Mental hospitals in this case.
I sometimes get stick on Samizdata for pointing out that the demands of practical politics in a media democracy mean that it is pointless to try the public statements of politiicans against an ideological touchstone, and unreasonable to believe that they believe everything they say from day to day. But I do greatly resent two consequences of populist pandering: first, the willingness to distort the facts to flatter or inflame public delusions and foster moral panics; second, the blithe adoption of policy that is logically or strategically utterly incoherent, suggesting they have no understanding whatsoever of what they are doing. Today brings an example of the latter:
The Conservatives’ planning system would remove potential obstacles to the development of new schools by curtailing the power of local authorities in this area, according to the document.
The leaked planning policy says “for the [education] policy to be successful it is essential that unnecessary bureaucracy is not permitted to stifle the creation of new community schools”.
Fine. Perfectly sensible. Get the monopoly producer interest out of the way. That is entirely consistent with an implicit aim of Tory education policy (definitely not publicly advertised as such) of permitting competition between schools. But..
Under the policy, as well as planning decisions on new schools being taken by the secretary of state for children, schools and families, anyone would be able to turn an existing building into a school without the need for planning permission.
Which might be good, but the madness is starting to creep in. If any building can be converted into a school ad lib (excellent), then what “planning decisions” could there be for the Secretary of State to take? And how does that accord with a general claim to be in favour of decentralisation?
And when an existing school closed, that land would not be allowed to be used for any other purpose without the agreement of the schools secretary.
Straightjacket for Mr Neill, please. That is just crazy.
“Let us establish a ratchet/racket whereby the proportion of land and other property occupied by schools is calculated to increase, regardless of demand. Let us destroy much of the advantage of the freeing up of planning, by making it clear to investors that they may be stuck with the change of use. Let us put future Secretaries of State in the position where they are directly politically responsible for the closure of any school, and therefore likely to be under pressure to resist it from concentrated interest groups, and constantly preoccupied with campaigns over particular cases. Cottage Hospitals, you say? What are they?”
So much for “localism”!
Well spoken Guy:
I heard about this on the radio this morning. In addition, there was comparison (but I’m not sure by whom) with airports and power stations.
There is a point concerning airports and power stations, in which local authorities can be as NIMBY as private householders. However, every local authority needs (land allocated to) schools and hospitals, whereas there are many less power stations and large airports than there are local authorities.
Thus there may be cause for national government arbitration, an appeal process or direct decision making for large airports and power stations. There is zero to negligible case for (anything but exceptional) national government involvement in planning permission for schools and hospitals.
This is nothing but a demand for further centralisation by the Conservative Party, to disempower local authorities with whom they might disagree. Have they not learned that this is wrong, from the very similar mistake made by the Thatcher government. Centralisation empowers your opponents when you next lose a general election, just as much as or more than it empowers you when you are in office.
This looks to be a Conservative Party against subsidiarity. Taken to its logical limit, subsidiarity ends with the liberty of individual citizens to make their own decisions on all matters but the necessary minimum requiring government involvement. And government involvement should be at the most local level that is both necessary and practical.
This also looks like a Conservative Party that has no political philosophy to support their claim to oppose more transfer of power to the EU.
It stinks.
Best regards
The Secretary of State will need these powers to stop people from exercising their new freedom in a frivolous and irresponsible manner. That is to say, doing anything the Secretary of State might not approve of.
Given the nature of the complaint, this may seem a bit of digression:
There is a great deal of of comparative effects between the U S and the U K. Both have social systems that purport to have “representative” governments; which governments are divided (but conjoined rather than separated) into levels of “local” and “central.”
In the case of the U S, our central was structured by (supposedly limited) devolution “up” to form the central; whereas in the U K there was (is?) devolution “down” (or outward) from the central authority of the Crown in Parliament (as ameliorated or diluted from time to time). The ultimate point, in theory, is to have Representative Governments at all levels.
But, do we? Are the kinds of people who seek office in either system really oriented to represent anything other than their own interests and concepts?
Who seeks public offices? What kinds of individuals?
Is competency, or any evidence of it a prerequisite for electoral consent?
Apparently not in the last presidential elections in the U S. Indications are that will probably be the same in the coming U K elections. So, why are competent persons not available and offering their time and lives to representative governance? Why do the electorates not seek at least some degree or indications of competence; because it’s just not on offer?
And what is “policy” that is given over to the incompetent, other than determination by some few of how most others shall live and interact? Coupled, of course, with determining who shall be exempt.
Surely no one can be surprised. This sort of centralism has been Conservative policy since Thatcher. When local councils were forced to put their refuse collection out to private tender did local people get to choose who did the collection? Of course not – they exchanged an elected monopoly for an unelected one.
The prime example of course was the TSB – stolen from its owners to be sold off so Central Government could pocket the cash and pretend to be saving money.
http://www.solhaam.org/articles/tsb.html(Link)
So UK schools are going to be afforded the same status as mosques in the Middle East? Once built, they’re there to stay.
Quite correct Guy.
The policy started with the observation that local councils were finding ways to stop parents (and others) setting up schools. The idea was to “set the people free” (Churchill 1951)
But then the “powers for the…..” came in. Thus meaning more statism rather than less.
Yes – demented.