The Prime Minister has completed his latest reshuffle, likely his last one before the 2015 General Election. It is unclear to me, at this point, what this represents in terms of the long game for the Coalition. Is Mr Cameron really a man of piecemeal moves and appointments to make his cabinet and ministerial teams less male and pale or is this substantial shift right the beginning of an Election campaign predicated on a basic message that says: "Sorry Tory grassroots, I've been trying to be a Conservative but those nasty Liberals have made me do lots of things I didn't want to do!" The next few months will be telling on this point.
I want to focus on two Cabinet positions that invariably draw my interest, Education and the Foreign Office. As a prospective teacher I am somewhat gladdened by the departure of Mr Gove from the DfE; like a child forever disobeying the "don't touch" instructions of a parent whilst out shopping, much to the ire of shop managers, Michael Gove has spent most of the last 4 years doing things teaching experts thought he really ought not to be doing, but he has finally been taken out of the shop and whisked off home with a quick supper and an early bedtime! As was aptly pointed out to me yesterday, it may already be the case that Mr Gove has worked his curse and his demotion may not ease the lives of teachers up and down Britain. Let us hope, however, that Nicky Morgan brings a fresh pair of eyes and ears to the job that makes her approach far more pragmatic than her predecessor. We can live in earnest hope.
While the above change was a cause for some relief, one change that truly disappointed me was the changing of the guard at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Despite his anti-European origins and his right-leaning tendencies of previous years, 4 years at the FCO has shown William Hague to be, possibly, the most competent of Cameron's Tory cabinet members and a very adept diplomat. Northern persiflage has been well-received around the globe and Mr Hague has applied British efforts in many fields of worthiness, including his most recent campaign to end the use of sexual violence in conflict with the help of one Angelina Jolie. Relative crisis was averted in Libya, opposition to Russian neo-autocracy in Ukraine was clear and the "Special Relationship" with America is still strong, all under the (perhaps surprisingly) safe guardianship of William Hague. In the grand scheme of British politics, perhaps the most valuable task Mr Hague has done is facilitated the expansion of Britain's field of vision, opening up to China, India and the economically-emergent South American nations that will be vital to long-term prosperity around the globe.
With this all in mind, why then has Mr D Cameron of Whitney, Oxfordshire, decided to replace the soon-to-stand-down Mr Hague with Philip Hammond, stereotypical "Arch-Tory" and ally of the Home Secretary. The ex-Defence Secretary (and before that ex-Transport Secretary) has little, if not no, sympathy with dealing with climate change, has questionable views on civil liberties including opposition to Same-Sex marriage and seems to have a quiet and contained personality that does not seem suited to the post of chief diplomat of the United Kingdom. Some of our best Foreign Secretaries have been loud and rambunctious (like Ernest Bevin) or at least unafraid to make there views about those whom they have to deal with known (like Anthony Eden's view of the Italian Fascists as "Gangsters"). Mr Hammond's approach to politics need to evolve considerably past his calm and quiet demeanour for him to remotely live up to Mr Hague's legacy. This is of course notwithstanding Philip Hammond's anti-Europeanism which will hopefully all but disappear as Mr Hague's did.
In summary then, there was one piece of good news in Cameron's reshuffle, even if we could be getting our hopes up too high. However, the overall tone of these new appointments is half pre-election panic to make the top table look more real and half attempt to move the Conservative position rightwards, away from the existing Coalition position which too-close-for-Tory-comfort to our Liberal Democrat mantra. I don't think the first element is going to necessarily work and I have very little problem with the second element. If David Cameron wants to start shying away from the achievements of this coalition, let him; we are proud of what we have managed to achieve and we will take the credit for doing so.
10/07/2014
Serving our Public (Emergency) Services
Without a doubt, our emergency services are world class ones with proud histories that form an important part of our national identity and our sense of daily security. Ambulance services of the NHS have, of course, been with us since 1948, The fire services have been a life-saving presence in Britain since the 19th Century and the police services of the UK have been with us, in one form or another, since the inception of the Bow Street Runners in the mid-18th century. Today's bodies represent something relatively different from their ancestors, however, and these services find themselves ever at the epicentre of the Labour-Conservative battle of macro-management vs. cuts to their funding respectively. Under the current Conservative-led Coalition all of our emergency services have seen drastic cuts to their budgets that have put immense strain on the good work they do.
First I feel I must inject some political reality in two equal measures. First of all, these cuts seem inevitable with the deficit and economic woes left by the Labour Party in 2010, and when the Conservatives outnumber the Liberal Democrats by more than 5:1 in the House of Commons, and the Tories have control of the Department of Health and the Home Office, fair-minded liberalism is far less likely to reach the emergency services. Furthermore, it seems less justified in its potential application when Labour's macro-management meant too many managers in our Hospitals and not enough front-line staff with a similar problematic approach in the Police services. Nonetheless, I feel this is one of the sole points upon which I must criticise my own party as I feel our stance on the Emergency (Public) Services is, at best, lukewarm. Sadly, in this case, our stance is very much representative of the public's view: that we are outstandingly grateful (in spirit) to our police, paramedics and firefighters but have no real drive to ensure that they have all the resources necessary to do the best job they possibly can, but rather give them "enough" to do a job that is "sufficient". It is a considerable step up from the Tory policy which seems to be to provide the services with the bare minimum they need to do an acceptable job, but seems a far way off Labour's championing of the public services. (Of course Labour seem ignorant of the fact that economic failure and mismanagement does not serve the emergency services well as they too have to suffer when the nation's budget is stretched.)
This is why I believe we need to take a firmer stand on the side of our public services that, with good financial backing and when provided with all the resources they need, can perform better than they do under the current circumstances under which they already give a stellar performance. The problem facing the emergency response services is predominantly a political one, however I believe there is a deep-seated 'social-contract' problem that underwrites it.
The British public are, on the whole, unlikely to slate their constables, paramedics and firefighters on the basis that they do jobs very few of us would happily do in their place and they operate around the clock for our safety. For the last half-century, at the least, this dedication and quality of service has spawned this concept in Britain of these men and women as somewhat "superhuman" and giving us a belief that they can overcome anything. The gratitude of the public is, effectively, a given, and this complacency gives rise to a nasty side-effect; we have come to expect far too much of our emergency services which is why when "Plebgate" broke out, people were shocked to find that corruption vs. corruption was not an alien concept to an officer of the Metropolitan police. Now, in Britain, we have this "superhero" problem that always turns up in some comic-book film sequel whereby the costumed hero, facing some personal crisis has shied away from his/her "duties" and when the world starts falling to pieces, everyone starts shouting "Where is (enter superhero here)?"
This could be a huge problem for Britain if we don't start backing our PCs, paramedics, nurses and firefighters with what they need, which is not a 'politicians-know-best' Labour-style top down over-management strategy. What is needed is something that sits incredibly well with Lib Dem ideology, which is for politicians to turn to these services and say "What do you need us to do?" and then, believe it or not, do it. Failure to do this and continuing down the current path could lead to a "ruler" moment. Think of our emergency services like a school shatterproof ruler, reliable and shatterproof, yet if we apply too much pressure at either end of the proverbial ruler, it may not shatter but it will certainly snap!
It must be remembered that John Maynard Keynes was a Liberal, and I believe, in essence, we need some "micro-Keynesianism" for our emergency services, investing in creating better results. For all those conservatives who would inevitably argue 'There is no direct financial return from these services, Keynesian policies would be fatal' there is one clear reply: "Nonsense!" Let us take policing as an example. Greater investment into our modern Bow Street Runners would bring crime down, including organised crime that seeks financial gain. The curtailing of such criminal activity would reduce the economic loss in black market goods and the burden on the NHS from drug addicts to name but a couple of examples. Society is made safer and in a way that makes long-term economic sense; in short we are given a Stronger Economy and a Fairer Society.
First I feel I must inject some political reality in two equal measures. First of all, these cuts seem inevitable with the deficit and economic woes left by the Labour Party in 2010, and when the Conservatives outnumber the Liberal Democrats by more than 5:1 in the House of Commons, and the Tories have control of the Department of Health and the Home Office, fair-minded liberalism is far less likely to reach the emergency services. Furthermore, it seems less justified in its potential application when Labour's macro-management meant too many managers in our Hospitals and not enough front-line staff with a similar problematic approach in the Police services. Nonetheless, I feel this is one of the sole points upon which I must criticise my own party as I feel our stance on the Emergency (Public) Services is, at best, lukewarm. Sadly, in this case, our stance is very much representative of the public's view: that we are outstandingly grateful (in spirit) to our police, paramedics and firefighters but have no real drive to ensure that they have all the resources necessary to do the best job they possibly can, but rather give them "enough" to do a job that is "sufficient". It is a considerable step up from the Tory policy which seems to be to provide the services with the bare minimum they need to do an acceptable job, but seems a far way off Labour's championing of the public services. (Of course Labour seem ignorant of the fact that economic failure and mismanagement does not serve the emergency services well as they too have to suffer when the nation's budget is stretched.)
This is why I believe we need to take a firmer stand on the side of our public services that, with good financial backing and when provided with all the resources they need, can perform better than they do under the current circumstances under which they already give a stellar performance. The problem facing the emergency response services is predominantly a political one, however I believe there is a deep-seated 'social-contract' problem that underwrites it.
The British public are, on the whole, unlikely to slate their constables, paramedics and firefighters on the basis that they do jobs very few of us would happily do in their place and they operate around the clock for our safety. For the last half-century, at the least, this dedication and quality of service has spawned this concept in Britain of these men and women as somewhat "superhuman" and giving us a belief that they can overcome anything. The gratitude of the public is, effectively, a given, and this complacency gives rise to a nasty side-effect; we have come to expect far too much of our emergency services which is why when "Plebgate" broke out, people were shocked to find that corruption vs. corruption was not an alien concept to an officer of the Metropolitan police. Now, in Britain, we have this "superhero" problem that always turns up in some comic-book film sequel whereby the costumed hero, facing some personal crisis has shied away from his/her "duties" and when the world starts falling to pieces, everyone starts shouting "Where is (enter superhero here)?"
This could be a huge problem for Britain if we don't start backing our PCs, paramedics, nurses and firefighters with what they need, which is not a 'politicians-know-best' Labour-style top down over-management strategy. What is needed is something that sits incredibly well with Lib Dem ideology, which is for politicians to turn to these services and say "What do you need us to do?" and then, believe it or not, do it. Failure to do this and continuing down the current path could lead to a "ruler" moment. Think of our emergency services like a school shatterproof ruler, reliable and shatterproof, yet if we apply too much pressure at either end of the proverbial ruler, it may not shatter but it will certainly snap!
It must be remembered that John Maynard Keynes was a Liberal, and I believe, in essence, we need some "micro-Keynesianism" for our emergency services, investing in creating better results. For all those conservatives who would inevitably argue 'There is no direct financial return from these services, Keynesian policies would be fatal' there is one clear reply: "Nonsense!" Let us take policing as an example. Greater investment into our modern Bow Street Runners would bring crime down, including organised crime that seeks financial gain. The curtailing of such criminal activity would reduce the economic loss in black market goods and the burden on the NHS from drug addicts to name but a couple of examples. Society is made safer and in a way that makes long-term economic sense; in short we are given a Stronger Economy and a Fairer Society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)