[A-List] UK ideological state apparatus: think tanks

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

The Institute for Public Policy Research was established at the beginning of
the 1990s as a means of trying to give the Labour Party some sort of
ideological edge against a hegemonic Conservative Party that had freely
adopted some of the worst excesses of Thatcherism from outfits like the Adam
Smith Institute, the Institute for Economic Affairs, and Keith Joseph's very
own Centre for Policy Studies. The IPPR soon became one of the key vehicles
for the propagation of New Labour watered-down social democracy, and remains
an influential source of "ideas" along with newer think tanks like Demos and
Catalyst. As this article suggests, we can look forward to further
privatisation.


Why we must take better care of ourselves
By Ben Rogers
Financial Times: December 5 2002

Last week's firefighters' strike did not, thankfully, result in an increase
in the number of people killed by fire. Twelve people died in fire-related
incidents, the average for eight days in November.

Why was this? Partly because the troops who filled in did a good job but
also because ordinary people, mindful of the strike, were more careful not
to start fires in the first place. The public took a greater responsibility
for the consequences of its actions.

Therein lies an important lesson. Tony Blair has said that the priority for
his second term is to reform the public services - schools, hospitals,
police, the courts - and, where necessary, to force similar reforms on local
government services. Barring a disastrous war or economic meltdown, voters
at the next election will judge his government on the success of this
endeavour.

Looked at in one way, the government is pursuing a range of diverse
(sometimes even contradictory) approaches to public service reform. Large
increases in government expenditure are being accompanied by drives to
reform institutional structures and working practices. Private companies and
not-for-profit trusts are going where only public services once trod.

Not just firefighters and teachers but every variety of public sector worker
is being urged to develop new skills and take on novel responsibilities.
Strongly performing hospitals, schools and local authorities are being
granted a measure of "earned autonomy", just as less successful institutions
are subjected to increasingly exacting "performance targets" and "assessment
frameworks".

For all the variety of initiatives, however, government reforms are largely
focused on achieving a single goal. Mr Blair and his allies are influenced
by the public management theory of the 1980s and 1990s, which drew lessons
from the supposed efficiency of the private sector. They believe the first
duty of the public services is to offer a better product or service to
"customers".

Mr Blair put it this way in his last Labour conference speech: "Thatcher
said that she went private because she got a personal service 'at the time I
want, with the doctor I want'. Why shouldn't it be the right [of] every
citizen and why shouldn't it be done within the National Health Service? Why
shouldn't there be a range of schools for parents to choose from, from
specialist schools to the new City Academies, to faith schools?"

But the experience of the fire strike suggests the answer may lie as much
with citizens as with the workers who serve them. The public has to
recognise, and act on, its responsibilities towards service providers as
well as the other way around. Take education. Mr Blair has made parental
choice in education something of a mantra. But the evidence suggests that
schools work best where parents and the wider community get involved.
Parents who have regular contact with schools are in a better position to
support and encourage their children; schools that have regular contact with
parents are in a better position to learn about the needs of their pupils.

It is also true of the National Health Service. The great majority of
government expenditure on health is directed towards improving patient care.
But an ever-growing number of health problems are lifestyle related. The
best way to tackle them is through prevention rather than cure. It is also
clear that, when people with chronic conditions take on responsibility for
managing their own care, their health improves.

Or take the example of waste disposal. Local councils are struggling with
vast year-on-year increases in the volume of household rubbish. At the same
time, Britain has one of the lowest recyling rates in Europe. Part of the
responsibility lies with the government, which will have to introduce new
financial incentives if the UK is to meet European Union standards on
recycling. But the government can do only so much. A change of attitude on
the part of all of us is also required. Dumping paper, plastics and compost
in a single bin liner, and leaving it out for the dustman, will have to
become socially unacceptable.

The government sometimes acknowledges - indeed insists - that the public has
responsibilities as well as rights. But it does so mainly in dealing with
the socially excluded. Whether it is encouraging the disadvantaged to get
involved in running their estates, or threatening them with on-the-spot
fines for "antisocial behaviour", it has set out to combat dependency and
irresponsibility among the worst off.

The success of its ambitious programme of public service reform will depend
in no small part on whether it also succeeds in changing the attitudes and
behaviour of those higher up the social pile. And first it has to try.

The writer is a senior research fellow of the Institute for Public Policy
Research