The first is
this: what is the difference between a ‘post code lottery’ on the one hand and
differing service levels based on local democratic choice on the other? The answer, in essence, is that there is no
difference; it all depends on perspective.
Centralists instinctively demand complete standardisation and conformity
whereas decentralists accept that differing levels and quality of service are
an inevitable concomitant – from those two viewpoints they merely describe the
same phenomenon in different words.
The second
question is this: if three million is too small to allow differing service
levels, how many is enough? It is
implicit in any statement saying that ‘n’ is too small that there is a larger number
which is not too small; in this case, what the paper calls ‘post code lotteries’
are apparently acceptable if only the population is large enough. Why?
Hidden behind
this is the way in which supporters of devolution – whom I had long thought to
be instinctive decentralists – turn out to be centralists in practice in a
Welsh context. Strangely, I’ve heard
some argue that they are in favour both of rigid central standards and powerful
local government. I can only conclude
that they’re either confused or dishonest, because, for any given service, we
really can’t have both.
Somehow, since
the advent of devolution from London to Cardiff, an idea seems to have caught
on amongst the politicians and media that there is no need or justification for
any differences within Wales, whereas differences between Wales and England are
perfectly acceptable. It’s a valid
vision for Wales, but it isn’t the one which many espoused before the Assembly
was established. And it isn’t one which
ever drove me.
1 comment:
Spot on, John. I cringe whenever I hear complaints about people suffering due to "postcode lotteries". As far as I know, people's postcodes aren't put into a tombola, to be drawn out at random; the winning postcode gets the desired public service!
No, local administrations make decisions about services based on local needs and resources. Simples. "Postcode" is used as a cipher for address: a code which helps us work out where you live.
But by abstracting the places where people live to "postcodes" and democratic decisions to "lotteries", campaigners somehow make a case for unfair treatment. It's not the postcode, stupid. It's the decisions made by the people charged to make them for the place where you live based on YOUR local needs and resources.
I choose to live in a rural area. If the emergency response paramedic and ambulance can't get to me within 8 minutes, it isn't because of a "postcode lottery", it's because the Wales Ambulance Trust can't afford to place fully-staffed 24/7 ambulance stations (with surplus capacity for peak periods of demand) within 8 minutes of the entire population. Same goes for schools and hospitals and libraries, and yes, if the pot is too small to fulfill every demand, same goes for what medicines I can expect if I'm sick, or how long I have to wait to see a clinician.
So, there's no lottery (a game of chance), and there's certainly no link to a postcode.
Post a Comment