Duncan O'Leary
Duncan works on projects looking at public services, skills and work.
Oh dear. Tony Blair has made a speech saying that people need to adapt their lifestyles if they’re going to be healthy. And apparently he stole the ‘idea’ from David Cameron.
The media don’t know what to make of it – is it a departure from the Nanny state? The Telegraph thinks so. Or politicians telling us all what to do again? That's the Nanny state, right? The media made a lot of fun of Blair after the energy review when he started talking about energy saving lighbulbs.
In fairness, both Blair and Cameron are right – the next set of challenges (the environment, public health, adult skills, living together peacefully etc etc) can’t be ‘delivered’ by government in the same way as a new hospital, or even a hip operation can. They rely on more active participation from all of us.
The big question – apart from all the stuff about involving the all sectors etc – is what role for government? How do you create what Charlie Leadbeater describes (pdf) as ‘post-industrial public services’ – services that build people’s capacity for self-help?
After all the textual analysis of speeches, this is where the real debate starts. We know that we need to eat our greens, but how can/should the state help people make healthier choices - and whose responsibility is it to make this happen?
LOGIN to add comments
Comments
For example he says, "That doesn't mean you stop treating people in the NHS who smoke or force people to do what they don't choose to do but it does mean that Government should play an active role in the way the enabling state should work: empowering people to choose responsibly"".
But he doesn't really get anywhere in explaining how govenment needs to work or organise itself differently.
More community outreach? More pooled budgets? More local control and management of services? Different entitlements? Different measures of efficiency?