Randomly Selected Article or Link

...and is not "liberal" either.

There are often attempts by ministers (Jacqui Smith is mentioned in Sunday's Independent for example about the recent prisoner data loss) to shirk their responsibility for government cock-ups. There are also left wing commentators who crow that these incidents are clear proof that "neo-liberal" policies of "privatising" government functions are evil and should be stopped; that the "free market" does not work in the public sphere.

But I don't consider such contracting out of work as either liberal nor as implying that ministers are no longer responsible for their incompetence. Nor, even, are they truly "privatisation". To me the doctrine that says some things are better done by profit motivated companies (or other, non-government organizations) does not mean merely sub-contracting to a government service level agreement.

Yes, such arrangements may save on costs or similar. But all they are doing is delivering the same policies and procedures designed by government. This is the "corporatisation" of government. It is inherently protectionist - the government grants usually monopolistic contracts to firms, sometimes even, like Capita, that started life as a bunch of civil servants deciding they could do better for themselves by making a profit out of what they do.

No, real privatisation, so called "liberalisation" of government functions, should mean the state divesting themselves completely from interference in that policy area. For example, just because DVLA contracts out its computer systems and administration does not mean the registration and licensing of vehicles and drivers has been "privatised". Not bothering with a DVLA at all and allowing insurance companies to work out ways of ensuring the drivers and vehicles they are prepared to insure comply with what they consider to be safe would be. i.e. a different way of working, free from government entirely, and open to proper competition where new ideas and ways of achieving similar ends can be developed. Finding new structures, free from the dead hand of government to do the things we need, rather than what politicians think we ought to need.

Similarly with ID cards or passports - it is not "privatising" simply to contract out the development and implementation of a government policy to profit making firms. Indeed, this is anathema to true economic liberals - for it is corporate welfare, money for old rope if you like. My idea from yesterday about getting rid of government validated passports entirely and instead letting people buy their own guarantee of identity if and when they need one using a new mechanism such as digital certificates would be liberal; the true privatisation of functions the state previously chose to regulate and deliver itself.

And of course, such liberalisation may not end up being delivered by "for-profit" corporations at all.

So Jacqui, stop trying to hide from your responsibilities. You have cocked up just as surely as if the person with the memory stick were your permanent secretary. You are incompetent. Indeed doubly so - for not only have you failed to do your job, but you've even failed to make sure the simpler option - getting someone else to do it for you is done properly.  You should go.

I seem to remember being told that once upon a time Inland Revenue officers used not to be allowed to work on different tax schedules so that no one officer would ever know a citizen's true financial position. Oh for such propriety today when whole records in their millions are transported around different departments merely for audit purposes. Much has been said today about the loss of disks containing the child benefit records of 25 million people and many have suggested that it would be quite wrong now to go ahead with ID cards knowing that information security is so lax in a government department that already holds sensitive data on each and every one of us.

I want to take a slightly different line. I have always been and remain utterly opposed to the system of ID cards linked to a database that is now legislated for. However when I was on the Lib Dems' Civil Liberties working party eight years ago or so I did propose a wholly different type of ID card/account that would come into its own in this situation.

My idea was that we could all have a card or account that would "lock" all data held on us by government and that would require us to be present, or able to authenticate online or on the phone like you do with your telephone or internet banking systems, before any government officer could access your data or authorize any transfer of a part of it to someone else. A sort of a "nuclear key" where both the data subject's and the data user's half of that key would effectively be needed to decrypt any of the data subject's personal information. Yes, it might slow certain things down, but let's face it, there are some things we really don't want government interfering in unbeknownst to us. One needn't even have to trust government to guarantee one's identity - you could open it up so an individual could choose a firm like Thawte, who provide guarantees of identity to online commerce sites we trust with £40bn of our custom each year, to guarantee their identity and private key.

Data about us is part of us. It is our right to know it's secure, especially when we have no choice in handing it over - and such circumstances should be minimized. Whether it's bank account details or DNA it's an invasion of our privacy and self-ownership and every additional byte stored about us is a step towards totalitarianism. The apparatus of government should be our servant and not our master and many fought and died to ensure that we were not enslaved by overbearing states in the twentieth century.

I do not see why the National Audit Office should want all the records on the database. Surely audit is about taking a sample to prove that procedures were being followed and the bona fides of the person being audited and the figures they have produced. HMRC should have a system of internal audit that itself can be verified without any other department needing access to the original data. And if they do need access to the original data, then it should be done on site in a secure area or through secure access direct to the systems concerned. No other business surely sends all of their customer records to their external auditors do they? Nor should they in the civil service, and if that's how NAO and District Audit work then that too should change and urgently.

Commentators like Richard Murphy are just plain wrong in insisting that this is not an extremely serious breach that highlights systemic problems in organizations that handle such huge amounts of data without the effective scrutiny of competition for their customers to keep them on their toes. No junior official, in fact I'd go so far as to say no individual official should have had access to the whole data universe without a great deal of additional verification. It defies belief that anyone thought this system was sufficiently secure.

And finally - a word of warning...

In this highly interactive and globalized society, if we continue to insist on potentially intangible bases - our incomes - for tax, the amount and intrusiveness of data they will need to hold on us can only increase. Another plus for taxing land.

Health seems to have become the theme of the day in the Lib Dem leadership debate, at least amongst bloggers (John Dixon's "A Radical Writes" here, and Tristan's "Liberty Alone" here as examples). The two candidates themselves have both now produced manifestos of sorts with Chris Huhne (page 9) promoting "the principle of universal access on the basis of need" and Nick Clegg earlier (despite John Dixon's interpretation otherwise) setting down the principle that "our universal public services must be free to use and accessible to all".

Both have admirable reasons for wanting to retain this universality and free access; that if we choose any other paradigm the poorest will miss out by not being able to afford to pay in a non-free system. But, as I've said about education, and more recently touched on in my piece about protectionism last week to me this seems, if you pardon the terrible health-related analogy, merely a sticking plaster. The ideal revolutionary liberal position surely would be to ensure that everyone had the financial wherewithal to participate properly in a market system and then to trust them to make their own choices.

On the day that the Marmot report into diet and cancer appeared, and whilst acknowledging that he said that his commission was still to deal with policy recommendations, one can be fairly certain that they are not going to recommend that the government, local or national, takes control of what dietary choices people are allowed to make. And yet our knowledge increases all the time that such choices are likely at least as important to our health outcomes as the treatment we may receive once we are ill. So why do we not do the same for illness care when all the evidence suggests that despite £110bn a year public expenditure, we are still the "sick man of Europe"?

Surgeons operating
Originally uploaded by el Reino

The NHS was, I believe, a fantastic idea at the time, in the context of the war on the five wants. In a near bankrupt nation post-war it was also clearly in the national interest to try to use economies of scale and national bargaining to ensure that you could provide a basic level of universal service to all. But let's face it, right now it is a gigantic protection racket, the mother of them all if you ask me. We also heard today that the average GP salary is now at £110,000 - a ten per cent rise in the second year of their new contracts - and yet the Department of Health today has said that 1200 British medical graduates are unlikely to get training places in the UK this year. So there's almost certainly an economic rent arising from the triple protectionism of the NHS, the GMC and the BMA.

Hopefully at least this and the national bargaining for other staff would end with localization so that those parts of the country where it is difficult (read near impossible) to live on a Grade D nurse's salary can offer decent packages, but I haven't even touched on the protectionism of NICE, NHS drugs contracts, the drugs patenting system as a whole and the stifling bureaucracy surrounding anything innovative by way of ways of treating and so on.

None of this is to say that the "private sector" is necessarily the best solution in all areas. I'm against monopoly and public protectionism, not public service per se - after all the nature of the hippocratic oath is dedication to a public service. And the worst of all worlds could be one in which there's a certain amount of public funding up for grabs by private operators who have no incentive to innovate and be really efficient - that's simply transferring the protectionism to shareholders.

No, the problem is really one of how to ensure that everyone would have the ability to pay for their choice of provider. And I return to the Citizen's Income and the systemic economic imbalances that concentrate unearned wealth, or more correctly the wealth created by the community as a whole rather than by an individual's or firm's own innovation, investment and labour. I'm not a good one to talk on health issues - the last psychiatrist I saw reckoned my attitude to my developing diabetes was one of the "slow suicide". But I'll bet if I was faced with a bigger insurance premium or buying more fruit and veg instead of eating crap, I'd probably plump for the healthier lifestyle to minimize my insurance. Redistribute the common wealth properly to everyone as is our birthright and we have these choices.

Just look at Nuffield Hospitals Group right now - it's buying up private gym firms like Cannons (effectively turning private companies into social enterprises of course). Why would it be doing that? Because BUPA really wants its members to live healthily, not to call on them when they're in a preventable medical condition. I'm also sure that insurance firms are likely to be better, with safeguards against abuse, at sifting out bad clinicians; it's in their interests to do so. Their actuaries will be poring over doctors' success and failure rates to ensure they're not granting accreditation to people whose patients inexplicably drop like flies, or who routinely over-diagnose or over-prescribe. Nor would they be likely to allow their members to spend a single night in a hospital where they're more likely to come out with a worse illness with attendant higher costs, if they come out at all.

One model I've looked at, for example, would see a GP as a "personal health adviser" who advises their clients through the maze of choosing lifestyles, treatments, clinicians and therapies that will be efficient and varied. I'd like to see surgical firms organized more like barristers' chambers with large national firms specializing in different clinical areas ready to hot-foot it to a treatment centre several hours away at the drop of a hat to do an op in their specialism rather than a patient wait on a list for the local, perhaps only semi-specialist to have a free spot in a tight general surgery list. You could have a choice of a large general hospital sized treatment centre thirty miles away in the local city, or a ten bed rural town cottage hospital with one theatre with the same surgeon prepared to visit either for the right fee but with different approaches to aftercare based on different needs of patients and families.

Sure, there's still a role for some kind of local democratic input - most especially in procuring facilities and staff for emergency medicine, but even their funding options could be varied - with some able to provide that by engaging local charitable resources, others perhaps by raising a local tax of some kind, perhaps even through planning obligations, who knows. But one thing is certain: these options and innovations are unlikely to appear when the system is riddled with protectionism and political game-play.