Labour should remember who public services are for and champion their cause
Labour folk are an understanding lot. Imagine, for instance, if I told a meeting of fellow party members a dark secret about myself. Let’s say that I admitted that I had robbed a post office but had since served my time. No doubt people would initially be shocked. But pretty quickly members would reconcile themselves that my time had been served and I was now rehabilitated. Or what if I admitted that I was an occasional user of recreational drugs? I suspect that people would on the whole turn a blind eye. After all, what’s the odd spliff among friends?
But imagine if I admitted that I had sent my kids to a private school? Or used private health services? Even the most mild-mannered card carrier would struggle to hide their contempt as understanding was replaced by a sense of betrayal. After all, an instinctive love of all things paid for by the taxpayer is in the DNA of the party.
To be honest, I have always found something disturbing about Labour’s attitude towards the public sector. Oh, the language is cuddly enough. We want the ‘best education system for all’ and ‘first-class health services’ and so on. But if we are honest the reality is sadly often very different. While many of our schools are great, many are not. Much of the NHS is incredible, but there are still too many stories of abuse on NHS hospital wards for us to be comfortable. Yet all too often Labour’s rhetoric seems to indicate a willingness to accept second best for taxpayers.
But if this was ever acceptable, in an age where family budgets are squeezed and every penny taken in tax is precious, it surely cannot be any more. Take education: a good school can transform lives and inspire. But there are still far too many parents forced to tolerate a poor-quality education for their children at their local school, or they know that a particular teacher is simply unable to teach their subject – in other words, not do the job that they are being paid for. So the parents pay their tax and yet are powerless to do anything. Private education is out of their price range, but they would use it if they could, and complaints fall on deaf ears, or even make the situation worse.
And how many children increasingly worry about what sort of care an older parent who is suddenly taken into hospital will receive? Sons and daughters are understandably fearful when it comes to the end of visiting time and mum or dad is left to the care of the ward staff. After all, report after report comes out cataloguing the all-too-frequent details of the horrors inflicted on vulnerable patients in our hospitals, so of course people worry. They have paid their tax and yet are seemingly powerless to do anything other than accept whatever care is on offer. Private healthcare is out of their price range but, again, they would use it if they could, and complaints fall on deaf ears, or even make the situation worse.
But who champions the cause of those reliant on public services? Who stands up for those families who are suffering at the hands of incompetent teachers? Or for vulnerable patients who are being abused by appalling hospital care?
If we are honest, historically it has not been Labour. On the contrary, we have been so determined to defend public services that we have appeared to forget who our public services are actually for: Threaten to make some NHS staff redundant and we take to the streets; reports of the systematic abuse of elderly patients and we blame the impact of cuts on staff morale; try and set up a free school and we will set up a petition to stop it. But find a failing school in our area neutering the life chances of hundreds and we will blame the cuts and the impact of poverty. In fact, we will do anything rather than blame poor teachers, nurses or seemingly anyone paid for by taxes.
The public sector trade unions certainly do not champion those who use public services. For instance, Christine Blower, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, incredibly tried to claim recently that there are ‘no atrocious teachers’. To be fair to her, the fact that only handfuls of teachers have been struck off by the General Teaching Council in the last decade would seem to bear this palpable nonsense out.
And the Royal College of Nursing is no better. It regularly caveats its concern at the latest report listing cases of abuse by its members. Take this recent example from RCN head of policy Howard Catton in response to reports of yet more examples of appalling care: ‘These are shocking, completely unacceptable examples of poor individual care.’ So far so good, but then: ‘If, day in day out, you’re dealing with these demanding patients, if there isn’t clear clinical leadership and you haven’t got the right level of staffing, that has an impact on the way people go about their work. I’m not saying people consciously set out to give a poor or minimum standard of care, but people can become worn down by the environment in which they work – I think they call it compassion fatigue.’
Well actually, no, it is called abuse and people should be sacked for it. Rightly or wrongly, Labour is seen by many voters as being more sympathetic to the staff and their unions than to those paying for and using public services. We need to address this perception, and we need to address it quickly.
So I have a suggestion as the Labour party looks for what the next Labour government should do with little money to spend: it should lead a campaign to champion the rights of public service customers. To start, Labour should promise to enshrine the rights of the consumers of public services in law. Parents should have the legal right to expect a first-class education for their children and patients the legal right to expect safe, dignified healthcare. We should make it easier to remove people employed by the taxpayer who do not perform and thereby let taxpayers down. The abuse of vulnerable patients should be criminalised so that perpetrators can be prosecuted, never mind disciplined.
In short, Labour must make it clear that a Labour government will simply not tolerate second best from public services or public servants; that it understands people’s aspirations for their children, their families and indeed themselves. And in doing so, the party will show that it understands how precious and finite are the resources taken by the government from people’s pay packets and savings.
—————————————————————————————
Peter Watt is a contributing editor to Progress and a former nurse
—————————————————————————————
This is largely rubbish and one has to wonder in what way the writer ever became our General Secretary. It sets up a straw person representing the public sector which most of us would not recognise and assigns a whole series of values and attitudes to them. It appears to be fabricated on constructing a barrier between Labour’s view of those working in the public sector and the communmity of users of these services. With money likely to be short for Labour in 2015 of course hard decisions will have to be made. But what would be incredibly damaging if it were done on the basis of crude gereralisations about workers in the public sector. Does Watt believe that the private sector would offer a better alternative. Come on Peter confess to being a neo liberalist.
‘most of us wouldn’t recognise’ – I’m afraid I think you are wrong. I am not attacking public sector workers I am attacking poor quality public service. And in my view that sometimes means that we should accept that not all public sector workers are excellent.
I’m worried about Peter’s attitude to private education and private health care. Surely the reason why standards in the public sector slump is because the rich can buy their way out? The people who have to use public services are the same people who work in them. Most of us don’t want to opt out, even if we can afford it, because we genuinely believe in a decent service for all. The Labour Party should always be cautious about attacking ordinary people. You can campaign for high standards without blaming the workers!
Music to my ears Peter. You are of course right and many of us have direct experience of so called overworked nurses standing around discussing their social life. We see the dedicated nurse trying to make up for poor colleagues and I myself have assisted many patients whilst visiting friends who have been hospitalised. Propping someone up, escorting them to the toilets, or providing a drink whilst many staff stand around chatting about trivia. My local hospital has been severely criticised by the CQC for high mortality rates and very poor aftercare provided by nursing staff. I read recently that senior nursing staff are unable to be firm with poor staff as they either go sick or run to their unions. Hassle………
We must not just focus on healthcare although this is important as we rely so heavily on the service at a vulnerable time in our lives. The Winsor Report referred to the difficulties of removing police officers who were not up to the job too. It take years to do so. Teachers as you say are also difficult to remove. I read a study regarding this with Headteachers claiming that all schools had many underperforming staff who should not be employed. They bemoaned the difficulties – nigh on impossible to do so.
As a result of all this protection – why perform well or work harder when there are no sanctions, I find myself unsympathetic to claims by public sector unions about the difficulties that staff do actually face and this is unfair as we have excellent public sector staff in all areas. They too muct be frustrated at working with some of their colleagues. Attempts to introduce procedures to protect whistleblowers have not actually worked.
That is why I am for the Health Bill even though I am a bit frightened. I am however more frightenmed of being taken ill and admitted to my local hospital (I have never been an inpatient). I actually believe I will see dramatic changes with competition and even in my rural area we are having our first small private clinic/hospital being constructed. The company that runs the clinic also undertakes NHS procedures. Similarly, free schools will have control over staffing. I hasten to say that I am in agreement with employment legislation of warnigns, re training etc etc. However, people in the public sector are overly protected and management often weak in taking on performance issues.
Thank you Peter. People like you may just persuade me to come back into the party. I am very disillusioned since the departure of Tony Blair.
*APPLAUSE*
I’d agree with every single word, bar legislating for it.
Labour were law-making addicts – more than 3000 new offences created in 13yrs.
Everything they wanted had to be enforced with a sledgehammer > imprisonment, a £50 fine for parking-up your own car on bricks on your own drive if you didn’t tell the DVLC about it first or 150 pages of guidance notes/forms to go on school trip.
I don’t understand Labour’s obsession will forcing/judging people or demanding that you prove you aren’t a criminal when applying for a public sector job – whilst simultaneously bleating about rehabilitation of offenders. It’s all threats or sanctions.
It’s really very unattractive to be constantly hit with a stick.
This is about culture and expectations. Labour needs to learn that one.
Create that and the rest will follow.
>Yet all too often Labour’s rhetoric seems to indicate a willingness to accept second best for TAXPAYERS.So the parents pay their TAX ..yet are powerless to do anything < < rather than blame…seemingly anyone paid for by TAXES Parents should have the legal right to expect a first-class education for their children and patients the legal right to expect safe, dignified healthcare < .