Over the past week, the two Davids — Cameron and Miliband — have been speaking about the changing role of the individual in modern society.
In their different ways, both men are Tony Blair’s true heirs although Cameron might be in with a better chance of winning the premiership than the cautious Miliband.
There was just a touch of comedy about the environment secretary putting heavy emphasis on the ‘I can ‘ approach to modern politics in the very same Observer article in which he renounced his own claims to be a leadership challenger.
But Miliband was making a serious point when he described the fundamental shift in public expectation over the past half century from ‘I need’ to ‘I can’. Originally, the welfare state was designed to free us from want, to redress the indignities of deprivation. Nowadays, it is expected to fulfil the demands of an increasingly sophisticated citizenry who want choice at every turn.
It is the politics of aspiration — or the assumed demands of Middle England — that have dictated the shape of so many public service changes in recent years. In some areas, such as education, the pace and intensity of reform have been almost alarming.
Privatisation of our schools has been pretty dramatic. Not long ago, the idea of wealthy individuals taking over Britain’s secondary schools would have seemed like science fiction or a grim return to Victorian values. But jokes about second-hand car salesman and eccentric evangelists have long since gone stale through overuse.
Indeed, the current vogue seems to be for institutions to take over educational sponsorship. Thus, the Royal Society of Arts — whose chief executive Matthew Taylor was until last autumn a key Blair adviser — is currently mooted as a potential backer of Pimlico School, once an iconic London comprehensive.
And Edison, a US-owned education company, is to take over the senior management of a London comprehensive school in a three-year, £1m package deal.
The government plans to open up to 400 academies. A further 300 schools, we are told, will announce that they are seeking trust status by the end of this year. Blair has recently talked about remodelling the relationship of primary and secondary schools along prep school lines: the logic here being that private always knows best.
Educational rhetoric is increasingly brash and unapologetic. In a recent Spectator interview, controversial schools minister Andrew Adonis publicly regretted the passing of the age of grammar schools. Even by New Labour standards, this was a dramatic breaking of the ideological ranks.
Blair might hope these education reforms will guarantee him a place in the domestic history books, a counterweight to the unfolding tragedy of Iraq. But there is no hard evidence that academies significantly boost achievement any more than the failing schools they were designed to replace, and in some areas there are worrying signs that they are not providing a truly ‘broad and balanced’ curriculum.
Much of their famed popularity is down to government pressure. In official language: ‘The department expects local authorities to consider the scope for the establishment of academies as part of their strategic plans to increase diversity in secondary provision.’ In everyday language, many local communities in desperate need of a school are, in effect, told: no academy, no school.
Both Davids, however, would certainly continue in this reforming vein. The Conservatives supported the recent Education and Inspections Act, but thought it didn’t go far enough. Miliband has long identified himself with the aspirational wing of New Labour, which is why he is the prime minister’s personal favourite to challenge Gordon Brown for the premiership.
But there remains within the Labour Party a powerful belief that politics is about more than liberating or enabling the individual: that some people are rather better placed to get what they want than others. The ongoing school reforms underline this fear, with middle-class parents more frequently accessing the ‘better’ schools.
But how, except through strong local authorities, can we be sure that schools operate fair admissions procedures? How, except through government, can we invest in those children who need help the most?
Miliband might be right to argue that we have moved beyond raw need and that overall living standards have vastly improved. But there are still striking inequalities which are best addressed through state intervention.
And Cameron might argue for an end to the ‘state’s perceived monopoly over social progress’ but it doesn’t quite square with his call for the necessity of ‘putting others before ourselves’. For, if acting in self-interest is so clearly sanctioned in so many areas of modern life, who but the much-maligned state will act as final guarantor of the rights of those without power?
