Reforming public service reform
There is a bit of a debate bubbling under about public services at the moment, which will be worth watching over the next year or so*. The Tories are arguing that the government is subtly rowing back on the Blairite reform agenda – and that only they can be trusted to see it through.
First, the politics. The key question is did the public get sick of Blairism, or just Tony Blair? Alistair Campbell reckons the ‘prism’ has changed now and people are looking for a change in direction. The Tories clearly disagree, positioning themselves as the heirs to the Blairite agenda.
The second issue is more substantive. If the new PM and/or cabinet do decide they have no appetite for certain aspects of the Blairite reforms, can they recast the debate about what ‘reform’ actually means? Here, the challenge would be to illustrate that reform is not a continuum, with one option (bad) at one end and another option (good) on the other end – but rather is a range of options about how to do things differently, in the hope of eventually settling on an improved service.
If you believe Philip Gould, public services are now less important to the public than they were at the last election. But, given that it is unclear who will win out in each of these debates, it will be interesting to follow nonetheless.
*apologies to Simon for nicking half his ideas in this post, but he failed to blog it himslelf
LOGIN to add comments
Comments
The problem with the idea of 'reform' is that it's increasingly used in a very deterministic way. There are forces at work in our society that dictate that public services must change, and usually that they must change in a particular way - they have to cost less, provide more choice, become contestable and marketised etc etc. The only real choice for the proponents of 'reform' (and you're right that they include Tories as well as Labour thinkers) is how quickly we accept the inevitable.
That's the problem with the Reform report. It basically argues that Gordon Brown's reduced enthusiasm for competition, markets and vouchers mean that he's retreating from 'reform'. But actually what Brown is doing in many areas is simply trying to pursue a different kind of change.
I'm not sure it's clear what the Brownite programme is yet, but I think it's probably more focussed on the quality of services than the importance of structures, and I think it's characterised by a desire to connect service improvements to people's everyday lives. That sounds pretty interesting to me.
Politically, I instinctively think Phillip Gould's got it right - public services aren't as important as they used to be, in large part because Blair improved them very significantly, but also because because other issues are rising up the agenda. Housing and climate change are the obvious contenders for big hairy new issues.
I reckon we're moving from a period in which we were far too concerned with the outputs of the public sector - captured in KPIs and waiting list targets - to a period where we're interested in the outcomes it can deliver and the real improvements it creates in our lives.
In public management terms, it's hard to overstate how important this shift is. Finally we can get away from worrying about the minutiae of councils and hospitals, and have a debate about the real results they're delivering, and the ways they can engage with citizens to create a better society.
Not only is this the debate I've been waiting for, but it leaves the likes of Cameron looking confused and out of date. Good times.