Ed Miliband’s “People Powered Public Services”: some interesting ideas lurk beyond the bland

I read Ed Miliband’s Hugo Young lecture on the train home last night to save you the trouble. No need to thank me. Actually there are some good parts to it, which I’ll come onto. And if you want to share my pleasure the full text is available here.

However, I’d suggest skipping the first 1,685 words which can be summarised as, “Life can be unfair. I, Ed Miliband, have noticed this and so have lots of other people, like Obama and the Pope.” Along the way he name-checks Margaret Thatcher (a conviction politician, y’see… except for all the times when she was a pragmatic compromiser) and Benjamin ‘One Nation’ Disraeli. Then, mindful that praising two Tories could upset the left, Ed invokes New York’s new socialist-lite mayor, Democrat Bill de Blasio. Ed encapsulates his own philosophy of equality in the clunking line: “It means seeking to walk in the shoes of others, not looking over their shoulder to someone more powerful.” He’s right of course, and arguably the government should have powers to compulsorily purchase others’ shoes if they won’t let them be walked in.

Cheap gags to one side, much of the speech on what was termed “people powered public services” is underwhelming. It’s not that I disagree with it, but much of it could have been spoken by David Cameron or Nick Clegg. Actually, scratch that. They’d have looked at the script and said that all sounds a bit bland and low-key for us, best let Frances Maude deliver it instead.

Here are the first three principles that Ed Miliband said “should guide us in tackling inequalities of power and improving public services”. Policy Principle 1: “That people get access to the information unless there is a very good reason for them not to.” Agreed. Here’s Policy Principle 2: “no user of public services should be left as an isolated individual, but should be able to link up with others.” Agreed. Though as Dan Hodges caustically observed:

[Miliband will] announce that when you’ve taken a peek at your medical records he’ll put you in touch with other people who have the same condition. “Blimey, apparently I’ve got gout.” “Gout? How do you know?” “Just looked at my medical records. Ed Miliband let me.” “Bloody hell. What are you going to do?” “I’m going to ask Ed Miliband to put me in touch with someone else who has gout”. “Makes sense. He’s a great reformer that Ed Miliband guy.”

Moving on, here’s Policy Principle 3: “every user of a public service has something to contribute and the presumption should be that decisions should be made by users and public servants together, and not public servants on their own.” Well, again, agreed… though it’s interesting Ed Miliband couched this principle in terms of the debate about closing hospitals when recommended by a Clinical Commissioning Group as the best way of improving healthcare provision for patients. Does Ed think they’re wrong? Probably not. “[I’m] not saying change will never happen,” cautions Ed. “But [I am] saying no change will happen without people having their say.” That should do the trick. After all, no-one minds their local hospital closing as long as they’ve filled in a consultation questionnaire, do they?

But I promised you there were some good things in the speech that go beyond the beige. There are two I’d pick out.

First, he highlights Richard Sennett’s spiky phrase – “the ‘compassion that wounds’ – well-intentioned, properly motivated, but nevertheless disempowering” – to describe the “old model of delivery… between the ‘professionals’ of the welfare state and those who lived there”. For a Labour leader to acknowledge that top-down intervention, however kindly meant, can have a negative effect on people is as surprising as it is welcome.

Secondly, and more importantly, is Policy Principle 4: “it is right to devolve power down not just to the user but to the local level because the centralized state cannot diagnose and solve every local problem from Whitehall.” Of course we’ve heard this kind of talk before… from Tony Blair, from Gordon Brown, from David Cameron. Always when in Opposition; less often in Government; and hardly ever more than just talk.

But maybe, just maybe, this time it’s different. Miliband references a number of forthcoming Labour public policy reviews, and spoke of how devolution of power would inform Labour’s thinking in them. To be honest, he doesn’t need to look much beyond Michael Heseltine’s No stone unturned report which the Coalition is half-heartedly implementing.

Of course, not all Lib Dems will welcome these proposals for devolution – Labour will almost certainly return to the idea of powerful city mayors, pointing to London and Bristol as success stories. As Jeremy Cliffe points out in The Economist:

Championing city regions would also fit neatly with Mr Miliband’s public-sector principles. The Labour leader talks of a new layer of oversight between a mighty Whitehall and individual users. Where should this new layer sit? Local authorities are too small—and not always very accountable—but experience in London, Germany and the US shows that powerful mayors tend to be more visible and accountable than most other forms of regional government. That suggests that services like education, health, taxes and welfare should be devolved to their level. Mayors also comply with the Milibandite credo by linking users to producers; a “third way” between top-down and bottom-up services.

If we take Miliband at his word, then, devolution may well be coming if Labour wins the next election. But it’s unlikely to be a simple case of transferring powers from Whitehall to existing local authorities. That poses a challenge to Lib Dems who – as I’ve observed before – have a tendency to be starry-eyed about the transformative powers of devolving to town halls.

* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.

Read more by or more about , , , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

7 Comments

  • Stephen says ‘That poses a challenge to Lib Dems who – as I’ve observed before – have a tendency to be starry-eyed about the transformative powers of devolving to town halls.’ But it’s not just us who claim to support local decision making. Even the EU in principle supports subsidiarity in decision -making as agreed in the Maastricht treaty. This states –
    ‘Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.’
    So as the ‘Party of In’ I hope we will campaign during the Euro-elections for this forgotten principle to be put into effect!

  • Peter Hayes 12th Feb '14 - 2:12pm

    Local decision making is a great idea but it needs voting reform to stop the one party rule that can be so damaging, look at the history of the NE or Liverpool.

  • Tony Greaves 12th Feb '14 - 2:48pm

    Powerful elected Mayors mean one-party rule. Always.

    Tony

  • Trendy journalists and people in the Westminster Bubble have been pushing ‘Big Mayors’ ever since Heseltine in the 1980’s.

    The public, ordinary people and voters, have said time and time again that they prefer decoratic accountability, local councillors who can be easil found and if necessary easily ejected from office.

    No doubt the metropolitan elite will carry on pushing their ‘Big Mayor’ question until referendum after referendum they grind down the voters. But anyone who thinks the Mussolini approach to local government is a good idea might like to look at the London Borough of Newham. Check out what a lot of Labour Party people think about their so-called “elected” mayor and his posse of compliant and obedient placemenand place women who are given handsome allowances and sinecures to echo their boss.
    As for Boris Johnson, anyone who thinks that he has been a success needs to look a bit further than the fluff in the navel of The Economist’s latest scribbler.

  • Michael Cole 13th Feb '14 - 7:48pm

    Has Mr Miliband just discovered community politics ? Does anyone really believe he is able to deliver all these nice things ? Labour is not even a competent opposition. Their vague and vacuous policies do not, for the most part, bear scrutiny; the confusion of their spokesmen (Ed included) is pretty apparent.

    Facile truisms are not good enough. Competence in government is the pre-requisite. This is where, for the most part, we are strong. That’s what it comes down to.

    This much should be obvious to most Lib Dems. OK, the polls aren’t in our favour just now but if we can get this message across to the electorate we have good reason to be optimistic.

  • Mason Cartwright 15th Feb '14 - 11:38am

    “Labour is not even a competent opposition. Their vague and vacuous policies do not, for the most part, bear scrutiny; the confusion of their spokesmen (Ed included) is pretty apparent.”

    And yet his party is leading every opinion poll.

    “Competence in government is the pre-requisite. This is where, for the most part, we are strong.”

    I agree with the first part.

    ” the polls aren’t in our favour just now”

    Agreed

    “but if we can get this message across to the electorate we have good reason to be optimistic.”

    I think the Lib Dems are in more trouble than I thought if this is the wider belief in the party.

  • Simon Banks 18th Feb '14 - 9:17am

    Ed Miliband is a thoughtful politician, with more substance to him than his glittery brother. That’s why, party advantage apart, I’ve been disappointed in his performance as Leader of the Opposition.

    There is indeed stuff here we can work on. However, it’s worth remembering that talk about empowerment and something rather like community politics came not only from Labour in opposition (occasionally) but from David Blunkett and David Miliband in power. Blunkett, though, like Pickles (though intellectually far superior to him), was a control freak who could say nice things, and D Miliband was too weak to shift power significantly when he was local government minister. notably failing to use the opportunity presented by the Lyons review of local government finance.

    That is not to say that E Miliband doesn’t mean what he says, and should we find ourselves co-operating with him in future, we could help stiffen his resolve (and move him from the more illiberal ideas).

    I’m particularly interested in Policy Principle 2. It’s weak as stated, but if we ask, “why should these people be put in touch with one another?”, the obvious answer is to help them take citizen action in concert. That to me is at the heart of liberalism and the wretched death of Cameron’s “Big Society” leaves Labour with a real opportunity, to which Liberal Democrats can contribute commitment and know-how.

    By the way, there is no contradiction between the equality options Ed Miliband sets out. If you stand in someone else’s shoes you have every chance of looking over their shoulder, because they’ll be standing slightly lower.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarPeter Martin 3rd Jun - 1:36pm
    @ JoeB, Thanks for that link. There's nothing in the account what anyone said that seems particularly controversial. It's good that the jolt to the...
  • User AvatarPeter Hirst 3rd Jun - 1:20pm
    The leadership contest provides an excellent online medium to see how the candidates differ and vote accordingly. Going against the grain, perhaps we should give...
  • User AvatarJohn Marriott 3rd Jun - 1:11pm
    ‘Differing’? Bloody predictive text! It should, of course, have been ‘suffering’.
  • User AvatarJohn Marriott 3rd Jun - 1:09pm
    @Joseph Bourke There’s also a fairly long clip of him around 1937 paying tribute to his long differing wife, I think, at his (Golden?) Wedding....
  • User AvatarJoseph Bourke 3rd Jun - 1:03pm
    Peter Marin, Sky news had a program last night on the econony after the pandemic that featured former BP boss Lord Browne, Nobel prize-winning economist...
  • User AvatarJoseph Bourke 3rd Jun - 12:42pm
    David Raw, it depends what you mean by declining health. Lloyd George's wit may not have been as sharp as it was in his prime,...