Randomly Selected Article or Link

Now, we may not be at the end of a war in the conventional sense in which national planning was necessary to keep up the war effort, but have a look at this and see how many of the captions can still be applied to today's political establishment and direction. It's quite scary really:

Courtesy of revver.com after F A Hayek & Look magazine.

Is T Blair the "strong leader" brought in to enforce obedience to the plan whom they thought they would one day be able to dispense with I wonder?

Is there any evidence that the ability of "planners" (aka political leaders) to implement a plan has improved?

Is there not a feeling growing more and more that a propaganda (aka "spin") machine is controlling the agenda we are allowed to hear?

...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.

Congratulations, Rose Hill (“Housing Scheme Wins Approval”, p5, 8th Nov); maybe soon you’ll begin to see improvements.

But Alex Hollingsworth claiming we are “getting £20m of affordable housing for £1m” displays the sort of muddled accounting that makes one wonder whether he understands what he is spinning. The city, up till now, owns that land on behalf of the people of Oxford. They are giving all that land away.

The half that is going to be private housing is lost forever to this common wealth. That is the true price of this development – maybe £10m of community owned land being privatised, enclosed it used to be called, in order to pay the build costs of maybe another £10m on the redeveloped affordable housing. And the city is pumping in a million pounds of cash as a sweetener on top of that! The council may think that’s a good deal – but land traders and other local authorities think it’s a “steal” for the developer.

The Orlits saga has rumbled on for so long, so I’m sure nobody wants it delayed longer, but other mechanisms may have delivered better value, permanent affordability and community ownership. But it would be more accurate to say that OCHA is gaining about £10m of affordable housing, plus land, for a giveaway of about £11m in public assets…forever. As I say, congratulations!