As we argue in the latest issue of Progress magazine, the election manifesto which Labour offers the voters next year needs to be considerably bolder than that it took to the country in 2001. There is little controversial in this statement. Most in the party agree that a 2001-type manifesto – well suited for a ‘we deserve longer’ appeal after four years in government – would play far less well eight years after Tony Blair entered Number Ten.
But what shape should a bold manifesto take: do we simply make clearer the dividing lines between ourselves and the Tories – investment versus cuts, public services versus privatisation – or do we lay out a more positive vision for a future Labour Britain?
For many, this has boiled down to a battle between those who want choice to be at the heart of a forward-looking agenda of public service reform and those who believe that further investment will be enough to create the kind of services the electorate of the 21st century demands.
Positions have indeed become entrenched. Some chant the mantra of choice as a good in and of itself; others suggest that the public are more concerned about whether they have a good quality local school and hospital than whether they have any element of choice. We are also told that the No.10 Strategy Unit has been hearing from the American academic Barry Schwartz that choice may actually make the voters more unhappy: an excess of choice, he argues, creates stress and dissatisfaction.
In the Labour party and trade unions, those who are sceptical about the choice agenda are concerned primarily about its effect on the principle of equity that our public services are supposed to represent. As the Compass manifesto last autumn stated: ‘In education, health and public services, choice for some means inequality for others.’
There is also concern that greater choice for the users of public services will actually lead to a poorer quality of service, worse conditions for public service workers, and will be harmful to the democratic process.
However, as a recent report from the New Local Government Network – Making Choices: How Can Choice Improve Local Public Services – suggests: ‘The potential benefits or problems of choice are influenced by the conditions under which choice is enhanced rather than resulting from its inherent nature.’ In other words, the left should not blindly reject the notion of choice.
Instead, we should see choice – properly extended – as a vital tool in maintaining public support for the kind of universal services which the Tories are so keen to show as broken beyond repair. This is because in a single payer healthcare system – like the NHS, where the state pays for individuals’ care – choice is the best mechanism for ensuring that services reflect the needs and aspirations of users. The alternative, centrally driven targets, have been shown to be, at best, imperfect in delivering such a result.
We need to remember, too, that choice in public services does not always imply simply opening up new choices between providers – from the private, public or voluntary sectors, for instance. In some cases, the kind of choices that need to be opened up are about how the service is delivered, not necessarily who delivers it.
To reassure those in our ranks and amongst our supporters who are nervous about the choice agenda, Labour does need to make clear where its vision differs from that of the Tories. The Tories see choice – through their patients’ and parents’ passports – as a means to enhance the role of the private sector using taxpayers’ money. Labour, by contrast, should see choice as key to strengthening public services.
That is not to say that choice does not present difficult dilemmas when it comes to the question of equity. The articulate middle-classes are often better able to take up the new choices and opportunities offered to them by government than other socially excluded groups. However, there are, as the NLGN points out, plenty of examples of schemes which ensure that all user groups are given the kind of comprehensive, independent and ongoing support that allows them to properly take advantage of the choices which they are offered.
Furthermore, unreformed public services are hardly free of inequality at the current time. From health, to education, to social services, location and class continue – despite the improvements of the last seven years – to play a big role in the quality of service received by individuals.
By extending the kind of choices to the many which historically only a few have been able to exercise in the public services, Labour can make Britain more, not less, equal. Moreover, we can do it in a manner which offers power to individuals and communities. This surely is the bold aim that Labour’s manifesto should be aiming for, rather than a recitation of sound-bite dividing lines with the Conservative party.