The Liberal Democrat Voice team have received a press release from John Pugh MP, which may be of interest to those in the Party keen to engage in debate on policy and philosophy.
With an eye to the new parliamentary year and forthcoming legislation, the Beveridge Group has reformed and a new updated website is already up and running. The initiative follows widespread concern inside and outside parliament as to where Coalition policy on public services may be going.
We want to prompt a proper debate as to where the Liberal Democrats stand and importantly what we will stand for as well as engage those many members and supporters active in improving our public services and perhaps a little flummoxed by some of the initiatives coming out of government – particularly from the Tory ministers with a clear ideological axe to grind. The response from parliamentary colleagues has been very positive but the idea is to reach out beyond parliament and to those working in the public services whom the coalition may unintentionally have alienated. The message is ‘pitch in’.
The group was originally set up by John Barrett, Paul Holmes, Alistair Carmichael and John Pugh was set up at the time of the Huhne Commission and the party’s last review of its policy and exists according to Alistair, “to promote debate on the subject of public service provision within the Liberal Democrats. The Group seeks to advance thinking which will better define the public service ethos and its place in party policy. It seeks to re-establish the standing of people working in public services and to promote recognition of the contribution which they make to the wider community.
The Group approaches public service provision from the basic premise that public services must be accountable and responsive to community needs and wishes. They are therefore best provided by democratically elected bodies and as a consequence of that are most likely to be paid for out of general taxation which should wherever possible be progressive and transparent.”
* Newshound: bringing you the best Lib Dem commentary in print, on air or online.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
Matt (Bristol)
15 Comments
Surely public services are by definition funded from general taxation, unless you nitpick about bin collections coming from council tax rather than income tax etc.?
@Dave — no, not necessarily. They can be paid for by fees, insurance, or hypothecated taxes. For example, NHS prescriptions don’t cease to be a public service just because some of us have to pay a charge; likewise “meals on wheels” services and personal care provided by local authorities; or indeed getting a passport or driving licence.
I am mystified why this is necessary. We already have the Social Liberal Forum to represent the social liberal mainstream of the party. It is woefully underfunded compared with the millions that Paul Marshall has been pouring into the neoliberal/Orange Book cause.
Next, I hear that Richard Grayson will be launching a ‘Left Liberal’ grouping at the party’s spring conference in March. And now the Beveridge Group is being brought back from the dead.
Any expression of enthusiasm for social liberalism is welcome but I cannot see the advantage of three groups as opposed to one. This just looks like the People’s Front of Judea – or is that the Judean People’s Front?
I’ve got to admit, I’m much happier with a group which seeks to “promote debate” and “advance thinking” on a particular subject than a group which exists to push candidates in internal elections, write stroppy press releases trashing the party and denounce all who oppose its One True Way as illiberal heretics…
I somewhat share Simon’s concern. Spreading the “social liberal” effort too thinly could dissipate the message or the influence.
But my reading of the Beveridge group’s objective is that it is rather more narrowly focused than the Social Liberal Forum. A focus squarely upon public services would be no bad thing.
The perspective set out in the post above and on their website is quite distinct in flavour from the agenda currently being perpetrated by the Coalition. The leadership’s position that it doesn’t matter who provides “public” services as long as they are funded by taxation and free at the point of delivery – a position no doubt fairly congenial to the Tory component of the coalition because it allows privatisation of delivery – would seem to me to be completely different from that articulated above (“public services must be accountable and responsive to community needs and wishes. They are therefore best *provided* by democratically elected bodies …). The sort of austerity-induced outsourcing that is happening across the country at the moment will lead to a decline in democratic accountability, while not necessarily being any more efficient (as I’m sure I’ve posted on this site on more than one occasion! :)) The reanimation of the BG could be a useful initiative, if it isn’t already too late.
I contend that the SLF is the JPF.
Is there any evidence Beveridge believed that public services should be delivered only by the state ?
Presumably the Beveridge group will be calling for GPs to be turned into civil servants and for all suppliers to the NHS, for example the drug companies, to be nationalised?
The Beveridge group is a Parliamentary group and as far as I am aware is not intending to expand its operations.
The Left Liberal group is a welcome addition to all the other Lib Dem groups that exist. It is not really in competition with the SLF. It hasn’t been launched yet and once it has done so it’s identity will become clearer.
@Simon Well I guess there is no point in actually quoting anyone. Far easier to make something up which is absurd in order to knock it down.
@Dave a good job then that such an organisation you describe does not currently exist.
@Geoffrey – you are not going to answer the question then?
It is indeed ironic that a group promoting nationalised public services takes its name from a man who wasn’t that bothered about them being under conventional state control.
As for the point about JPF/PFJ: yep. But the right is broken up in similar ways. There is no ‘Orange Book’ group comparable to this, Liberal Vision has been quiet as far as I can tell, and there is no mass movement from the membership advocating a right-wing organisation. All that really matters is what those in power think, and that isn’t determined by factions. It determines what those factions are though, so I think it is fair to describe this as an example of the left taking ground over the last year.
As far as NHS reform is concerned the choice is not between 100% state control and 0% state control. What it is about is finding the optimal level of state involvement so that the the values of the NHS can be maintained. The key value of course being the need to offer a service according to need that is free at the point of delivery.
The ideal way to test whether a reduction in state involvement can deliver these values is to implement change slowly by using pilot projects to check if they would work.
That is not what the government is currently doing, and that is why there is a lot of opposition within our party and within the NHS to these reforms.
Prior to the NHS nationalisation we had minimal state involvement in the health system and poor people could not afford it. Beveridge was certainly against that state of affairs and the overwhelming majority of people from all political parties thought likewise. So unraval that at your peril!
Happy to see more debate in the party. Always welcome. I especially look forward to a close analysis of the Beveridge’s model of public services, and the Liberal advocated models by thinkers like Grimond since.
On BBC Radio 4 Any Questions? on 22/7/2017 journalist and historian Peter Hennessey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hennessy pointed out how many defence reviews we have had, etcetera, but the most recent comprehensive review of social policy is from 1942, the Beveridge report, produced for the wartime coalition government under PM Winston Churchill and deputy PM Clement Attlee. A particular mix of talents, training and experience would be needed, but we should be reluctant to lose our new leader. Such a report would be the equivalent of a Royal Commission. We should fear “Treasury thinking” from Mr. Gauke and “Venezuelian socialism” from Mr. Corbyn.
Although another such report is overdue, this is a particularly difficult time to produce one. The decision of the 2016 referendum caused an immediate fall in the value of the pound sterling, which caused the UK to be downgraded from the fifth largest economy in the world to sixth, behind India. The future is full of uncertainty. We can currently host inward investment from all over the world from companies whose top management speaks English and who wish to export to 27 other neighbouring countries under a single set of rules. Although there has not yet been a parliamentary motion of confidence, or no confidence, in the Ministers doing the negotiations, they are likely to be subject to repeated challenge with consequent uncertainty for businesses large and small and for their employees and pensioners. When UK unemployment reached 1,000,000 under the Heath government of 1970-1974 it was considered a matter of national shame. It is now over 1,500,000, but there is less shame among government ministers and their MP supporters.
Creating a new Beveridge report would involve a lot of work, those involved would need credible assurances of a fair hearing.