REFORM

By John Champneys

Are you a reformer?

Be careful before you answer yes!

"Reform" is being used in a new way as meaning "business friendly". So "reform of the health service" means a health service run on business lines and with businessmen owning and running the show. "Reform of schools" means schools concentrating on making acceptable employees, with no hindrance on business providing self-serving educational materials and courses. "Reform of the economy" means giving business what it wants, no regulations in the interests of society, or of its workers or consumers. (this last, which suggests that completely free trade is automatically entirely beneficial is bizarre- if that is true, then the laws in the nineteenth century preventing women and children going down the mines were an unnecessary mistake!)

This new meaning of "reform" of course comes from America, and is a development of their idea that markets and freedom are synonymous.

I fear that Tony Blair is a great reformer in this sense. He will be heard asking for reform of the EU, meaning in part the watering down of the social safety net which the founding fathers of that institution rightly thought was essential to protect its citizens from the harshness of the enlarged market.

Am I being old-fashioned in insisting that "reform" should mean "make better"? "Economic reform", should mean business successfully providing for its customers shareholders and workers in a socially acceptable manner, not just a red tape bonfire, a prescription for cowboys.

I suggest that this business-friendly government should start its reform, making things better, at home .It has gained the trust of the majority, now it must show that it has earned it. We need competence. We need national leadership, e. g. in foot and mouth, the euro, and environmental protection. We are all in these things together, we need to be persuaded to play our part. This is quite different from just doing what focus groups, big business and the gutter press say they want. It is more or less the opposite of picking off one minority after another - professional people, social liberals and small farmers.

To put it bluntly, shallow right wing populism will not do, at least if we are looking for real solid achievements to celebrate. At times this government, like the last, seems only to be interested in millionaires and vested interests. It cannot be prudent for any of us to die waiting for NHS treatment. That means much more money, a start has been made, but much more is needed. It has to be evident that government is desperate to help us improve our health and prolong our active lives. The government are our representatives, and they have to be seen to be on our side. If we use powerful international companies, it has to be on our terms. Why should they own the land and buildings of new hospitals? What happens when a private company loses interest, fouls up, or goes broke? Elementary prudence suggests there must be a fall-back written into the contract.

A substantial change of direction is needed. Tony Blair is big enough to do it, but if he will not he should go the way of Mrs Thatcher (internal cabinet overthrow.)

Click here to return to the main page and index.

Last revised 18/8/01