I find this story on the front page of todays Observer, and the audio recording that accompanies it, disturbing for two reasons (reasons that initially seem unrelated, but are actually both quite closely linked and characteristic of contemporary politics once you step back and think about it). First, theres the disloyalty of someone recording and making public the proceedings of a private meeting, less than a year before a General Election. ALL political parties, including (but by no means limited to) ruling parties, need to command sufficient loyalty to be able to deliberate in private. Otherwise they cant function meaningfully, and party politics cant function meaningfully, and election campaigns cease to be coherent. Now, it may suit you if a party you oppose lacks coherence and loyalty. But you need to realise, thats as much a product of wider corrosive trends as it is a product of that particular partys failings, and it will come back to bite you. Personally, I deplore the emphasis on transparency in modern politics. I think (contrary to whats usually assumed) that its a recipe for insincerity, sanctimony, paralysis and disavowal of responsibility. When Michael Gove and his colleagues tried to dodge the Freedom of Information Act a couple of years ago by conducting their business on personal Gmail accounts, they were roundly attacked for it but I was firmly on their side. Id have done exactly the same thing in their shoes, and Id have been unapologetic about it. Second (all of that notwithstanding), theres what public health minister Jane Ellison said at this particular private meeting. Her nervous laughter in the audio recording, accompanying her clarification of the fact that the Health and Social Care Act removed fundamental decisionmaking about health from central government, resonates with my concern about the present governments tendency to disavow responsibility for overseeing various aspects of public life that have traditionally been seen (by governments of all hues) as intrinsic to the states responsibilities. Im not one of those people who goes misty-eyed about the merits of the NHS, or whos given to screeds about the evils of privatisation, but I really dont like governments that are allergic to politial responsibility and decisionmaking. I didnt like it when New Labour followed its election win in 1997 by immediately making the Bank of England free from political control, and I didnt like it three years ago - see bit.ly/1ntC16j - when Malcolm Grant revealed (shortly before becoming Chair of whats now NHS England) that the duty to provide a national health service would be removed from central government. If you dont think there should be a national health service then fine, say as much and people can agree or vehemently disagree. Dont characterise the service as continuing to exist under your auspices when youve conveniently sidestepped the trouble of running the damn thing, which is the situation Jane Ellison is effectively describing. The most burning question ahead of the next election seems to me to be not so much Who should govern us?, as What is government actually for?. Because Im not sure we know anymore.
Posted on: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:49:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015