Is There Scope for Change?

Alan Peacock at the end of Chapter 2 poses the question as to why the ideas of classical libertarianism have resulted in so little fundamental change over the last ten years in the field of welfare policy. Part of the answer to that question (as was clear from the diaries of a former Cabinet Minister, Richard Crossman ¹ ) is that policy decisions in government tend to be taken on the hoof. They tend also to be almost wholly dominated by the immediate crisis, in which the underlying philosophy to be applied is instinctive, not rational. They are based on a list of options submitted by officials but only on rare occasions do they take consciously into account deeper political or social ideas. Much more important to hard-pressed Ministers are considerations of immediate expediency, pressures on their spending budgets and a consciousness of the baleful eye of the Treasury looking over their shoulders as they put pen to paper. They have to make an assessment of what can or cannot be pushed through Parliament, of what weight to give to stirrings on the government back-benches and how the results of the policy change can be decked out or dressed up as a positive sum game rather than zero or negative sum game (to use the public choice description).