Those Liberal Democrats

It can't escape one's attention that the general election is looming and the Liberal Democrats, quite rightly, are pointing out what perils lay in store for the NHS if the next government turns out to be a Conservative one. Indeed, there is no doubt in my mind the return of a Tory government will see the end of the NHS as we know it.

However, I am rather at loss to know what to do for the best to prevent what I would consider to be a travesty. I'm certainly not voting LibDem, as I don't trust them for two reasons:

Firstly, I have to grin at their very clever article in a recent communication I received from them in Oxford East News. It cites several newspaper headlines and gives a commentary on the Tory plans to privatise the NHS. But nowhere in this article does it say that the LibDems would not do the same, although you'd be forgiven for thinking, after reading it, that the LibDems are very anti-privatisation.

Why am I making this point you ask? Well, secondly, as some followers of this blog will know, I was a former member of the Liberal Democrats - in fact for nearly 25 years until 2008. In the "twighlight" years of my membership I was privy (as were all members) to a policy paper drafted by Chris Huhne about Public Service Provision, which, of course, dealt with perspectives on the NHS, inter alia. This paper contained very "free market" overtones and I remember distinctly the phrase: "a choice of service provider guarantees quality". Aside from the fact that this notion is just not true, one only obtains a choice of service providers by contracting out to private enterprise.

(Don't get me wrong, I'm don't carry a blanket opposition to private enterprise or the free market - I believe, and always have believed, in a mixed economy, which by definition means that I accept that there are certian industries that should be publicly owned and some private ..but that's another article.)

I attended the conference at which this policy paper was debated, albeit some years ago now, where some members tried to put through a motion that gave a qualification that would have ruled out wholesale privatisation of public services. This motion was defeated on the grounds that 'there was no question of this happening anyway'. Hmmm..if there's no question of it, then why prevent a motion to that effect?

Similarly why can you not find a single sentence in the Oxford East News article that makes it explicit that the LibDems will not privatise the NHS?

The answer to both of these questions is that the LibDems are being very careful not to hold themselves hostage to fortune and this is ever more important for them as the likelihood of a hung parliament at the forthcoming election looks increasingly real. The 'rising stars' of the party will gain a seat on the cabinet of a LibDem/Tory coalition government much more easily without the millstone of such Beveridgite and Keynesian principles around their neck. Such a coaltion, I believe, is well on the cards and will prove to be the next best (or rather, worst) thing to an outright Conservative majority.