Frank Field's article

Frank Field has an astonishing article in the Telegraph calling for a redress in the balance between the state and the individual. This just goes to show how volatile British politics is right now, and the possibilities open to all parties. His call for an end to over centralisation and the overbearing of the state is incredibly welcome. He sets out a six part agenda for a "radical" government.

1. Individual Control over public expenditure. Move towards cash transfers which can be used in multiple manners by recipients. This simple transfer is more efficient and returns control to people of their own lives. For example, if somebody is eligible for child tax credit, housing benefits , and child benefit, they can use the money as and when they please, and on what. So they could use some of the child benefit to get a bigger flat so all the kids can have there own space.

2. Large scale capital investments, especially in transport. Field wants no more flights over London from 25 years time, by building a new mega airport in the Thames estuary, for example. The total revamp of our transport systems will us PFIs (the private sector) so that government sets the parameters and private investment takes on the risk and the gains.

3. Establish a British sovereign wealth fund for state pensions which will be independently run.

4. Parent choice in schools. Make it easy for parents to set up their own schools using public money.

5. Set up a fund, which private citizens contribute to, which will protect the rainforests of the world. Get private money into it, as well as state funds.

6. Primary Elections in "safe seats" and locally elected Police Chiefs.

What do you make of these proposals? My analysis is this:

1. Great. Cash transfers are more efficient, give people more flexibility, reduce bureaucratic costs, and give people more control over their own lives.

2. Unsure to say the least. Using PFIs to finance transport investments appears to be the orthodox position. As for moving Heathrow, I agree that the airport's location creates externalities (noise pollution for west London, for one) and Government does have a role in internalising this. However, upping sticks would be incredibly expensive and appears a bit pie in the sky.

3. I don't see why we need a sovereign wealth fund. Why can't the market do this anyway? Isn't this a classic case of the government "crowding out"? The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions should employ fund managers in the private sector to manage state pensions. When one doesn't succeed, change company.This would split up the fund's investments, creating greater stability, keep competition high, and not crowd out investment. Sovereign Wealth funds are currently all the rage, but there is no reason whatsoever to have one.

4. A no brainer. By extension, and implication, I think he also means that private institutions can spring up using public money, like in the Swedish system. I'm fully in favour of this (although I would bring in elements of redistribution into the system (the poorest kids will get more than the 7k voucher to spend)).

5. I understand the logic of this. Government takes the lead and acts, yet the taxpayer doesn't bear the whole cost. Doing "good" becomes cheaper. However, as part of Field's argument is that we must rebuild civil society out of the grips of Government, it appears slightly odd that government has to take the lead here, when other orginisations such as Cool Earth, which he mentions, are already starting to perform these services, without the need for public funding. Once more we have the crowding out problem.

6. I very much like the idea of open primaries to keep incumbents in safe seats incentivised to behave. Would we really have to put up with the Wintertons and their expense forms if every four years they were challenged by a Tory for their seats? As for locally elected police chief, I believe this is already Lib Dem policy, and its a good one.


Frank Field's article attempts to come to terms with the growing expense of government and the free rider problems within it. He genuinely sets out a program for increasing the liberty of citizens (especially with points 1,4, and 6). This spirit should be embraced. The Fields and MacShanes of the Labour party are realising that the party is neither radical or liberal. Its not the place for them. Nick Clegg has spealt out where they have a new home. I really hope the Lib Dems adopt some of their positions and bring them in. We need a progressive party and the Tories aren't it.