h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

People of the political “right” argue for a small state and accuse those on the left of seeking to hand as much power as possible to the state. We see this in the debate in USA about health care, for example. Indeed, the USA is probably the best example of small government whilst China and some Islamic countries can be characterised as having a state with all pervading power. Even in USA, whilst the state does not always act as provider it offers incentives to encourage the private sector to work with the grain of state defined needs. These might take the form of direct subsidies, tax breaks or import controls.

Here in the UK all three main parties are committed to retaining a “National Health Service” and to the idea of the majority of funding for education to come from government. Similarly, there is a fairly broad consensus that defence, law enforcement and the system of justice should be under state authority. The arguments tend, rather, to be about the share of national income that should be allocated to each of these functions and to what extent the management of these functions should be controlled – interfered with one might say – by ministers. It is, I would suggest, these arguments that will dominate the forthcoming general election campaign.

If management of the NHS is devolved to regional or local bodies, as indeed it once was, complaints arise about a “post-code lottery” as each local management chooses different priorities for spending. On the other hand, a system driven by government set targets can leave genuine local priorities unmet.

The same is true of education. Should the curriculum be set by government to meet the supposed long-term needs of the national economy or is there room to permit local variations based on regional employment patterns? We may no longer have clearly defined regionally based skills – textiles/mining/engineering/steelmaking. Ship-building though is still indigenous to some areas and already there is strong co-operation between educational institutions and that industry in those areas. And there is a case to be made still, perhaps, based on the concentration of tourism or banking and finance in specific regions. Could not regeneration of some of our most deprived regions be based on the establishment of a new industry, one based perhaps on the need to reduce CO2, with the necessary skills and knowledge forming part of the curriculum in those regions?

If we were designing a minimum state from scratch, what functions would form the core, always exercised by the state, and which could be left to private organisations to deliver via the market? What incentives – subsidies, tax breaks, import controls – might be used to encourage the private sector to meet priorities established by the state?

This is actually a subject on which I've been trying to form my opinions for a while. I certainly think that free-at-the-point-of-delivery healthcare is important. Call it a basic human right. (Local or national control? I don't know.) And I approve of other government functions such as regulation of standards, food labelling, workplace safety, advertising codes and the like.

F19585?thread=6980165 starts as a religious debate (a fairly boring one, by hootoo standards), but gradually changes into a political debate which touches on these issues. One point that was made is that some industries are inevitably monopolies. For example, you can have as many schools and colleges as you want, but what do the qualifications mean? So you need an accreditation body, which states that such-and-such a degree actually means something. This body should be a state agency, because at least it is then accountable.

So there should be at least that much state involvement in education.

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2006/08/katrina_and_wha.html

TRiG.

I broadly agree with TRiG in that there are some things (education, NHS, security) that should be provided by the State, free at point of use, as a matter of human rights.

Where possible, I'd prefer things to be organised at the national level because (in the UK at least) local government and politics is horrifically unrepresentative. With special reference to the education curriculum I think there should be something like NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence - decides best practice for the NHS) because politicians should be kept out of education policy altogether. People who haven't set foot in a school since they were 16 keep moving the goalposts for professional educators and imposing wholly unrealistic projects on schools. Education should be left to the professionals.

That doesn't mean local idiosyncrasies can't be taken into accounts: most subject curricula have quite a bit of latitude built in so teachers can choose the most appropriate materials. When I was teaching history in Cornwall and doing the Middle Ages instead of doing Alfred burning the scones, the Vikings and Edward the Confessor like the rest of England, I was able to focus on Cornish history, since at the time Cornwall was effectively a separate country at the time. The only exception, strangely, is RE which has to have a Christian focus, regardless of the demographics of the school.

I agree but we are all ignoring the biggest part of the debate, federal regulation of banking, trading and investing. 'Trickle Down' Reagonomics, Clinton small l liberal economics and Bush cronyism almost lead to a worldwide catastrophe. (I won't speak for the UK and the Iron Maiden). You can't run a state supervised healthcare system or have physical security without the money to pay for it and you can't just print the money without eventually having to pay the piper.

In the US the debate seems to be between the conservatives who call federal regulation and oversight socialism and the liberals who are afraid to frighten an already frightened general public. No shades of gray for the Republicans and don't overly rock the boat say the Democrats.

Lost in this whole debate is *still* the lack of regulation, leaving the back door open for the corporations.

In England the NHS faces the problem that money is provided on pre-defined success criteria.

A more logical approach would be for the money to follow the patient.

This would mean hospitals would gain from curing or treating people, rather than the number of patients passing through their lists.

We also need to reduce the burden of people on sickness benefit, many of whom can work, but would find it difficult to get work, as sickness pays more it becomes the benefit of choice, and effectively adds to the nhs bill.

It seems to me that the ideals of democracy and a neutral state have reached an all-time low in the UK (although I have ceased to be surprised by the depths that can be creatively plumbed by the rogues and scoundrels in positions of power!).

We are overburdened by taxation (at over 43%) and state interference in every aspect of our lives. A large percentage of the populace seem to have decided that the hard-won democratic rights given to them are pretty much worthless and so no longer participate in the process. A proportion of the elected and non-elected officials running this country are crooks or simply naïve and incompetent.

We have a three party system (two party if one is a realist) that is representative only inasmuch as it has successfully convinced us all that 'middle of the road' politics is what we want.

Society has become a consumer monster in which we have a little over 60 million people in this country carrying a combined personal debt that tops £1 trillion and the haves, combined with advertisers create such an aspirational pressure that the have-nots feel that they have to keep up just to be a part of society.

The UK is also in thrall to the American Superpower machine and gaily wades in to other nations unwinnable conflicts and generally interferes in the world in a jingoistic and aggressive manner due in the main to a deluded sense of Empire. This is sold to the people as the War On Terror!! The terror emerges from our interference at the behest of the Western Alliance war machine and would not exist (for such a small country) if we stayed out and made peace instead of war.

Big Government has got us into this mess in the first place and is incapable of getting us out due to vested interests and International Capital (and before anyone says - this is not an Illuminatus-style conspiracy). The EU is no less to blame if you begin to examine the raft of Regulation that comes out on a regular basis.

On balance I believe that the state should be largely dismantled - this is, of course one of the six impossible things to do before breakfast.

The floor is yours, Ladies and Gents.

t.

Happy New Year, by the way.

I'm always puzzled by claims that pretty much everything is as bad as its ever been, and my question in response is always to ask when exactly things were better. We're nowhere near an "all time low". Nowhere near at all. The state doesn't interfere "in every aspect of our lives" - that's just not true.

I don't see why 'big government' or taxation levels are in any way to blame for the "consumer monster" and massive levels of personal debt. Surely that's the result of too little regulation, rather than too much, no? Similarly, I'm not sure what big government has to do with the UK's reliance on America, and on geopolitical decisions.

In fact, I'd score "smaller government" America as being in a worse position than the UK in terms of personal and national debt, and in terms of the behaviour of elected officials and representatives. And if it's duopoly two party systems you want....

In the UK, we've tried smaller government, laissez faire economic libertarianism during the 19th century, and it was its disastrous failure that led to the creation of the welfare state.

I would say things were better 40 years ago.

Universal regulation rarely works ~ except on the grossest level. Once you try to legislate as a answer to every problem you have a raft of laws that relate to specific instances, and you therefore have contradictory laws.

Let us look at the latest attempt to preotect our children from predators. The proposed legislation was for everyone who came into contact with children to be registered, this then led to the ridiculous situation of parents being unable to do mutual baby-sitting duties unless both were registerd.

Laws are and regulations specific to situations or groups cannot be drafted as universal legislation, but in our modern age the lawyer is King in the public domain. (and in commerce the accountant is.)

This sad view that overloks all human benevolence has brought us the the sorriest state this country has been in since probably about 1850

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." – Frederic Bastiat

swl - amusing quotation and containing a grain of truth no doubt.
Let's look at what could happen without government intervention. Those opposed to such intervention can respond by indicating either (a) why they think I'm wrong about the likely outcome or (b) why they think life would be better as a result.
A General
1. Uncontrolled travel across national borders.
2. Crime unpunished except by lynch mob
3. Unco-ordinated education service with variable standards and curriculum contents, some probably containing extreme religious views/indoctrination
4. Similarly unco-ordinated health care with no way of knowing which treatments are most effective and which are accompanied by unacceptable risks
5. All roads accessible only by paying a toll. Standards of maintenance (and winter gritting!) extremely variable.
B Specifically relevant to recent events
1. Total collapse of the world's banking system
2. Total collapse of US and European automotive industry
Cheers,
Frank

*Universal regulation rarely works*

Fair enough, but what about specific regulation? The rule of law, the interpretation and acceptance of what is moral and ethical, the protection of the weak are all forms of regulation. Common sense (which as we all know isn't) should dictate how far regulation should go, not political correctness. Social democratic state intervention works more than it doesn't, no?

What was better in 1960 than now? I'm struggling.... music? Football?

We've always had bad laws. You can pick any time in the history of pretty much any country and you'll find bad laws. Generally it's because of unintended consequences, knee-jerk legislation, or (often) because it's misinterpreted (sometimes wilfully - see how often the Data Protection Act is quoted by people who don't want to do what you've requested).

I agree that "child protection" has gone a bit crazy. For far too long child protection issues were just ignored (sometimes wilfully), but it's clear that things have swung too far the other way in some cases. Public suspicion is now such that a lot of men are put off youth work, either professionally or voluntarily. But why has this happened? I don't blame the lawmakers on this one, other than for caving in to tabloid hysteria.

I agree about the lack of human benevolence, but I think its origins are rather different. Adam Curtis argues in a documentary that the problem is that governments of various persuasions have for years fallen for the Game Theory version of human beings which paints everyone as only self interested. If this is the case, then the best way to achieve a good society is to arrange incentives in such a way that they cause the desired behaviours. Thus target culture was born. And it's effects have been devastating. In the public sector, managers are judged on meeting often arbitrary targets, not holistically on the overall quality of the service for which they're responsible. Result? The incentive is to manipulate the system, or worse, cheat. And why do they behave like that? Because that's how they're expected to behave. Much better to say - your job is to do your absolute best with what you have for the people you serve.

In the private sector, it's led directly to the credit crunch. Targets are set, mortgage salespeople cheat, lie, and act irresponsibly to try to meet them, because they have no stake in doing their job properly.

I was better in 1960. New born and not a care in the world. There was almost full employment in the 1960 and people had never felt more affluent. I do not claim that there was not poverty, disease and lawbreaking but I do strongly believe that things were simpler and more straightforward until the advent of the Target culture you rightly blame for some of society's ills. There is still poverty, disease and crime and we have all been manipulated to fear these and terror to the extent that we allow our leaders to take us to war and to watch us constantly.

The data that is collected on each of us is controlled by the Data Protection Act but in reality do we really know how much is kept and by whom? Who is watching the watchers...and who is watching them?

General election turnout has fallen since New Labour (a misnomer if ever there was one) came to power ( http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm ).

My experience of the employment law sector in the last 15 years is that more and more law is enacted through the back door of regulation. Many recent Acts of Parliament have a raft of enabling clauses that allow a Secretary of State to introduce Regulation at a later date - as you rightly observe as a knee-jerk or caving in to Tabloid hysteria.

A lot of the law and regulation now in place is either misapplied, not widely applicable or used, or simply ill-conceived and unenforceable.

I could go on but it is late.

t.

I dont thin that "the State" has any more power than it ever had.

Take for instance China today. In the UK we wouldnt accept anything like Tianimen Square but it has happened in the past that revolts, protests and such like have been put down with bloody retribution. What's different is nothing but the people's willingness to rise up.

What is diferent today is the states ability through technology and faster transport to reach outlying provinces either physically or with information.

We can see the speed cameras and hear the public information adverts about salt in our diet. We drive past the hospital on our daily commute not spend half a day walking there when we desperately need treatment.



McKay thinks that we were on the verge of losing the right to leave our children with paedophiles if we so chose and he was right, but because it was too difficult for the state to bring in the necessary checks and maintain a functioning voluntary and education activities the regulations were watered down. Those worried about the Nanny State can rest assured you can still leave your children in the care of anyone you like without making a solitary check as to their suitability if you like.



My motto as a school care taker was this: When you are doing a good job no one cares

The Cuban Missile Crisis was in 1962. Whether there was full employment or not, or whether people felt affluent or not, it was probably the height of the Cold War and nuclear annihilation must have seemed likely.

Ironically, the consequences of some of the social changes of the 1960s are now what makes 2010 a much better time to live for everyone - much greater sexual equality, less (overt) prejudice against ethnic minorities and lesbians, gays, and bisexuals. Much more toleration for divorce, for couples living together outside of marriage, for children born out of wedlock.

If you remember the 60s, you weren't really there, man...

I'll make my usual point that those who argue for a teeny-weeny state and think that people are just capable of working things out between themselves without any "nannying" or "bossing" by Ian Government take a trip to Somalia and see how their ideas have actually worked out in practice in the only country where people aren't "burdened" by the State.

"Common sense (which as we all know isn't) should dictate how far regulation should go"

"Common sense" is just a generic term meaning "what most people think", though. Sometimes it's right and sometimes it's wrong; tried and tested methodology would surely be a better basis for legislation, no?

>People of the political “right” argue for a small state and accuse those on the left of seeking to hand as much power as possible to the state.

Incidentally, this is a falacy and an all too common one. Those on the "right" (by which you mean the conservative right) are in favour of a smaller *welfarist* state, meaning less statism and state intervention in education, the workplace etc etc. In post-war society the state has expanded vastly into these areas in the name of the common good, usually at the expense of other parts of the state (notably the military). In some cases, the conservative right is often in favour of the retention or *expansion* in the size of the state (see the American right's support for collossal spending on the US military; it's one of the most expensive and well-furnished state organisations in the world).

>>"People who haven't set foot in a school since they were 16 keep moving the goalposts for professional educators and imposing wholly unrealistic projects on schools. Education should be left to the professionals."

But isn't there also a problem with the people who teach teachers to teach often having minimal experience of schools themselves?