Is Cameron Really Breaking the State Monopoly?

Short answer: In my opinion? No.

David Cameron in his speech presented the image that somehow the State monopoly over "public" services will be broken.

Replacing directly employed and operated services with those selected, paid for and overseen by the State[1] is hardly breaking a monopoly. It is equivalent to replacing soldiers with mercenaries.

Who pays the piper calls the tune and as the State will still be paying, they will still call the tune, not you, not "us" and not "society" [2].

The state will decide the terms for tendering, shortlisting and ultimately decide who gets to operate. Will they permit multiple organisations to operate in a geography, enabling each of those consuming the service to decide independently which provider they prefer to deliver it?

There is absolutely no indication at this time that this is how it will be.

In fact, seeing as the State is a monopoly that exercises monopoly power, I find it very hard to see how, even if there were provisions to enable that to happen, that the State machine will countenance it, let alone understand the value of or be comfortable with such a state of affairs.

Granting privately run entities monopoly concessions - for this is what is happening - is hardly the breaking of monopoly. The princeling who grants the concession still keeps a chain on their pet and will not hold back from jerking it should it get out of line. Further, should an entity gain substantial operating income in such a way or, in some cases, become a "wholly unowned subsidiary" of the State due to it being de facto its only customer in that endeavour, then both "private" and "voluntary" labels will cease to have any real meaning, as they currently do for a whole host of fake charities.

I have nothing against ending monopolies, but replacing state run monopolies with private monopolies operating under a state concession is not a step forward and has the capability to be a big step backwards.

Why? In a word: Corruption. Operating such concessions can mean alot to an organisation. Prestige, income, existence. When you have a small group of people deciding upon which entity will gain using other peoples' moeny, the temptation to influence that choice, shall we be more delicate?, is great.

You cannot bribe or corrupt someone who is spending their own legally earned wealth, but you most certainly can when someone is spending large amounts of another's on a third.

As such, Cameron's vision of The Big Society in this dimension is a Bribers Charter. A Lobbyists Dream. Watch how the whole process attracts an ecosysytem that operates at our expense [3].

Watch also how a buyer who must buy ends up not being the customer but the victim. If you have to buy something and there are a small number of suppliers, then cartels can form either explicitly or implicitly. Unless you can walk away from the table and the clock is ticking, your money is as good as theirs. For a council with statutory obligations, it cannot walk away. It is sunk.

The way out? First, if there is a statutory obligation, then should that remain? What should the State actually be doing? Cutting down the scope of the State is one way to reduce the problem. Should the State fund the provision of services then there should be a way to organise plurality of delivery with each individual deciding who provides it. If you want a Statutory Obligation, then THIS should be there at the top - an obligation to not encourage corruption, cartels or establish monopolies which will operate against the interests of the consumers and funders of those services.


[1] please forgive me if I refrain from using the term "Local Authority", as I do not recognise such entities as being or possessing "authority".

[2] unless you mean the "society" that is made up of self-appointed spokespersons, squeaky wheels, "community leaders" etc. who like to believe we believe they have a legitimate voice and can speak and decide for others.

[3] In the private sector where no compulsion to buy exists or the choice is so wide, this is infinitely less of a problem, for economics tends to keeps a lid on things