For once, just for the sake of argument, let’s take Andrew Lansley at his word and assume that however keen he is on getting private providers in to do the work of the NHS, he’s not doing it because he’s corrupt, or because his wife is, or because he’s ideologically hell-bent on privatising whatever he can get away with, but that he’s doing it because he sincerely believes it’ll make the Health Service work better and more efficiently.

This may be the case. The trouble is, though, if you make this assumption it becomes kind of hard to explain the thinking behind the patient vouchers announcement he made on Tuesday evening. He wants patients with long-term medical problems to be given vouchers so they can get healthcare from either the NHS or a private insurance company, as they choose. And the thing is, there’s practically no way this is going to do anything other than help screw over the NHS. This, it seems to me, is overwhelmingly likely to be how it’s going to work:

1. Some patients who get vouchers will use them to buy care from private insurance companies.
2. The money for this comes out of the health budget, and would otherwise have gone to the NHS. The NHS loses money.
3. Hospital trusts which are already on shaky financial ground suffer more. The quality of care they can offer patients also suffers. More patients choose not to use them (see step 2).
4. Some patients turn out to need more care than is covered by the voucher (e.g. because their illness gets worse, or they planned to supplement the voucher with their own money to buy better care and find they can’t afford it for whatever reason). The extra care they need is provided by the NHS, because the NHS is never going to deny care to someone who needs it. The NHS has to spend more money to provide this care, out of a budget that’s been shrunk because the Department of Health assumed the NHS wouldn’t be providing this service.
5. The NHS is (more) financially screwed.

This isn’t new – it’s basically the same mechanism that meant that government subsidy to the railways has more than doubled in real terms since the privatisation of British Rail. For-profit providers of public services and infrastructure know that the government is never going to let something as vital as the rail network or the health service fail, so once they’ve landed the contracts they want, they have every incentive to go over budget, pay large dividends to their shareholders and bonuses to their senior managers, and generally do everything they can to get as much cash as possible out of the deal while spending as little (and hence providing as crappy a service) as possible. Seriously, anyone want to place bets on it not turning out like this?

Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, has just provided yet more evidence that he is, in fact, an odious little shit. In a speech to a union conference, he warned that if widespread public sector strikes take place (which seems likely), the government would enact new anti-strike legislation. This is part of the speech obtained by the Guardian before the conference:

“We are undoubtedly entering a difficult period. Cool heads will be required all round. Despite occasional blips, I know that strike levels remain historically low, especially in the private sector. On that basis, and assuming this pattern continues, the case for changing strike law is not compelling,”

“However, should the position change, and should strikes impose serious damage to our economic and social fabric, the pressure on us to act would ratchet up. That is something which both you, and certainly I, would wish to avoid.” (Here: http://bit.ly/jecJFc).

What’s really amazing about this rubbish is the fact that this is regarded a fantastically clever move by the Business Secretary at this tense moment in negotiations. From the Guardian, again:

A business department source insisted that Cable was issuing a “subtle” message to the unions. “We hope the unions will see this as quite comforting that the secretary of state says there is no case at the moment. But at the same time if circumstances change, the government’s position will change,” the source said.

This is the language of the mafia thug. (“Nice labour movement you got here. Shame if something happened to it…”)

If the government cared, actually gave a shit, about avoiding recession and saving thousands from destitution, the message to the unions would be very different.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the economy cannot recovery properly without a policy of wealth redistribution. Increasing inequality and stagnating wages have destroyed real affluence in this country, and it’s hard to see how effective demand will be able to recover when what little wealth the country now produces goes increasingly to the top of the income scale, where it sits and does nothing. The unions are the force in society best suited to tackle this. On the economic front, stronger collective bargaining power will ensure that the benefits of economic growth are enjoyed more widely, increasing the spending power of ordinary people; on the political side, the unions can articulate an alternative to austerity economics(something Labour has failed to do).

The UK needs more strikes: they’re good for the economy.

Traffic wardens, refuse workers and other low paid workers in Southampton have gone strike in response to a particularly savage attack on pay. The council plans to cut pay by 4.5-5.5 per cent this year- effectively cutting workers’ incomes by a tenth, once inflation is taken into account. Workers pay will then be “frozen” for a further 3 years – with inflation likely to wipe another ten per cent off their incomes – a fairly shocking drop in living standards even in the current climate. And now the council has threatened to sack any workers who fail to sign up to the new regime by July 11.

Council leader Royston Smith has told the BBC there is no alternative: “If there was another way of saving £25m this year other than losing 400 more jobs, we would have taken it.” Yet his deputy leader, Jeremy Moulton isn’t telling quite the same story. Over on his blog he has been boasting again and again about Southamptons low Council tax rates. In spite of the recession, he writes, this year “Southampton council tax will be frozen for the first time ever”. Again, given inflation, this effectively amounts to a tax cut.

So while those living in Southampton’s most salubrious properties will experience the biggest decrease in council tax payments, the people picking up their rubbish will carry the can. It is hardly breaking news that Conservatives dislike taxes, dislike public sector workers, and are none too keen on the low paid. Yet it is rather pathetic that council leader Royston Smith lacks the gumption to justify the blatantly political decisions that have lead to this turn of events, and has chosen, ever so unoriginally, to hide behind the language of no alternatives.

Let us hope that the councils striking workers can force him to think again.

To contact Reuben email reuben@thethirdestate.net

A primary school teacher has avoided being barred from teaching following revelations in the press of her sideline as a dominatrix, the TES reports.

Faith-Anne Lesbirel, a primary school teacher, was exposed by a tabloid newspaper in 2008 as none other than ‘Mistress Saffron’, a dominatrix offering her services for money online.

[Lesbirel] insisted her fetish activities were private and of “no relevance” to her job, that her presence online was anonymous and she believed her identity was not traceable.

Following the newspaper article, Ms Lesbirel took down her website and admitted her activities to her headteacher, Lynn Samwell-Smith, who was “shocked” but supportive.

Mrs Samwell-Smith, who no longer works at the school, told a General Teaching Council for England (GTC) panel there had been disruption after the news came to light. Some parents told her they did not want Ms Lesbirel having contact with their children; others said her private life had nothing to do with her job.

Mrs Samwell-Smith said there was an “adverse impact” on the school and its reputation. Year 5 and 6 pupils asked Ms Lesbirel if she was a “prostitute”. Eventually the teacher, who had given notice before the incident, opted to leave her job early.

[Read the full thing here: http://bit.ly/mLuK4t]

Lesbirel was given a reprimand by a General Teaching Council for England (GTC) panel, which will stay on her record for two years.

It’s encouraging to see that the reaction from parents wasn’t entirely torches and pitchforks. Unfortunately, it is the ignorance and irrational fear of the more excitable parents that is routinely upheld by the GTC (pictured here: http://bit.ly/jzRUOE). The GTC’s code of conduct has been condemned by teachers’ union NASUWT, as it has been used to discipline teachers for attending gay pride events and having bikini pictures on their facebook accounts. (The code demands “standards of behaviour both inside and outside school [for teachers] that are appropriate given their membership of an important and responsible profession”. My emphasis.)

The comments of the GTC committee that questioned Ms Lesbirel are extraordinary in their contempt for basic ideas of residual freedom and their assumption that it is the Council’s right to police teachers’ private behaviour.

‘You promoted services of a sexual nature via a publicly accessible website that you instigated and you maintained a profile on the “Informed Consent” website, where you say in your written submission you also offered your services as a dominatrix.

‘Anyone could have gained access to these websites. [Children in Years 5 and 6 are accustomed to seeking out dominatrix services online, it seems.]

‘It is clear that the reputation and public standing of the profession was placed at risk by your choosing to initiate and run such a website and indeed the exposure of this did in the event damage the school and the profession. [This information was released, remember, by a tabloid newspaper].

Public trust and confidence was affected.’

[Quoted here: http://bit.ly/mcrTph]

Teachers in this country increasingly bear the brunt of our social and political ills. Pay is being frozen, while funding is cut. Creative and dedicated educators are forced to teach to the test, rather than attempt to inspire, to meet meaningless targets. Teachers are abused and harassed daily by children brutalised by urban squalor and inequality. And now their private conduct is subject to scrutiny from an unelected quango of puritans. Why does anyone sign up for this job?

BBC headlines today:

A better-funded, better-staffed NHS coinciding with more people being happy with the care it provides? My god. It’s almost like there’s some kind of ‘causal relationship’ between how well you fund and staff a public organisation and the quality of service which it offers. But I’m sure that’s just crazy talk.

When explaining the Conservative vision of the ‘Big Society’ to the public, Cameron and co. have always emphasised the role to be played by the voluntary sector (after all, most people would agree that charities are generally a good thing). The state, they claim, often ‘crowds out’ other non-government organisations that are better suited to the task of providing social services. Moreover, the state often does this in an impersonal, alienating way; Francis Maude talks about the ‘We are the State, you are the citizen’ mentality of the bureaucrat that the Big Society is meant to end. The picture that emerges is one of closely-knit communities all chipping in while Leviathan keeps its distance. Lovely.

Too bad we now know that private firms, not voluntary groups, are in line for most of the contracts to run public services in place of the government. The Independent’s 20p counterpart I (or ‘the I’, whatever we’re meant to call it) reports that:

“Private firms Serco, Sodexo and Mitie have been chosen as preferred bidders to run the Community Payback scheme for offenders, with no voluntary groups on the shortlist…Only two voluntary bodies are among 35 groups to qualify to bid for welfare-to-work contracts worth £2bn.”

There’s a word for this: privatisation.

Far more worrying is the plan by the American firm LSSI to manage public libraries in several local authorities. Libraries are inherently unprofitable (the reason they’re public in the first place) and to make the difference it has been suggested that libraries could open coffee shops and introduce self-scanning technology, a prospect that minsters have said they are “relaxed” about. So, rather than having spaces held in common by a community, the Big Society intends to liberate us by providing garish, overpriced coffee shops with under-staffed book-lending appendages attached.

We really are dealing with people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. A public library to them is just a possible venue for another bloody Starbucks; social housing is a real estate opportunity gone to waste; ancient woodland is just so much potential lumber. Luckily the British public isn’t putting up with it (most identified Cameron’s vision as a cover for spending cuts in a recent poll.) Let’s hope the ‘Big Society’ will be for Cameron what ‘Back to Basics’ became for John Major – a Tory joke.

Scene in Twickenham train station: well dressed woman in mid-thirties shouting at gigantic pink railway employee through three inches of Perspex. Woman’s daughter has phoned mother in tears after being fined for travelling on the wrong ticket.

Woman: You people have no idea customer service, you just sit there you fat lump

Railway employee: I’m sorry if you’d like to fill in a complaint form-

Woman: What you do is just unacceptable. Where I work, in my company, if you were as an inefficient and careless you’d be out! You’d be gone! You can’t treat people – you can’t treat customers – the way you do!

Railway employee: I’m very sorry if you’d like to fill in a complaint form-

Woman: You’re lazy and inefficient and you’re stupid and my daughter phones up in floods of tears. I work in a private business, where I work you can’t do that. You have no idea how to run things.

Railway employee: I’m sorry it seems we have actually run out of complaint forms but if you leave your phone and number and address, customer services-

Woman (now screaming): You know there’s a Tory Government in now – and there are going to be cuts, big cuts and lazy, stupid, useless people like you are going to be sacked and it’s going to be a good thing too.

Woman storms out. Blob behind the Perspex, probably bullied from around the age of five, remains polite, vaguely consolatory, but essentially as placid as scoop of ice cream. Then scratches nose.

Quick cluster of thoughts:

1.) In spite of 2008 banking crisis myth endures that all private companies are ‘de facto’ more efficient and better run than public companies.

2.) However train company’s efficiency in catching daughter trying to travel on cheaper ticket – not acknowledged or credited.

3.) Woman in efficient business – apparently not working over xmas – unlike man she is shouting out.

4.) South West trains are of course a private company – and have been ever since 1994 – although of course like the banks the rail network is too big to fail (you can’t just abandon it) and consequently is being subsidised to the tune of £5 billion per year (how much taxpayers money ends up at South West trains though, I don’t know). She’s right of course trains in the UK are shit, and always haven been, but a decade and half of semi-private management has only made them worse.

5.) Train companies have just been given the green light to increase fares by up to 11% not all of which has to be reinvested in the services. So now is probably a good time to buy rail company shares.

6.) Middle class woman’s rant probably has less to do with train company inefficiency than with her daughter’s humiliation by ticket inspecting prole.

In summary scene illustrates the underlying reasons why I so dislike modern Tories; for however much window-dressing Hayekian theories about the delusions of state planning, or else the oleaginous smugness of the virtues of ‘practical common sense’, or the barmy paranoia of how they just ‘want their families to be left alone by the state’ – is a screaming, ignorant lunatic who will quite happily walk a mile to pick a pointless fight with a complete stranger.

And on that merry note – happy New Year everyone!

Stephanie Flanders at the BBC has posted a nice accessible explanation of the dispute between the IFS and the Government over whether or not the CSR is fair, for the benefit of those dunces lacking a formal training in economics (like me, for example). In making their calculations, both sides estimate the value of public services to people in monetary terms – as in-kind benefits worth a certain amount of money. For a given household, the value of the public services they receive is added to their actual monetary income to give a net income (NB: whenever it appears in the rest of this post, the phrase ‘net income’ refers to monetary income plus the financial value of in-kind public services.) Rich households stand to lose slightly more per week than poor households, but poor families stand to lose out on far more as a proportion of their net income, so the IFS says the cuts are regressive. (In Flanders’ simplified example, the rich household has a net income – including the in-kind value of public services – of £1100, and stands to lose £10 per week, while the poor family are going to lose £7 out of their weekly net income of £400.) The government disagrees, because public services add far more in-kind value to poor families than rich ones in the first place (returning to the simplified example rich households only get £100-worth of public services each week, as opposed to £200), so the rich are losing out on proportionately far more of their slice of the public sector pie, (e.g. university tuition and child benefit) because their slice was so much smaller to begin with.

Not pictured: Fairness. Image: epSos.de/flickr

Now, put like this the government are clearly talking crap; if you accept that public services provide in-kind benefits which have a monetary value, then it doesn’t make sense to draw a distinction between this and actual financial income when determining if the cuts are affecting society fairly. In any case, if you have a net income of £1000 per week anyway, even losing out on the entirety of your £100-worth of public services probably isn’t going to hurt you as much as losing out on just £7 per week worth of services when your weekly net income’s only £400. As Flanders mentions in her post, if you’re richer you can probably pay to get the same things public services would otherwise provide – the law of diminishing marginal utility may not apply universally, but it holds pretty well here.

But that isn’t what’s interesting about this. That the CSR is regressive isn’t anything remotely close to a surprise. No, the government’s argument is interesting because of the way it contrasts with the typical classical-liberal position in the absolute-versus-relative poverty debate. One of the fundamental political dividing lines between left and right has historically been that those on the right argue that what matters in alleviating poverty is ensuring that the worst-off have an adequate standard of living, regardless of any disparity between those at the bottom and the top of the income scale, while the left maintain that an excessively large rich-poor divide is also undesirable. But with the CSR, the government is arguing that what really matters is the proportion of the value of public services you use which you stand to lose. They could have argued that the cuts were justified because the rich will lose out on public services which are worth more in absolute terms (though Sunder Katwala at Next Left disputes this too), but, as Flanders points out, they didn’t – they tried to claim that it was progressive, that the rich would lose out more proportionately. They didn’t do so very convincingly, but the fact that they tried at all is extremely instructive. There’s a lot of talk on the left about the importance of ‘framing the debate’, of not letting political questions get phrased in ways that favour the right’s narrative. On the issue of income distribution, it seems to be widely accepted – including by the government – that relative poverty matters. They may not actually give a crap about relative poverty, but the government is at least purporting to give a shit about it, and – since they obviously aren’t going to do much to alleviate it – there’s real scope for the left to attack them on this.

The Education Maintenance Allowance gave £30 a week to students from poor families continuing their education past GCSE. I say ‘gave’ because it has been axed by the government.

I never needed to subscribe to this, but I know that a lot of the people I studied alongside at the Sixth Form College I attended would have had a very stressful time without it (and many would not have sat their A Levels at all.)

The EMA was one of those New Labour policies that worked because it put money directly into the pockets of people who needed it. And it really did work. From the FT:

The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that the EMA’s impact was “quite substantial”. It increased the share of young men eligible for the benefit staying in education for two years by 7.4 percentage points and by 5.9 percentage points for women.

In its place the doomed youth of today will have to make do with a £50 million ‘targetted’ program, details to be announced in the near future. (This represents a saving of £500 million pounds, though sadly misery felt by the young and poor isn’t accounted for in most government figures.)

The caprice of this decision is infuriating. A dear friend of mine, from just such a family, began at university only last month; I know for a fact that he would never have been able to afford the travel to and from the college he attended (at which he received distinctions on every piece of work completed.) Almost by accident of birth he, and many others in his situation, got away, having left for university just in time for this Review. Other bright working class students won’t be so lucky.

The expansion of vocational training for the young was presented almost as a way of making up for this insult. Add to this the increases in tuition fees, and this government has effectively priced the working class out of an academic education, while offering only manual labour. Jesus Christ, we might as well bring back the secondary modern. Disgraceful.

I know that the next few years will be tough, very tough for some, but I also believe that the changes we make – empowering you, trusting you, listening to you – will make the public services a more rewarding place to work. I know there are a minority in the trade unions who will deliberately misrepresent what this government stands for because they are spoiling for a fight. Please don’t allow their political motivations to push you into doing the wrong thing for the country. We do not want to take you on. We want to take you with us.

Image: David Spender/flickr

-          Extract from Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander’s Lib Dem conference speech (quoted by the BBC), which he’s delivering as I write.

So…according to Mr Alexander, public sector jobs are going to be more rewarding because workers are going to be ‘empowered’ and ‘trusted’ more. Presumably this is meant to make public sector employees so happy that the lack of more tangible rewards like pay rises won’t be an issue. Oh, and anyone who decides to get involved in industrial action because they oppose the government’s cuts policy can be safely ignored – they’re definitely a minority and they’re ‘politically motivated’ (which I think means something like ‘motivated by something more than mere naked self-interest’, but I’m not entirely sure). They probably love going on strike. You don’t have to go to work, you might get a nice brazier to stand around…it’s a fun day out for all the family!

A slew of recent polls have shown the Lib Dems with a massively reduced vote share – generally around 14-15%, as compared to the 23% they got in the general election. This would wipe them out in Parliament, assuming electoral reform doesn’t pass (and sadly it seems unlikely to), which would be a shame for those of us who think a two-party system doesn’t make for healthy democracy. But when you hear statements like the one above, it’s hard not to feel that the Lib Dems deserve all they get.