‘We’re all in this together,’ proclaimed George Osborne during the election campaign. The government is evidently keen to summon up a mood of national common purpose to take the tough decisions necessary to put our fiscal house in order. It is in this spirit of solidarity and collective responsibility that the Treasury announced that it is to consult the public during the summer over which budgets should be cut.
What are we to make of this proposal for public participation in deciding how to reduce the deficit? It is easy to be cynical. This is of course merely a consultation exercise and the real decisions will be made by ministers. It is unlikely to give people the chance to question the government’s overall strategy – such as the contested balance between cuts, tax rises and growth. Indeed the whole thing has a nakedly political purpose – by letting us ‘have our say’, the coalition can later turn around and tell us that we all have blood on our hands.
But let’s suspend cynicism for a moment. In principle, public involvement in major national policy decisions is a good thing. How might it be done?
What about a Simon Cowell-style solution? As a nation we have fallen in love with TV talent contests such as the X Factor and Strictly Come Dancing. Similarly, the leaders debates – talent shows of sorts – engaged millions of people who would not normally watch political programmes. A series of televised plebiscites on what we should cut – which the SDLP’s Mark Durkan has already dubbed ‘The Axe Factor’ – would unquestionably engage the public.
Nevertheless, snap polls rarely make for good decisions – particularly where the issues are so complex and the stakes so high. The best political decisions are made following processes of deliberation, during which the consequences can be properly thought through.
There are tried and tested methods for involving the public in more deliberative participatory processes. Participatory budgeting has been employed in some towns in the UK, such as Salford and Newcastle, as a way of involving people in making decisions about their local council’s budget. Where these processes have engaged hundreds of people their results have carried an important legitimacy with them, meaning that local authorities have respected their decisions. But these processes work because they take place locally, where people can easily participate. It is hard to see a participatory budget working at the national level. PB processes also take time, something which Osborne tells us we do not have.
Another way of involving the public in complex decisions is to set up citizens’ juries. These involve randomly selecting around 10 citizens to sit and deliberate over important public policy decisions. They have been used to inform planning processes and to help decide which drugs should be made available on the NHS. But while these are deliberative in a way a snap opinion poll is not, decisions taken by just 10 randomly selected citizens are unlikely to be seen as legitimate by the millions affected by them. Moreover juries are generally most useful on questions where there is a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ judgement to be made rather than the hugely complex matter of balancing the government’s books.
Participation in democratic decisions is a good thing – but on this subject and on this time frame, a genuine process looks implausible. The coalition has already told us that the decisions will be made by a ‘star chamber’ of key ministers anyway. Perhaps they should just get on with it.
Rick’s thoughts are very pertinent for consultations about issues if we accept the current structures of government. Indeed budget determination by consultation is spreading in Chinas counties and Cities. But Cameron wants a revolution (and education is the mode)l ideally of small organisations with various ideologies offering competing services within a lose structure. Of course they won’t be like this because management companies will move in Alternatively households can buy services rather than have them provided (as the Irish buy ‘recycling’ services… Or you can have co-operative management of housing and estate (as with blocks of and gated communities. Of course the you may end up very rapidly with the whole lot being run by SERCO and thier ilk. Notice that I choose actual examples of local action within a democrative and sometimes a cooperative ethos as well as just buying in the market. This is opposed to the normal ‘service’ ethos and does not necessarily deliver either equity (social justice) or equality. Perhaps everyone should actually try and answer George Osbornes questions (put to government departments0 for the spending review) from their own perspective. Its a revolutionary situation…
I am a service user governor for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Foundation Trust. I had a hand in appointing the auditors. I was tasked with asking each candidate firm of accountants how they would help CPFT implement the cuts. Given I am on Incapacity Benefit I felt the question was amusing. I had no choice in the wording. I just had to ask. This set me thinking. We are not as good as we could be about soliciting service user views at the best of times. I have resorted to leaving cardboard “post boxes” in mental health centres to help capture views and comments but what I would really like to do is this. I would like to create a game in which service users set the budget. What is more I would like to extend the exercise down the age range so involve teenagers. Our adolescents are at risk of being outcasts from civic activity in adult life so it would be nice to equip them with some of the basic skills thye need to take part in decision making. It is possible that some of them will be heavy users of public services in later life so I would like to see them equipped with the skills they need to have a say in decisions about their future.