[A-List] UK state: shoring up the left flank

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

How to interpret all this? Brown's emergence as the saviour of the left --
drawing a line in the sand and saying no more privatisation beyond this
point -- at a time when "modernisers" within the Blair camp are supposedly
turning into crazed Thatcherites, is probably best treated as opportunistic
nonsense. The Treasury as the last bastion of the Labour left? Not under
this (or any past) Chancellor. More likely the usual tawdy mixture of
personal ambition, political rivalry and keeping as broad a coalition
"on-side" and "on message" as possible for as long as it takes to engineer
euro membership.



Brown camp seeks sell-off limit

Privatisation poses grave risks, admits aide

Jackie Ashley and Nicholas Watt
Monday November 4, 2002
The Guardian

Gordon Brown's camp today launches a concerted bid to allay the fears of the
Labour movement over creeping privatisation of public services by declaring
that there is a "limit" to the role that the private sector should play.

Amid mounting opposition among trade union leaders and Labour MPs to the
focus on market solutions, a key ally of the chancellor warns that relying
too much on the private sector would pose "grave risks" to the ethic of
public services.

In a rare public intervention, the Treasury's chief economic adviser, Ed
Balls, tells today's Guardian: "We have to have the confidence to accept
that there is a limit to how far you can apply market principles... The NHS
and our public services depend upon an ethic of public service and a
commitment to the services. In an area like health or education, if you go
down that marketising route, you run grave risks with that ethic of public
service."

The remarks by Mr Balls, the second most powerful man in the Treasury after
Mr Brown, are likely to revive speculation about differences between
supporters of the chancellor and Blairites over the use of the private
sector. The Treasury recently defeated an attempt by the ultra-Blairite
health secretary, Alan Milburn, to allow a new tier of foundation hospitals
to borrow money on the open market.

Downing Street is likely to be irritated by Mr Balls' intervention, which
could overshadow Tony Blair's prime ministerial press conference today.

Mr Blair hopes to use his midday appearance in Downing Street to outline the
themes of next week's Queen's speech, when a series of measures to crack
down on anti-social behaviour will be revealed.

But Mr Balls' interview may force the prime minister to play down
differences between Downing Street and the Treasury over the role played by
the private sector in reforming Britain's public services.

Treasury sources, who insisted last night that there were no differences
with Downing Street, said that Mr Balls was attempting to distinguish
between the government and the Tories over public services. The chancellor
has repeatedly attempted to contrast his guarantee to fund the NHS through
general taxation with the Tories' growing fondness for private health
insurance.

However, Mr Balls' remarks come amid a backdrop of tensions between the
Blair and Brown camps which burst into the open last month over the highly
charged issue of foundation hospitals. Treasury sources recently made no
secret of their contempt for Mr Milburn when they succeeded in keeping the
hospitals' borrowing on the government's balance sheet.

During a lengthy battle, which was only resolved when Downing Street
mediated between the two sides, the Treasury said that Mr Milburn's scheme
could only have been funded by charging for hospital services. As this was
an impossible prospect, the Treasury said that hospitals that borrowed too
much would have to be bailed out by the government.

Mr Balls' remarks indicate that the chancellor, buoyed up by his victory
over Mr Milburn, is keen to signal to the Labour movement that he does not
share some of the wilder ideas of the more enthusiastic Blairites. While the
Treasury will react angrily to any suggestion of disloyalty, the Brown camp
is clearly attempting to reach out to Labour traditionalists such as the
former health secretary, Frank Dobson, who yesterday attacked Mr Blair's
"elitist" government.

In an Observer article, Mr Dobson hit out at Downing Street advisers, such
as the head of the policy unit, Andrew Adonis, who have been "beneficiaries
of an elitist education". Such figures were driving the controversial idea
of allowing universities to charge top-up fees "partly to show how exclusive
they are".

His remarks were rejected by the higher education minister, Margaret Hodge,
a Blairite, who said that the government simply wanted to create an
"appropriate balance". Ms Hodge insisted that the government would uphold
its manifesto commitment to rule out top-up fees for the lifetime of this
parliament, claiming that the funding balance was right at the moment.

But she indicated that top-up fees might eventually be introduced when she
pointed out that graduates on average earn £400,000 more throughout their
lives than non-graduates.

"One of the things I've got to try to get across to people is if you're
going to earn £400,000 more over your lifetime, investing in that education
for your long-term future ... is a worthwhile investment and we want to
encourage more and more young people to aim higher," she told Sky News.

-----

Dobson attacks 'elitist' Cabinet

New plans for university top-up fees and foundation hospitals pander to
snobs, argues former health secretary

Gaby Hinsliff, chief political correspondent
Sunday November 3, 2002
The Observer

A former senior cabinet minister has launched a devastating attack on Tony
Blair's 'elitist' government, accusing it of pandering to snobbery over
plans to let universities charge students top-up fees.

The 'class-ridden culture' of modern Britain too often allows those who make
it to block opportunities for others, because they 'can't bear the idea that
they may not be as outstanding as they thought', Frank Dobson writes in
today's Observer .

Ordinary Labour members now doubt their party's historic commitment to
tackling inequality because of 'elitist' health and education policies which
favour the privileged, the former health secretary adds.

He accuses some of the prime minister's advisers of being 'beneficiaries of
an elitist education, whose policy initiatives perpetuate and exacerbate the
inequalities of the English education system'.

The words will be seen as a swipe at Andrew Adonis, the former Oxford don
who heads the prime minister's policy unit, whose clashes with Estelle
Morris over top-up fees are thought to have helped trigger her recent
resignation as education secretary.

Dobson's attack lifts the lid on wider unease among Labour backbenchers over
the direction the government is taking. Three select committee chairmen last
night backed his criticisms over top-up fees and foundation hospitals in a
sign of stormy times ahead.

Ministers have privately warned that the forthcoming Queen's speech will
contain measures antagonising many Labour backbenchers - including a Bill to
set up flagship foundation hospitals, which will get more money than less
successful NHS trusts, raising fears of poaching staff from nearby
hospitals. However, the ministers say Blair is ready for a fight.

In a wide-ranging article, Dobson attacks Downing Street plans for a 'super
A-level' for gifted children, arguing they are motivated by snobbery. 'This
idea that gifted children need super A-levels comes from people who want a
privileged minority to be able to look down on young people who have passed
'just' A-levels,' he adds.

Allowing universities to charge top-up fees 'partly to show how exclusive
they are' is another 'elitist' solution that will deter poorer children from
higher education, Dobson warns. And he accuses the government of being
prepared to accept that 'there will be a hierarchy or ladder of schools in
perpetuity', with poor children trapped at the bottom - an idea promoted by
elitists because 'they don't intend to send their children to schools on the
lower rungs.'

Warning that 'the elitists have started shaping the government's health
policies', the former health secretary also criticises plans for foundation
hospitals because they concentrate resources on a hand ful of
high-performing hospitals. 'No Labour MP fought the last election on a
promise that we would introduce a two-tier system,' Dobson adds.

His criticisms were backed last night by senior MPs. Ian Gibson, chair of
the science and technology committee who has tabled a Commons motion
condemning top-up fees signed by more than 110 MPs, said university
education was a 'watershed' for traditional Labour values. 'This for me is
my Waterloo,' he said. 'It goes against everything I have ever thought was
worth fighting for. You can kiss goodbye to 50 per cent of people going into
university if we have top-up fees.'

Martin O'Neill, chair of the Trade and Industry Select Committee, said
top-up fees would create a two-tier system and damage middle-ranking
universities.

'There is a lot of feeling about this among Labour MPs,' he said. 'Kids of
good ability will be denied access because they don't have the money to pay
or the right accents.'

David Hinchliffe, chair of the Health Select Committee, backed Dobson's
attack on foundation hospitals. 'This is about a longer-term direction that
goes far beyond foundation hospitals, and it's a direction upon which we
travel at peril to some very important principles,' he said. 'His concerns
are not his alone, they are spread very much around people from different
wings of the party.'

The issue of top-up fees, which Adonis backs but Morris did not, was a key
factor in Morris's resignation. The new education secretary, Charles Clarke,
privately favours a graduate tax - as does chancellor Gordon Brown - under
which students would pay back the cost of their education once they began
working through a higher tax rate than other school leavers.

-----

Labour and the new elite

One of Labour's most trusted former generals accuses the party of cheating
the poor to help the rich
Talk: is Frank Dobson right?

Sunday November 3, 2002
The Observer

The Labour government argues that it has the same values as our socialist
pioneers - the same burning passion for confronting the inequalities of
power and wealth. And in this pursuit it has many achievements to its
credit, particularly in getting the country back to work and using the
National Minimum Wage and the tax system to raise the take home pay of the
worst off.

Yet many Labour Party members have growing doubts about the Government's
commitment to tackling inequality and privilege. These doubts spring largely
from a feeling that, faced with choices about which way to go in education
and health, the Government is opting for elitist alternatives.

Our culture has been class-ridden for centuries and our education system has
both reflected and reinforced this. A conspiracy theorist would suspect that
a secret society called the 'National Exclusionist Front' has been in
charge. Their slogan is 'more means worse'. Having done well themselves in
the heavily-rigged lottery of life, they can't bear the idea that they may
not be as outstanding as they thought they were. Unfortunately, among the
shadowy ranks of the Government's advisers are beneficiaries of an elitist
education, whose policy initiatives perpetuate and exacerbate the
inequalities of the English education system.

While Labour's policy is to provide the best for all, some schools have been
doing much better than others. So the first priority must be to bring the
rest up to the standard of the best. That has been happening in the only
truly comprehensive part of our education system, primary schools, where
standards are up and, according to this year's annual report of Her
Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, 'the gap between the highest- and
lowest-performing schools is narrowing'.

This is not the case at secondary level where, HMCI reported, 'despite
improvements in the lowest-performing schools, the gap has widened'.

That is because the Government has not concentrated on bringing the
worst-performing secondary schools up to the standards of the best.
Substantial effort and resources have been put in. But while the more
successful schools are being helped to develop yet further and faster with
extra money, teachers, power, prestige and partial selection, how can the
weaker ones ever catch up?

Extra resources may seem a just reward for successful institutions, but it
is an injustice to poorer children at the least-successful schools. The
Government now accepts there will be a hierarchy or ladder of schools in
perpetuity.

The more successful members of society are the ones promoting this elitism.
'To them that hath shall be given' has always been their favourite biblical
text. They know that while it is possible to move up a ladder behind the
person above, it is well nigh impossible to draw abreast, let alone
overtake. They know the children at schools on the lower rungs will remain
stuck behind. That is why they don't intend to send their children to
schools on the lower rungs.

Labour people are also concerned about recent proposals for a super A-level
to provide an extra challenge for high-achieving students. Why? Improved
A-level performance has resulted not from students getting more intelligent
but from better teaching. A-levels are just as challenging as ever. This
idea that gifted children need super A-levels comes from people who want a
privileged minority to be able to look down on young people who have passed
'just' A-levels.

The idea of top-up fees is another elitist solution. University funding is
undoubtedly a major problem. It won't be solved by turning higher education
into a market place, with a top tier setting higher fees - partly to show
how exclusive they are - while newer universities make cut-price offers to
attract students. Badly-off students are already under-represented in the
more prestigious institutions. Top-up fees are likely to make matters worse.

Now the elitists have started shaping the Government's health policies.
Health inequalities are the starkest of the lot. Poorer people in deprived
areas are ill more often and die sooner. You can't get much more unequal
than that. So Labour people want to provide the best health services for
all. But foundation hospitals - a profoundly elitist policy - will not do
that. Since some hospitals do a better job than others, we owe it to the
patients getting the worst services to bring them up to the standard of the
best. That is why national standards have been established for the treatment
of heart disease, cancer, mental health and the elderly.

The Commission for Health Improvement and National Institute for Clinical
Excellence (Nice) were created to check on standards, advise on improvement
and reduce postcode variations in treatment, right across the country.

But foundation hospitals aren't to be applied across the country. Instead, a
small elite - 12 at the outset - are to be singled out for special
privileges and extra resources. Not the 12 worst-performing hospitals, but
the 12 best-performing hospitals. As a result, they will be able to attract
staff by offering better pay and better working conditions. But while
qualified staff remain scarce, they can only be recruited from other parts
of the NHS. So the gap between the best, the foundation and the rest will
grow.

The elitists justify giving advantages to foundation hospitals on the
grounds of 'earned autonomy'. In other words, the hospitals deserve it. But
this displays an obsession with institutions rather than the people they are
there to serve. Whatever the hospitals deserve, no patients deserve to see
their local hospital put at a disadvantage.

No Labour MP fought the last election on a promise of a two-tier system with
12 hospitals in the top tier. At the next election, only a dozen Labour MPs
will be able to boast their hospitals are in the top tier. The rest will
have to explain why theirs are not.

These changes are being promoted in the name of choice and diversity.
Parents, it is said, should have a choice of schools for their children. But
many will not get their first choice, which is the choice that counts. What
they really want is for their local secondary school to be top quality. It
is the same with hospitals. Most people in Bristol want their local
hospitals to provide a prompt, top-quality service. They don't want to have
to 'choose' to go to Gloucester for it.

Recently diversity has been elevated into a major objective. But diversity
of performance is the main problem. Less diverse and higher standards of
performance are what most people want. To aim for more diversity also
ignores the lesson of history - that the Establishment is so wedded to
elitism that our society remains virtually incapable of achieving diversity
without hierarchy. That is because hierarchy bolsters the inequalities in
wealth and power which sustain the Establishment and which Labour should be
dedicated to reduce.

· Frank Dobson is MP for Holborn and St Pancras and was Secretary of State
for Health from 1997 to 1999