UNISON Active ANALYSIS - 'John Lewis' v 'easyCouncil'‏

"Any modern democracy that fails to keep at its core an essential state capacity to deliver will become quickly inept.": UNISON Active analysis of today's Guardian report on the future of public services following David Cameron's recent speech to the Institute of Governance. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/11/gordon-brown-david-cameron-institute-governance-speech

In the debate of big state v small state, politicians of all parties gravitate arguments towards the 'right balance'. Despite Liam Byrne's defence of the state he cannot wait to point out that there has been a growth in the third and voluntary sector providers under a labour administration.

The Tories believe that 'the balance' on their terms is supporting the private and third sectors to step into the place of direct state provision or control - with minimal state input and of course let's not forget they are wedded to the idea of reducing state spending. This is in effect the enabling model espoused by Sir Nicholas Ridley under Thatcher.

This Ridleyesque ideology rears its ugly head with the concept of minimal service delivery in councils such as Barnet. Residents who dare to expect a decent service are being expected to pay for a 'top up' for the privilege. Its a bit like having the audacity to want to take clean underwear in an extra bag on a Ryan Air flight.

Basic essentials but hey ho under the Barnet model of local council you will have to pay over and above your basic council tax - which was of course designed to finance local services. However before labour politicians line up to attack Barnet look at the Audit Commission report 'Positively Charged' which cited councils already raise £11 billion per annum in charges - perhaps therefore the Barnet's of this world are really a reflection on a redundant method of funding local services that Labour has failed to tackle. Report after report urging action on how we fund local councils have been successively kicked into the long grass for fear of upsetting the apple-cart on council tax re-evaluations.

So where does all this leave us? The problem with this debate is that the New Labour obsession with multiple provider delivery models, whether in the NHS, Police or Local Councils is that they can no longer be seen to defend a 'big state' or big state capacity model of delivery.

Under New Labour's ideologies the fragmentation of the public sector delivery model has corrupted the very essence of the socialist principles that underpinned the big state model. It was no accident that municipal housing came about because of the criminal practices of private landlords - forcing people into rent-hiked, rat-infested slum housing. It was no mistake that the NHS was founded to ensure that the poorest of the poor could expect medical care, including safe child birth.

It was no mistake that councils had responsibility for utilities - access to clean water and sanitation in homes did not come about because of the generosity of the private sector but because of municipal pride in giving people a standard of decency. And whilst Byrne's arguments are unconvincing Cameron's are even less so.

Cameron is clearly still wedded to the Ridleyesque principals of an enabling state. Byrnes' is the woolly liberal model of the state 'helping to support' the development of society and a fragmented capacity delivered through alternative sectors - none of which happen to be publicly accountable or publicly owned. Scratch below the surface and under a New Labour model of 'big state' there isn't a cigarette paper between their model and that of Ridley.

Any modern democracy that fails to keep at its core an essential state capacity to deliver will become quickly inept. The ability of the state to pull the levers of direct control of the public state machine, to influence change such as tackling climate change, worklesslness, the economy and global poverty is essential. Brown has finally had the bottle to consider now a Tobin Tax to regulate risk on the international money markets - a brave move and one that trade unions should welcome. More fundamental still is the sea-change in policy that this move represents. It says yes we can pull the state levers and it is still right to do so.

It is not too late to have a real left v right debate on the role of the state but the attempts of Byrne and others to defend the indefensible fragmentation of the state, into a 'multiple provider unaccountable marketised hybrid New Labour big state model' will not convince many and it leaves the way open for Cameron to extend the new labour model of 'big state' into an ever shrinking social safety net rather than a fundamental plank of social policy to care for, nurture and cultivate society.

We need to say loud and clear we are still the sixth richest nations in terms of world economics and big state is affordable and it is the left thing to do.