Anyway - this news story made me think about this issue from a different angle.  Would it be right to reward people who made conscious decisions relating to their health, consumption, pollution etc by cutting their taxes?  In a sense we already do this with Road Tax (tax less polluting cars less) so why not tax people who are less of a burden on the state less?  If you keep your BMI below a certain level, don’t smoke, don’t drink excessively, excercise heaps etc etc then why should you pay as much tax as somebody who exhibits all of these ‘polluting’ and costly activities?  In the USA where, depending on your definition of liberal, the most liberal healthcare system (and many, me included, would argue unfair…) exists this is reflected in lower insurance premiums for people with ‘healthier’ lifestyles (and in the UK – here).

Is this liberal?  I think there are arguments on both sides.  On the one hand the state increases your liberty by reducing your tax burden (similar to the Easyjet council model we’ve heard so much about – here).  On the other, like the nudging objections, someone has to decide what the ‘good behaviour’ is.  Another obvious objection is the inequality that would be created between healthy people who find it easy to lose weight, keep fit etc and those who for whatever reasons find it more challenging.  Also would it be a breach of the universal coverage the NHS provides?

I’d be interested to hear peoples’ opinions.

‘He (Jack McConnell) once said that the job of each First Minister was to leave Scotland better than they found it. With the smoking ban and his work in Malawi he has certainly done that’

Now, we can all quibble about the liberality of banning smoking in pubs, but few would argue that Scotland’s link with Malawi was a bad thing. Indeed, most of us would say that this is one of the things that the Scottish Parliament can be justifiably proud. More can be found here at the Scotland Malawi Partnership and the Malawi Development Programme.

This news from Malawi then is troubling. Now, Malawi is an independent country and, therefore, can make decisions people in Scotland disagree with – of course, this sentence barely needs writing. However, I’d be interested to know what the Scottish Government (and, indeed, Scottish Parliament) thought of this.  Western governments have given money to far more despicable regimes than the multi-party democracy in Malawi but that doesn’t mean that as a friend of Malawi, Scotland shouldn’t make a public stand when they disagree with policies or actions undertaken by the Malawian government.

Indeed, The Scotsman makes a similar point. So far, Alex Salmond hasn’t made a statement. This really isn’t supposed to be a party political point (I’m not in a party for starters!). Rather as the First Minister of Scotland, he is the right and proper person to make such a statement – even if it means saying some tough things to a country with which we have strong ties.

RCM

The Cameroons are a much more ideological bunch than previous generations of Tories and are much more likely to read outside the traditional conservative texts and, when they come across an attractive idea, jump upon it. In recent years, as well as PBA (as, I believe, policy wonks are supposed to call it) the Tories have jumped on such ideas as liberal paternalism* and flat taxes. However, unlike these other ideological dalliances Cameron’s desire to see a Post-Bureaucratic Age is turning into a fairly lengthy affair – indeed,Steve Richards noticed this in 2007.

If we are to assume that this isn’t a gimmick (and I think that we should do so) this is (a) something that those who describe themselves as either big L or small L liberal is should welcome (b) potentially a sea-change idea in British political life.

The Cameroons want to attack Whitehall aggressively and, as a result of this, decentralise power. Labour have traditionally talked about the redistribution of wealth whereas the Conservatives are proposing a redistribution of power – they argue that the heavily centralised state of the 20th century is not necessarily appropriate for the 21st. This should be music to liberal ears and, indeed, some will wonder if Cameron hasn’t stolen their hymnbook. Michael Gove sums it up characteristically well here:

‘In every area of life the future rests not with the exercise of massive power from one central point but the enabling of growth through constant innovation and adaption. We can no longer control society as a diplodocus controlled its tail, from one tiny brain that is immeasurably distant from the action’

Many academics now talk about ‘Monitory Democracies’. A Monitory Democracy is how some other democracies around the world organise themselves. Power-monitoring and power-controlling devices (or ‘checks and balances’ to use old fashioned terminology) spread both across and through the entire political system.

This hasn’t happened in Britain. Look at Australia and see their integrity commissions which can ruthlessly expose corrupt politicos, civil servants and, even, the police. Canada has the Federal Accountability Act. I’m not sure if Cameron intends to go down these particular routes but ripping the power from central bureaucracy seems to be the heart of this philosophy.

So what does that mean?

This will mean more City Mayors with more powers, local control over schools, housing, hospitals and policing. The more radical plans would see the end of nationalised state benefits to localised welfare-to-work schemes. This will not get the pubs and bars of Liverpool and Gateshead chattering but it is a fundamental and mammoth shift from the status quo. If Cameron pulls it off, quite simply, Britain will be changed beyond recognition.

What are the problems? Firstly, ripping the power from the mandarins will be problematic. Secondly, as d’Ancona points out, will people buy it? Whilst we all moan about centralised power, ”too many bureaucrats and too much red tape” and many people instinctively like the idea of local provision and power in local hands, there is the nagging doubt that this is false bleating. When actually offered the chance to run a local school (or play a part in running it) many will say ‘too busy’, ‘don’t know how’, ’someone else can’ and so forth. As a society we are very used to having many things free at the point of use with no concomitant effort on our part – will we rise to such a challenge?

If PBA needs the people of Britain to stand up and be counted, to start taking an active part in the provision of the services that matter to their lives and to overhaul an out-dated system, it will also need a change in politics. If a local school isn’t performing, the Education Minister will need to keep his or her sticky beak out even if that means some negative headlines. If the public are to be encouraged to run schools and are trusted to do so they must be allowed to make some errors.

This, I believe, may be the big battleground in the coming years and one that will come to dominate political discourse in the UK. So, are we with the bureaucrats or with the post-bureaucrats?

Big L liberals may be annoyed that the Tories have nicked their localism ideas. The question that always occurs to me here is: If it is a good idea, why does it matter?

RCM

* And a critique of liberal paternalism here.