---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 13:15:19 +1200 From: Ian Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 'Mai-not' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: FW: Interesting speech by Rt Hon Peter LilleyTPDTP FYI > ---------- > From: Richard Pearce[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, 30 May 1999 8:01 > To: Ian Ritchie > Subject: Interesting speech by Rt Hon Peter LilleyTPDTP > > Dear Ian > > I have been in the UK for just over a month. I have produced a newspaper > "The IndustrialPioneer" - 4 sides of A3 - on DTP for the first time - for > the past 39 years it has been done with pasting up. On article I wrote > for > it is the following - Peter Lilley was one of the leading marketeers in > John Majors Tory Govt here - he was Secretary of State for Social > Security. > It seemed to me that it might be relevant to the NZ situation. > > Regards Richard > > > Redefining the Role of the Market > > by Richard > Pearce > > In his recent speech The Rt Hon Peter Lilley redefined the limits of the > free market ideology in its application to health, education and welfare - > as seen by a Conservative. The fury of some of his colleagues shows that > this is not a mere re-arraignment of words. We reprint some of his > comments as they may encourage a more critical look at the role of the > market - and also because what has been reported is only a fraction of the > more interesting parts of his speech. > > No doubt the speech was prompted by the need for political survival - but > preoccupation with that point can deflect the attention from something of > more importance. The fact is that the truths Mr Lilley has expressed > demolish the simplistic contention of the New Right that the market rules > in every situation. That is why some of his colleagues were so furious. > They are now faced with the need to use some common sense as well as the > market. > > In his speech Peter Lilley says:- "Conservatives today must renew public > confidence in our commitment to the Welfare State - but we will only do so > if we openly and emphatically accept that the free market has only a > limited role in improving public services like health, education and > welfare". > > "[Public] unease about our attitude to the public services has, I believe, > been reinforced by the way many Conservatives talk and don't talk about > the > welfare state. Too often Conservatives' intellectual body language has > conveyed a palpable feeling of guilt about support for the public > services. > > "I believe it is because many Conservatives came to assume that the > primary > or even only role of Conservatism is the application and extension of the > free market paradigm. Free markets are seen as not just part of > Conservatism but the whole of it. > "This blighted our approach to policy in this area in three ways. > > "First, where the free market paradigm cannot be applied Conservatives are > assumed to have nothing to say about it. > > "A second consequence of assuming Conservatism was exclusively about > market > solutions was the dressing up of often perfectly sensible reforms in the > language of business or economics. Patients and pupils were re-labelled > as > customers and clients. Hospitals and schools become 'plant' and 'assets' > and so on. The effect of using business language was to reinforce > people's > concern that we were planning to convert public services into profit > making > businesses." > > "Third and most damaging some Conservatives assume that though no one has > yet even suggested a beneficial way of bringing the free market into the > provision of public services [they assume that this] was due to lack of > free market enthusiasm or sheer electoral cowardice. > > "Unless and until we are prepared to accept that there is more to life and > more to Conservatism than defending and extending the free market we will > always be on the intellectual back foot where the public services are > concerned. > > "I yield to no one in championing the virtues of free markets on > philosophical, moral and practical grounds. But that is not a reason for > talking as, dare I say it, some of the late converts do, as if the free > market was not simply part of the Conservative philosophy but the whole of > it. > > "When I was in the Treasury I often found myself battling with the > rigorous > minds of Treasury mandarins. They would argue that my plan was > impracticable. I would show that it worked perfectly in practice > elsewhere. They would reply, 'Yes, Minister. It may work in practice. But > it won't work in theory'. > > "So it may be helpful to spell out why there are distinct limits to market > processes in these areas. The underlying reason is that we have > obligations > to others. And, of its very nature, fulfilling an obligation involves a > transfer from those who have to those who have not; whereas the market is > about mutually beneficial exchanges between self reliant individuals." > -- For MAI-not (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and links to other MAI sites please see http://mai.flora.org/
