On not understanding Tories (2)

Rhoda Klapp

If the tories had proposed only to change the logo of the NHS, the left would still be screaming about it.

And no health minister needs a mandate from the electorate to re-organise the way things work in the NHS.

JohnB

Well, I'm a Tory and I've also been puzzling over this because I agree that the Lansley reforms are politically disastrous and bad for the NHS. I also agree that they, and Lansley, should be jettisoned forthwith before even more damage is done.

But that doesn't answer the question: why?

I don't think the answer is the one most Labour supporters seem to believe: that the Tories loathe the NHS and will take any opportunity to destroy it. On the contrary, I think most Tories are entirely sincere when they speak, sometimes very eloquently, of their belief in and commitment to the NHS.

No: I think the problem is not that the Tories instinctively loathe the NHS: it is that they instinctively loathe the kind of top-down, bureaucratic, centralised system that is used to run it.

And in most fields of public policy, this "problem" isn't a problem at all because the Tories' instinct is spot on. Centralised bureaucratic management is a pretty hopeless way of running almost anything (witness just about any nationalised industry you care to mention) and the Tories' instinctive hostility to this kind of structure has served them, and the nation, extremely well in the past.

Unfortunately, however, there are a few cases where bureaucratic centralism, with all its faults, is the only show in town. This happens where you need something to be organised on a comprehensive, planned, national basis with ultimate political accountability. The armed forces are an example of this. The civil service is another.

The Government's error is a failure to recognise that the NHS unfortunately also falls into this category.

I say "unfortunately" because if we accept this, we are condemning public health provision to all the handicaps that are inseperable from such a bureaucratic model: waste, delay, proceduralism, vested interests, you name it. It's actually quite understandable, maybe even praiseworthy, that the Government is reluctant to accept this conclusion.

But there it is. As the lady once said, admittedly in a different context, "There is no alternative."

So although Lansley is wrong, he's wrong for all the right reasons. But that doesn't alter the fact that he's wrong.

(And before anyone asks: No, I don't work in the NHS and I have no connexion with it except that my taxes pay for it and (very occasionally, and only after an awful lot of bureaucracy) I sometimes get treated by it.)

John Dubai

Just like Lansley and Cameron, Tories' are torn between a genuine desire to reform the NHS for the better and what you correctly note is electoral semtex, strapped to the cabinet's chests. There is a sense that now is a great time for reform: all funding is under re-nogotiation, balls-ups can to an extent be hidden by economic turmoil and the newness of government, and the general mood for "reform" (albeit that people tend to baulk at whatever specifics are proposed), is strong. On the other hand, I think even if these were the sanest, most foolproof proposals in the world the error is in the speed and scale of implementation. While the counterargument is on one level sound, that without such ambition meaningful reform is impossible - or to put it another way - the monolith cannot be seriously reshaped by the continual application of only sandpaper, I agree that on balance Lansley has been both electorally and possibly technically foolish not to adopt a more "softly softly" approach. I suppose I'm not so angry, because even if I don't fully agree, I can see where he's coming from.

John Dubai

Apologies for the rogue apostrophe in 1st sentence!

Andrew Fletcher

Nick's analysis is spot on. Lansley fancied some glory for himself, but if Cameron was a real "prime" minister he would have spotted the problem much sooner and stopped it. The irony is Lansley would have actually received real plaudits if he had picked up the original "new" labour agenda . He could have gone on trimming the PCT's and slowly but surely opened up more private provision. No controversy, no resistance, on going evolution. Instead the real danger is that he actually sets back any progressive reform. What a mess! Amateurs !!

Old Slaughter

You can't influence things unless you are in office.

However Nick, if being in power means Labour have to pretend to be Tories and Tories pretend to be labour what is the f'ing point?

So no, I want to see some proper Tories playing things with a straight bat. History will steer round to their time again. In fact, I think the Tories could well have won by appearing simply more honest, not more centrist.

Mistrusting Cameron was a bigger factor than 'detoxification'.

sampablokuper

@JohnB, if Lansley loathes, as you suggest, top-down, centralised decision making, then why is he, from Westminster, attempting to unilaterally pass NHS reforms that the majority (it seems) of doctors, nurses and patients did not help draft, did not vote for, and strenuously object to?

While I agree with your criticisms of his approach, your defence of it - slight though it may be - does not bear scrutiny.

Lansley is indefensible.

Nicholas

The problem for me - and I suspect I'm not alone - is separating truth from fiction. Such is the obsession of journalists for sleb-type gossip that we get this conjecture and speculation rather than being able to read objective, non-politically motivated analysis of the proposed reforms and the cases for and against them.

Add that to a media already wedded to Left-wing propaganda either from ideological motivation or because it's too thick to spot Labour's cons and we get the situation Rhoda so succinctly describes. A battle of shallow sloganism. Labour wins the war of words every time. Already it is "The Cuts" rather than "The Repairs". And the coalition are useless at countering this, they play on along on the opposition's terms and conform to the memorable soundbites painting them as the villains. They stammer on QT as the audience jeers.

There is enough superficial or ideologically-driven and dubious pap on our TV screens and in our newspapers, magazines and journals. Could we have something a bit deeper and a tad more objective please?

Rhoda Klapp

"Could we have something a bit deeper and a tad more objective please?"

Not in this column, it seems. Although Mr Cohen has famously seen the light as regards left-wing inconsistency in the area of Israel, he is still sadly tribal on most other things. And tribalism is the tool we use to avoid confronting reality.

Rhoda Klapp

While waiting for a scan at the local hospital (only three months queue) I met a lady who had waited six months, with gallstones, just to get her cat scan. The way things work, no other action takes place while there are no scan results. So what you get is a succession of serial events, each of which must wait on the one before, and all the while you are not flagged up on anyone's radar as having waited. I had pretty much every kind of scan and biopsy. Each one waited for the one before, nothing could be done in parallel, nothing could be pre-empted. Two years to a diagnosis, and that was wrong. I'm not complaining, just pointing out that this was the service operating as designed. Inefficient does not even begin to describe it. All this while nobody but the patient owns the problem, or works on it until it is in his queue.

If GP commissioning, or any other change, could fix this, the service would be improved. I think it might be fixed by farming out scans to private operators. But the NHS gatekeepers don't fancy that much, so they throw up obstacles in the way. Of course they always base the objections on how it will hurt the poor 'customer'. but what they are doing is protecting their own bureaucracy. My GP is as well able to handle this as anyone, as I've said, my dentist and all vets seem to be able to do the same. But the PCT is an ivory tower of vested interest, and impervious to the woes of the patient.

Patricia Shaw

To understand the enduring inability of the conservatives to win anything;

Think Privatisations, Transport, energy, water, anything that moves..

Think deregulation, banking, started with them

Think Thatcher, Miners, poll tax, Wapping, Murdoch...

And you won't have to trouble your pretty head thinking about why ever again.

You can fool all of the people some of the time...

nd you won t have to think it over again.

Ian Walker

Nick, regardless of opinions on Lansley's reforms, selecting policies specifically because they are vote-winners would make us New Labour.

Steve E.

So Blair invaded Iraq in order to win votes, did he Ian?

Pull the other one…

Nick Kaplan

Nothing against winning elections. We've only got something against Soviet-era, centrally planned, inefficient, producer dominated, socialist institutions, which no sane person would ever support if they gave it 5 minutes thought and looked at the vastly superior European, Australian or Singaporean alternatives.

Hegemony

I don't know what's confusing about this Nick, I really don't.

The Tory Party truly, honestly, with hand on hearts, don't believe in the state except where it protects the status quo - police, army, etc. Not that I'm saying "yah-boo" or anything, I'm not. It's an honourable position, albeit one I disagree with.

They also believe (albeit, most conservatives appear to be very late joiners of the deficit hawk party, deficits never mattered in the US when Reagan and Bush were "maxing out the nations credit card) in cutting the deficit.

And they are using the smokescreen of the second as a justification for the first.

That's the big issue, really. The issue that only the Polly Toynbee's of the world (spit) are addressing.

I'd be fine with an argument about the roles and responsibilities of the state. But, endlessly, this is getting conflated with the cuts (so messing around with education is to save money, tuition fees are to save money, even though it's doubtful it will, and if it does, it won't affect us for x amount of years etc etc, and no doubt, the health reforms will be trumpeted about protecting the NHS from cuts).

I want the debate about the size of the state. I want it with intelligent right-wingers, rather than people who accuse the NHS of being "Stalinist" (surely? What planet?). I want to hear it. I think I disagree with it, but I want to hear it to be sure.

I'm not hearing it. I'm hearing buzzwords about "reform" and a mantra about there being no money left.

So, what's going on? Cameron is being dishonest. Lansley is being honest.

And honest Toryism, on the issue of the NHS at the very least, is political semtex.

Nicholas

"I'd be fine with an argument about the roles and responsibilities of the state. But, endlessly, this is getting conflated with the cuts."

But who's conflating it? Labour politicised the state and the public sector as never before. So as much as it might be difficult to separate economic realities from ideological aspirations in the activities of the Right the same is true of the Left. Both sides are guilty of characterising the issue to suit their own political ends. And the representatives of the public sector, far from being politically neutral as they should be, are overwhelmingly expressing the views of the Left, or at least articulating their concerns within that context.

From my perspective I'm hearing buzzwords about "cuts" and a mantra that these are unnecessary and the debt does not matter. You are correct in observing a lack of honesty about the whole business, but that is on both sides.

Hegemony

@Nicholas - you are right actually. Or, at least, I agree with you to a certain degree. Both sides are being dishonest. The idea that the Labour position differs between the Tory position on the economy differs by more than a gnat's hair is disingenous to say the least.

Personally, I think that growth is the only way to solve the deficit, and that neither party are making any real moves towards this, whilst buying into the cuts mantra which is - whilst having economic arguments *for*, there are also economic arguments *against*, and both have an element of truth about them - basically ideology hidden behind "There is no alternative" (I'm not saying cuts aren't needed, or tax rises, they obviously are in some sectors, that goes without saying, but growth is the only real solution).

And that's, essentially, what gets me irate. I'll happily argue the meaning of the state, the realities of state power, where there should be less of it. I happen to believe dyed in the wool Toryism is an intellectually coherent position...

I just
(a) don't believe the Conservatives have been Tories for a good few years (No *Tory* government would have presided over the dogs mess of Rail Privitisation. That's a national asset and something necessary for the smooth running of the country, not in any way similar to Gas or Telephone supply....) and
(b) the Conservatives are not being honest about their motivations.

Fine, I'll agree completely, the Labour Party are not being honest about what they would do in it's place (or, at least, they often are, but they play that in a minor key, and then play "cuts=bad" in a major key and hope people don't pick up on it...which seems to be at least half-working for them).

But essentially, oppositions don't *have* to be honest (and people who believe that they do have a very dodgy memory, because I can't remember an opposition party that has ever been really honest about their plans before they get into power, and then got into power...the last one that was, was probably 1945, Clem Atlee). Their job is to point out the Emperor's New Clothes.

And I'm more concerned with the government being dishonest to me, than the opposition doing so. Because the government have the power.

Peter Smith 1

JohnB (2nd comment down) - you are a genius. Seriously,think you've articulated why I have been struggling to work out what I think about this whole issue for years. As you say (I parapahrase)- it's a lousy system; but it's the only one that 'works'. I still sort of hope you're wrong but I have a nasty feeling that you're not!

Nicholas

"But essentially, oppositions don't *have* to be honest (and people who believe that they do have a very dodgy memory, because I can't remember an opposition party that has ever been really honest about their plans before they get into power, and then got into power...the last one that was, was probably 1945, Clem Atlee). Their job is to point out the Emperor's New Clothes."

Well, yes. But when the Tories were in opposition they came under considerable pressure (from both Labour and the media) to be explicit in detail about their plans. The playing field is not equal and that is one of the problems. Too much effort is spent rubbishing the other party's approach from an ideological perspective rather than setting out the policy stall and persuading the positive. It's too much "Don't vote for them because . . . " and not enough "Vote for us because . . . ". Those differences might be expected to dovetail but they don't, because the propaganda is just too loud. I concur that much Tory policy is and has been incoherent, as well as timid, but one of the reasons is the almost cartoon characterisation of that party from so many on the left. It is ironic that a party that believes in diversity and democracy has so many adherents who view the Right in moral rather than political terms and couch the contest in terms of "keeping out" rather than accepting the political reality that a large part of the population supports that party and is entitled to.

Rhoda Klapp

Look out guys, you will destroy the whole basis of these blogs if you have a rational discussion of what are usually tribal issues.

And we had railways which worked fine (albeit after a lot of dodgy work in the building of them) before the first nationalisation. The government did nowt to improve them, the daft tories ought to have returned to the old rail company divisions, realising that they do not compete with each other but with all other forms of transport.

Hegemony

@Nicholas - I think you are being a *tad* tribal if you think the pressure that the Tories faced when in opposition to be "honest about their plans" is unique, I'm old enough to remember the 80s and early 90s, and the meejah and Tories played pretty much the same game with the Labour Party as they did with the Tories post 97. Labour even went so far as to publish their own BUDGET in opposition to try and defuse this. How insane is that, when you have no access to the public finances?

An example - I know a lot of people on here will argue that the BBC is inherently left-wing or the like, but I don't happen to believe that this is true. I think the BBC is inherently *tied to the consensus*. Now, when the consensus in the country is leftwards (or as far left as Blair went, which, in actual terms, is somewhat to the right of say, Jimmy Carter), they'll tack leftwards. When the consensus is rightwards, they'll tack rightwards. And sure, there'll be a plurality of voices on there, but the main line will always be "what serious establishment figures think", and generally, those serious establishment figures tend to be the people in Government. This was illustrated to me the other day when watching the six o'clock news, when the lead item was, basically, "the cost of living gets less as inflation falls 0.4%". I watched it for a few seconds, and then my brain processed "hang on, no, what you mean is 'the cost of living is still going up, but it's going up slightly slower than it was'". How many people would have immediately picked up on that and how many people with the tv on in the background as they fed the family would have thought "oh, cost of living going down? Good work government".

As I say, this works both ways, when Labour are in power the Beeb is just as bad, and the propaganda is often far less subtle, and often far more subtle.

So, level playing field? Seriously? At present...Sky? At least mildly rightwards, obviously market orientated not "communitarian", or whatever buzzword you want to use to replace leftwards. ITV? Basic Apolitical populism, which - given *most left wing projects require effort and dedication* - is close enough to right-wing as to make no difference. Channel 4? Liberal, essentially. Beeb? Wherever the consensus is. Two left-leaning (Indie, Grauniad) broadsheets against the Telegraph and The Times...Financial Times centrist. Middle market - Mail and Express? Well right (although, to give them their due, neither are slavish Conservative rags, the Mail is the bastion of Tory..as in *actual Tory* thinking, the Express some weird melange of UKIP and BNP). Tabloids? Mirror, blatantly in Labour's pocket, Sun - highest bidder but with a tendency right. Star? As the Express.

Nah, the playing field isn't level. But not in the way you mean. With one or two exceptions, the vast majority of British media is centrist (although, mainly, centre right). So, yeah, there's no great media representation of the more right wing, but similarly, there's no media representation of the more left wing either. When precisely did you see someone given much time arguing against monetarism recently? It's all gone web-based and viral rather than having equal access to the media.

But, all that aside, I will agree that too much attention is paid to making the other side look the fool and not enough to arguing your own position. The current debate on AV is a prime example. Nobody has actually won my vote because both campaigns are equally shocking. Bad on every level. The pro seem to think chucking a bunch of celebrities forward to say the words "fair votes" will win me over, the anti seem to be telling me that it will let the BNP in (where it's actually less likely to...but...strangely enough, as an anti-fascist, I think that's a point against it, that it doesn't allow however many - say 5 - percent of the country *any* representation because the other 95% hate them...give me PR or give me death, I say...)

Until we get a proper reform of the political system, which PR would be, combined with a less partial press (and that's not setting myself up as censor or enemy of freedom of speech or anything, but I really don't think the majority of political articles in the press are anything but comment masquerading as fact), then we are going to be stuck in this oppositional "you versus me" mindset. And it won't really get us anywhere. 5 years rowing one direction, 5 years rowing another. And the vast majority of the population only having a dim idea of what the hell is going on in their name.

Rhoda Klapp

Hegemony, we seem to differ over where the centre is. I don't see the BBC reading anything but the Guardian, and that is the mindset I see whichever party is in power. Maybe it is not socialist left, but it is nanny-interfering know-all left, and that is near enough for me to claim bias. But maybe it looks different from the other side. I noticed that cost-of-living faux pas too. Populist and thoughtless, and oh so patronising of its audience.

Hegemony

@Rhoda - we do indeed have differing ideas of what Left and Right count as. Perhaps, in a way, the political compass idea is more suited to any serious political discussion - after all, Mrs T (there should be a new variant of Goodwin's Law, relating to how quickly a lefty of a certain age will mention Mrs T) was hardly laissez faire in certain spheres, whilst being so in others (economic, for instance).

However, I'll make the point that the "consensus" (and, please note the distinction of those quotation marks) is economically liberal, in yer classical fair trade sense, societally liberal, in yer rights and freedoms sense, with some very nannying and authoritarian tendencies that jar with the rest of it.

Truth is though, I don't think this is the consensus in the country. It's the view of the centre. And the centre holds power. I'd say the majority of Labour voters are somewhere to the left of Labour on many issues (and maybe - to my leftist perspective - alarmingly to the right on a few other issues), and I'd say the majority of Tory voters are somewhere to the right of the Tory party on most issues (and - what you may not realise, occasionally - surprisingly to the Left of the Tories, and indeed currently Labour, on some issues).

But they never hold power. That 15/20% of the centre hold power, and that's where the "consensus" is. And that's why it's so bloody frustrating to the rest of us, looking at the centre from right and left.

Did you see the 6 o'clock news tonight, btw? 5 glowing minutes on retail growth, mainly upbeat with an element of caution, and not one mention of the actual figures of retail sector growth, ie/ 0.2% up on last month. Because 0.2% probably didn't sound that upbeat?

Jerry Owen

Hegemony
John Humphreys himself has said that the news came straight from the Guardian.
The BBC is inherently liberal/socialist.
It has described itself as 'hideously white'.
Paxman has said that if you are a male trying to get a job at the BBC and you are competing against a female 'forget it'.
It has a perverse obsession with colour, race, gender and sexuality ( except heterosexuality). Every traditional norm in society is broken by the BBC ie Christian values, marriage, and the culture we have nurtured over the centuries.
Dramas never have a black murderers rarely a female murderer. There are always unmarried female parents, ( men aren't needed ), homosexuality and cross race homosexuality is promoted ( Eastenders ).
When the students rioted recently not a single mention of the semi-terrorist group the SWP was ever mentioned despite their placards of hatred always in the forefront of violence. Somehow the police got the blame.
Yet the BNP are vilified at every opportunity, even though they put up candidates and support PD unlike the SWP rabble.
Question Times departure from it's thirty year long way of producing the show was changed so an all out attack on the BNP could be waged.
There was no current affairs topics that night. Nick Griffin wasn't afforded the opportunity to put forwards the BNP's stance on news.
The Newspapers to a one had the most disgusting references to Nick Griffin one calling him a 'disgrace to humanity'.
Not even murderers or peadophiles are spoken about in that way.
Why?, because he spoke his mind, he committed no offence.
If you think the media and BBC are not inherently leftwing, you clearly don't have a clue as to what is going on.

Hegemony

@Jerry - tell me, do you obsessionally watch the BBC for things you can fixate on, or do you watch it with an open mind?

Because your little rant just proves the former. I'm having a civilized discussion with someone on the other end of the political spectrum and you come wading in with your - quite frankly tedious - "it's so hard being white" nonsense.

The BBC left-wing? That would be why, despite there being 6 million people in this country in Trade Unions, the only reference to them ever is basically strikes and protests, rather than, say, all the educational help they give their members, the support they give them in various disputes, the mutual aid they provide? No. Only time a union gets more than five minutes max on the BBC is when it says it's going on strike. And even then, on most of the news, this strike is reported in the context "how it will affect you" rather than "the causes of the dispute, what the members of the union think blah blah blah".

And you show your own inherent bias by linking the BBC to the Guardian. Only in the right-wing universe would the Guardian be seen as anything more than it is - a centrist newspaper with very very very minor shadings to the Left. It's Left in Fleet Street terms. It's left within the centrist consensus. But in the political consensus as a whole? Well, by and large, economically it's to the right of Richard Nixon, as is the rest of Fleet Street.

You who claim to stand on the right really must stop lumping everything to the left of you together as "left-wing". I know the differences between libertarianism, right wing nationalism with protectionist elements, toryism, neo-liberalism. I'm also aware that there is a centre, with different traditions enshrined in it. Accept that yourself, and you may, slowly, begin to pull yourself out of your quite unjustified victim mentality.

Jerry Owen

Hegemony
I do not consider myself a victim, I am a fighter for my beliefs.
Having been on the left of the political spectrum it is easy for me to see what is going on.
I do have a very open mind...hence sitting on the right of politics as of now.
Unfortunately like many lefties your posts argue points again and again that haven't been raised.
As for the unions they were presented in a carnival like manner by the BBC at the violent demos in London, yet the Unite leader stated that the students action was a lead to be taken. The unions should have been castigated for promoting violence....shouldn't they?
You did not of course answer any of my points raised....wonder why?

Fergus Pickering

Oh get a grip.Tories are easy to understand. They are, after all, just ordinary people. It's you intellectual Socialists that are the puzzle. As Orwell said, only VERY clever people could believe anything so daft.

Nicholas

"Nah, the playing field isn't level. But not in the way you mean. With one or two exceptions, the vast majority of British media is centrist (although, mainly, centre right). So, yeah, there's no great media representation of the more right wing, but similarly, there's no media representation of the more left wing either. When precisely did you see someone given much time arguing against monetarism recently? It's all gone web-based and viral rather than having equal access to the media."

I have to disagree with that. From where I'm sitting and without wishing to rant ;-) much of the media looks more centre-left than centre, certainly when it comes to anything outside economics, and has aspects which are distinctly further left, perhaps more by ommission than by inclusion. What do I mean by that apparent contradiction? Well, much of the centre/centre-left debate agrees to avoid certain issues which are linked to axes ground by the more extreme left. Thus for example the political ideological opposition to the cuts from this quadrant is reported only in terms of the nitty gritty - the demos themselves and the closures/cuts themselves. The dimension of political ideology from the left is avoided altogether (as is the potentially disturbing observation that those responsible for the education of our children are not just politically partisan but politically strident too) but the accusations of ideological imperative from the Tories - which is harder to evidence - are repeated openly.

Because the underlying issues associated with the expansion of the state are grotesquely cartooned, even by the so-called right wing media, the realities are harder to analyse - or even identify. The impact of an invariably leftist European bureacracy empowered to determine aspects of British political and societal life is another factor. Yet there is still more faux outrage at the anachronistic idea that the local squire in tweeds might be oppressing his peasants - or even his foxes - than there is genuine outrage at the very real oppression of their "customers" by councils, which is cross party. We have a problem in Britain, but especially in England, that civic discourse is being replaced by political discourse and that the latter is being polarised to extremes, to the point where the needs of the party become more important than the needs of the people. On the left the two have been neatly conflated, but I don't know whether that is a product of the shift left or a cause of it.

The whole public narrative has moved left in the last thirty years but the characterisation is still rooted in ideas of old establishment ills. The left have created expectations and standards of conformity that the right - and the media - have to comply with to avoid outrage. An old class warrior like Livingstone can say outrageous things and get away with them but if a right wing politician exercises the same freedom of expression he is invariably called upon to resign - or sacked.

The centrist element of Old Labour is well and truly gone, either to the Lib Dems or to the graveyard. What sits there now is a national socialism that might appeal to the more authoritarian instincts of some superficial Tories. Conversely the centrist element of the Tories has accomodated some of the "pragmatic" socialism of New Labour - perhaps for the same reasons. The media have not yet caught up with these shifts in the way they report.