulting in a huge cost to the taxpayer in welfare payments because the new private companies dispensed with the jobs of thousands of people to make sure they were profitable.
Some objectivity is called for and repeating the myths put about by the Tory press to discredit state run industries is neither sensible nor convincing.
Matthew Huntbach.
No.
I see no valid reason, why ‘The State’ and, the ‘Private Sector’ cannot work together. Think of the BBC it commissions, others, to produce a product.
NHS is on the same path, hopefully, but it needs to be perfected.
Railways, no more subsidy, let market forces shape it.
Art and Culture (whatever nonsense that is) should be paid for by rich artist, who will then make money and produce for art galleries. State shouldn’t be funding people to show off an unmade bed.
Sports, if people want to play football or any sport, then the fields being swallowed up by Wind Turbines, could be used to build places where people can do sports. Remember, Crystal Palace Athletics, stadium? it was left to go to ruin, but why?
If people want things, they will gladly pay. If they don’t, they won’t. A simple answer. So, the state continuosly wastes money, over investing in some areas, not enough in others. This goes back to the fact, you can only Control something, if you own it. When did The People, ever control anything? From Trains to NHS? Never!
The state, provides, but not, the best, nor, the cheapest.
Mick Taylor
Mick Taylor, I have explained what went wrong with shipping and impact on heavy industry. Members of my family watched as the Japanese build the larger ships in the dockyards of Yokohama in the 1960s and were awarded patents for dock and harbour design which were ignored by the nationalised industries.
The reality is that by the mid 1970s , public ethos of the nationalised industries had become a cover for self interest of the employees.
The construction of canals reduced the cost of coal by 50%. It took 4 horse to transport one ton of coal by road but 1 horse could transport 30 T by canal. Oil, ore, grain, coal and steel are low value high volume products which are cheapest to move by water, either sea or canal. The Missouri-Mississippi River and canal system enabled barges carrying 250, 000T to take produce to the sea. A 500,000T ship carries the same amount of goods for 90% less crew than a 50,000T ship. As volume is proportional linear to the power 3. A 500,000T ship is barely twice as long as a 50,000T ship. As British training of officers is recognised as the best in the World , changes did not have such an adverse impact on their employment but is did the un/semi-skilled seamen and dockers.
The maximum size of a ship becomes limited by draft: most rivers /ports cannot dredge deeper than 25m . Rotterdam can take ships of up to 23m draft. The dock strikes encourage development of Tilbury and Felixstowe in the UK and containers world wide. The advances in technology in construction of oil tankers was used to increase bulk ore carriers to 362m and container ships to 399m.One container ship can bring all the toys produced in China for the UK Xmas market.
Union leaders failed to support the following
1. Develop yards which could build 500,000T ships and produce quicker delivery times than Japan.
2. Producer cheaper steel and coal than the World prices.
3. Develop a port which could outperform Rotterdam.
4. Stop strikes which increased delivery times and uncertainty.
5. Produce cars with a better build quality than the Germans or Japanese.
6. Supported the introduction of containers
The union leaders of the nationalised industries were Luddites: they thought they could do what ever they wanted and not be adversely affected by the rest of the World.
Charlie 8th Aug ’15 – 1:52pm………..
Wrong on almost every point….Far from being a union problem the UK building of supertankers (VLLCs) was due to management signing ‘fixed-price’ contracts which meant that the shipyards lost money on the contracts…
Have you any idea of the ‘real’ size difference between 250,000 and 500,000 dwt ships…I suggest you consider the Esso Northumbria and suggest where, in the UK, a vessel twice her tonnage could be built?
Anyway supertankers were not the answer to anything….At the beginning of 1972 there were barely 200 ships greater than 200,000 DWT and, by 1973, the soaring cost of oil meant that many ‘new builds’ went straight from shipyard to lay-up and most were scrapped after about 10 years…Another disadvantage was that ‘lightering’ into smaller vessels was required to enable such vessels to even use the English channel and the smaller vessels <100,00 dwt took the loads to UK ports….The Suez canal re-opened in 1975 and that, combined with the 1979 Iran crisis, meant that until the end of the 1980s there was no real profit in oil transport…
expats
The client decides on the contract . British cost over runs, delay and long snagging lists meant clients bought from Japan.
If clients want 100,00T plus ships you either build them or lose their custom. The USA built large dry docks in the 1950s to build their 100,00T aircraft carriers. Japan obviously solved the problem.
T2 Tanker 1945 were 501 ft 6 in (152.9 m) in total length, with a beam of 68 ft (20.7 m). Rated at 9,900 tons gross (GRT), with 15,850 long tons deadweight (DWT), standard T2s displaced about 21,100 tons.
ULCC built in the 1970s were up to 450 long long and had a capacity of 500,000 DWT.
Increase in DWT= 500,000/15850 = 31.5. Increase in length 450/152= 3 times.
Technology used to build oil tankers was used to increase size of bulk ore carriers and then the new container ships.
Britain lost the ship building capacity to Japan and S Korea. If foreign owned companies had to lay up ships , that is not a British problem, it is theirs. The seamens strikes of 1966 persuaded British ship owners to diversify : by 1987 British and Commonwealth, once the largest ship owner in the 1950s had left the industry.
The low commodity prices meant it was even more important to reduce cost of transport.One can move £10M of diamonds in one’s hand, the same weight of coal in the 1980s at £32/T is 31,250 T. When 100,000T bulk ore carriers can travel up rivers and be loaded almost directly from open cast mines , then they will be purchased and these were constructed in Japan and S Korea.
Once the technology of building 100,000T ships has been developed , especially bulk ore and container ones, price and speed of construction are vital. These large ships are quite basic , there are no expensive weapons systems or interiors to build.
What I have said was that it accumulative decisions by unions which caused problems. In the TGWU, dockers were against containers but lorry drivers were for them. If most union leaders had shown an understanding of trade and technology such as Chappell and Hammond of the EETPU,Laird and Jordan of the AEU and Lyons of the power Workers , there would not have been the problems.
“The Suez canal re-opened in 1975”
and has been greatly expanded recently.
Charlie 8th Aug ’15 – 5:00pm ………expats
The client decides on the contract .
Really? In every contract that I have been involved in, basically, the client puts forward his requirements and the contractors propose the cost.. Perhaps, as it’s all the union’s fault I’ll ask again where, in the UK, could 500,0000dwt ships be built? Earlier you mention the ability of the Mississippi to take massive barges; Britain doesn’t have such a river…Anyway all the ‘supertankers’ of the 1970s are long gone there are no ships today longer than 400M…As for being basic, their very size caused frequent leaks and conventional tank cleaning caused explosions….
As for the seamens’ strikes of 1966; there were no strikes, there was one strike (the first since 1911; so hardly a militant lot) and it was far more about reducing hours from 56 to 40 than about wages….Automation, not militant seamen, allowed shipowners (hardly the most generous employers) to take cheap unskilled seamen from the “International Pool” rather than employ ‘ticketed’ British crewmen…
Max Parish .I think Max is confusing the” small state” with the” enabled state “I would agree that central government intervention blunts local government innovation and challenge even George Osbourne cannot help imposing central government conditions into local government reform much as Gordon Brown did before him .Liberal Democrats should be pressing for the enabled state with more flexable structures on service delivery ,cross boarder co-operation and a clear mandate to find local solutions to local problems .This is how best good practice will evolve ,given more power over devolved local tax raising and accountability.an enabled state needs the mandate of the ballot box not the imposition of centralist control to deliver a genuine localism agenda.