Ambulances are seen at the A&E department of St. Thomas' Hospital in London. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Labour will empower consumers in public as well as private sectors

The state can be made more responsive by giving citizens access to data, impartial advice and control over the services on which they depend.

The old model of politics where progress depended upon centralising the capacity to act - whether in the market or by top down state intervention - no longer works.


 The task of Labour’s Policy Review is help to change politics by devolving more power to people, giving them more control over their lives. That includes reforming how public services work. The traditional silo mentality, where different departments or services jealously guard resources, won’t work. Likewise, concerns about who provides a service - public, voluntary or private - don’t answer the questions around the role of the public themselves in the outcomes achieved.

Little has really changed in our ability to shape services directly around our own circumstances, despite the impact they have on our lives. As Ed Miliband has said, "I get as many people coming to me frustrated by the unresponsive state as the untamed market". Too often, p

atient choice is confined to options made by professionals. Limited access to personal care budgets and a lack of shared decision-making more generally means only a few get the flexibility and freedom to shape their own care.

One of the central themes of Labour’s Policy Review is how best to invest to prevent social problems in order to avoid the costs of failure. We know that reforming public services, and so improving interactions between service users and providers, is crucial to this ambition. 

As 

Ali McGovern, Liz Kendall, Steve Reed and Dan Jarvis have all argued, empowering citizens isn’t about disempowering public sector providers. Good decision-making thrives on early and continual feedback. Yet Which? report that many people don’t complain about poor public services because of fear of reprisal by providers. We can’t allow a situation where vulnerable social care users suffer in silence. Many providers already address this; from Unison’s work with personal care users and their members, or Worcester University, where patients interview applicants to be student nurses or healthcare assistants, and help deliver the training course itself.


Recently the government quietly included the public sector in its Consumer Rights Bill. This gives individuals the right to services performed with reasonable care and skill, at a reasonable price and within a reasonable time. So far the government admit this covers tuition fees, and use of childcare vouchers and personal care budgets. If a service doesn’t meet the required standard, students, parents and patients will be able to request a repeat performance, a price reduction or even a refund.
Those with the loudest voices or largest wallets will make good use of these powers; those without will be further excluded and their voices diminished.Without an alternative inclusive approach, sharp elbows will increasingly be the decisive factor at the sharp end of decisions about provision – with increasing inequality as a result.

Yet that doesn’t mean we should discount individual viewpoints. Instead we need to find ways to expand participation so both personal and collective interests can be heard together. Labour’s focus is on being on the side of every service user, seeking ways to empower all with the resources and confidence they need to act both independently and together if they so choose. To that end, we recognise that knowledge is power. Whether it is patient records, university syllabuses or school performance, we understand the benefits of unlocking access to data. More open flows of information to the public have the capacity to help create better-informed consumers who can then themselves make better-informed choices first time.



But access to data alone is not enough. Too often, those with complex needs or a lack of confidence struggle to sift through the information and make effective decisions. Users who ask for help need someone to answer the call - advocates who aren’t beholden to service providers. These advocates could assist in exercising rights and options for redress when things go wrong. 

In a study in Nottingham, 40 per cent of cases dealt with by advice agencies involved "preventable" failure caused by poor decision making in the public sector. Using advocates to provide advice and so improve how residents accessed services cut the average time taken to resolve cases from 100 days to 23 and then finally to just five. This saved time, money and tempers for all concerned.


This shows how the response users get is as important as their rights to information. We need to work with service providers to welcome user participation, and help create a culture where their expertise doesn't rest on making decisions for people, but working alongside them.
 This government will leave citizens to navigate services alone, leaving those without resources - either money or other skills - to struggle alone.

Labour’s Policy Review is looking at how we reform the public sector by devolving power to people, investing in prevention and incorporating cooperation and collaboration in the co-commissioning and design of services. Our mission is to stand shoulder to shoulder with every consumer - not blunting the efforts of those who already fight for the best services, but instead putting more power at the elbows of the rest for the collective benefit of all.

Stella Creasy is shadow minister for competition and consumer affairs, and MP for Walthamstow

Jon Cruddas is Labour policy review co-ordinator, and MP for Dagenham and Rainham

Getty
Show Hide image

Let's face it: supporting Spurs is basically a form of charity

Now, for my biggest donation yet . . .

I gazed in awe at the new stadium, the future home of Spurs, wondering where my treasures will go. It is going to be one of the architectural wonders of the modern world (football stadia division), yet at the same time it seems ancient, archaic, a Roman ruin, very much like an amphitheatre I once saw in Croatia. It’s at the stage in a new construction when you can see all the bones and none of the flesh, with huge tiers soaring up into the sky. You can’t tell if it’s going or coming, a past perfect ruin or a perfect future model.

It has been so annoying at White Hart Lane this past year or so, having to walk round walkways and under awnings and dodge fences and hoardings, losing all sense of direction. Millions of pounds were being poured into what appeared to be a hole in the ground. The new stadium will replace part of one end of the present one, which was built in 1898. It has been hard not to be unaware of what’s going on, continually asking ourselves, as we take our seats: did the earth move for you?

Now, at long last, you can see what will be there, when it emerges from the scaffolding in another year. Awesome, of course. And, har, har, it will hold more people than Arsenal’s new home by 1,000 (61,000, as opposed to the puny Emirates, with only 60,000). At each home game, I am thinking about the future, wondering how my treasures will fare: will they be happy there?

No, I don’t mean Harry Kane, Danny Rose and Kyle Walker – local as well as national treasures. Not many Prem teams these days can boast quite as many English persons in their ranks. I mean my treasures, stuff wot I have been collecting these past 50 years.

About ten years ago, I went to a shareholders’ meeting at White Hart Lane when the embryonic plans for the new stadium were being announced. I stood up when questions were called for and asked the chairman, Daniel Levy, about having a museum in the new stadium. I told him that Man United had made £1m the previous year from their museum. Surely Spurs should make room for one in the brave new mega-stadium – to show off our long and proud history, delight the fans and all those interested in football history and make a few bob.

He mumbled something – fluent enough, as he did go to Cambridge – but gave nothing away, like the PM caught at Prime Minister’s Questions with an unexpected question.

But now it is going to happen. The people who are designing the museum are coming from Manchester to look at my treasures. They asked for a list but I said, “No chance.” I must have 2,000 items of Spurs memorabilia. I could be dead by the time I finish listing them. They’ll have to see them, in the flesh, and then they’ll be free to take away whatever they might consider worth having in the new museum.

I’m awfully kind that way, partly because I have always looked on supporting Spurs as a form of charity. You don’t expect any reward. Nor could you expect a great deal of pleasure, these past few decades, and certainly not the other day at Liverpool when they were shite. But you do want to help them, poor things.

I have been downsizing since my wife died, and since we sold our Loweswater house, and I’m now clearing out some of my treasures. I’ve donated a very rare Wordsworth book to Dove Cottage, five letters from Beatrix Potter to the Armitt Library in Ambleside, and handwritten Beatles lyrics to the British Library. If Beckham and I don’t get a knighthood in the next honours list, I will be spitting.

My Spurs stuff includes programmes going back to 1910, plus recent stuff like the Opus book, that monster publication, about the size of a black cab. Limited editions cost £8,000 a copy in 2007. I got mine free, as I did the introduction and loaned them photographs. I will be glad to get rid of it. It’s blocking the light in my room.

Perhaps, depending on what they want, and they might take nothing, I will ask for a small pourboire in return. Two free tickets in the new stadium. For life. Or longer . . . 

Hunter Davies is a journalist, broadcaster and profilic author perhaps best known for writing about the Beatles. He is an ardent Tottenham fan and writes a regular column on football for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 16 February 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The New Times