Services - Cuts and Costs

It is a common error to equate the amount spent on Services either to an improvement in outcomes or a commitment to issues. Neither of these equations adds up. It is perfectly possible to increase how much you spend on a given Service while there is no actual change in the outcome or worse yet while the outcomes fall. For example you can pump money into the training of dentists but if those dentists do not then remain working in the NHS the outcome of improved dental health for the nation does not follow. Equally a couple of million pounds, while being a fortune to most individuals, amounts to little in a national budget and so can easily be 'invested' in any area that panders to public opinion at the time with little or no thought for what if any difference it will make. Do not misunderstand me: Services require investment but not all spending is investment.

It is a trap too easy to fall in to claim to have done a great thing by spending more on Services, after all it is laudable for any one of us to give of ourselves to a worthy cause. The trap is that when Government gives it gives not out of its 'own' coffers but out of the pockets of the people of the country. Spending other peoples money is not in itself a good thing and so those figures can be thrown back all too easily as criticism. There have been those in Labour and there are yet those who make this mistake time and time again.

What matters is not spending on Services but the outcomes of those Services.

Labour has a phenomenal record of improving Service outcomes across the board. Labour not only increased the outcomes but peoples expectations of those outcomes. Labour worked hard at taking the 'second rate' out of peoples view of Services in the UK. We have a record to defend there that cannot be assailed.

I am going to go further though: Just as it is not spending that matters it is also not the Service Providers. It is not teachers and nurses but Education and Health. Government has to be there for every man woman and child in this country, it has to be there for them as people not professions. If a Service Outcome can be best reached with fewer providers then fewer providers we should have. Yes, I do mean if we can best educate our children with fewer teachers then we should have fewer, if we can best care for our sick with fewer nurses then there should be less. I know how counterintuative and how cold this feels but pause and reflect upon the books, computers, school trips, exchange programs that might be made available with fewer teachers, or the drugs and technology that might be on hand with fewer nurses. I am not saying that cutting the number or pay of providers is necessarily the best way to improve a Service Outcome but I am saying it does not always follow that what is good for the Service Provider is good for the Service Outcome.

I passionately believe in our countries Services and not just for those who can't afford 'better' but for us all. I genuinely believe that by our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone. But I also believe that we need a welfare state focused on outcomes and not just spending or the interests of Service Providers. You may not want to agree with me but I think if you think this over you just may.