Only the crassest and the most shallow minded consider that everything costs and therefore everything must pay its way. A way of thinking as befits a grocers daughter or some similar philistine banal mindset. We have to lift our heads up out of the mud our feet are wading through to see higher aspirations, to have hope for a better future, to be inspired by the achievements of those around us and most of all to have a vision for how all on this planet can experience a better life. Big dreams. In the real world there is not unlimited money and there are a thousand competing priorities. Put cost as your first and overriding starting point and the dreams will never even emerge. But without dreams we can never realise a better quality of life no matter how that quality might be imagined. Cost and payback are not the determining factor in a civilised society. Never to be ignored, always with a watchful eye but not the bottom line criterion that they have become.
I am ranging way beyond culture the obvious candidate for cost cutting. Yes culture of course to lift the spirit, to raise the hope even just to endeavour to reach beyond the immediate now, we need arts, we need crafts, we need music, we need graphics in all its forms to give shape and meaning to otherwise vague ephemeral glimpses beyond the mundane over familiar present day. Can we agree that culture, with its high costs and indeterminate payback, is a given must have, that frames us as civilised and not savages? If you think it is a no, then this site really is not for you, you must look elsewhere.
What I want to promote is the concept of service as an aspirational tool to achieve a better quality of life, for all. 'Service' this word is heavily overworked and has an extraordinary wide range of meanings and connotations. The common usages I want to focus on is, according to the sOED, 'Service' as conduct tending to the welfare or advantage of another and 'Service' as a branch of public employment of such body concerned with some particular work or the supply of some particular need. Service in today's climate is denigrated and demeaned, seen at best as a charity cause to help out those pitiful people too poor to do better. It didn't use to be like that, service industries were once seen as the powerhouse to lift and raise our aspirations as a nation and power us to a better more modern way of life. These are not bad or irrelevant objectives even in today's world? Being able to offer service to an individuals must be the hallmark of a democratic civilised society. Helping those in their moment of need until they can strike out confidently on their own again. Sounds like the sort of place I would like to be.
Maybe a ticket office manned to help cut through the complexities of tariffs, timetable and alternate conflicting options. Maybe a visible approachable and friendly policeman able to calm, reassure or direct, that would be nice. Of course the more obvious of a nurse with time to reassure, talk and to really understand what is troubling a patient. Or a teacher able to spend time one to one to help that one child overcome their confusion about some new topic. Service providers who are not seen as cost centres, who are required to prove their worth on a daily basis, who are not required to complete offers of help to some predetermined timeslot. The worth is there in payback dividends but not in profit returns the bean counters understand. So the list can go on, Tax Collectors able to spend time to understand the exception's and find more fitting rules, or JobCentre Advisers with the skills and time to actually understand a seekers capabilities with the realistic knowledge of local opportunities. Indeed wherever we as individuals interface with the providers of our wants or needs then there is an essential service input, an input which may not show a profit but certainly oils the wheels and helps society to move smoothly. What price do you put on that?
Services also include all the utility services, water, electricity, gas, sewers, telephones, refuse collection and the mail. Once state run they were sold off, amid a great fanfare, to companies whose driving force is profit first. Yet they are essential services, services that are at the foundation of the wellbeing to our UKplc. If any of these cinderella services are not there in place with the right capacity our ability as a nation to grow and develop is hampered. Look no further than the stranglehold the provision of highspeed broadband has on any commercial enterprise that is not located in a major conurbation. UKplc is held to ransom because it is 'not profitable' to provide in these smaller communities. Utility Services sold off because in some naive tunnel vision view of some other fantasy world, competition equates to efficiency. No. Equally, state run enterprise does not mean inefficient and extravagant. So make your choice, do you run them for profit for the benefit of shareholders, or, run them well for the benefit of the society that relies on them?
Finally, Public Service, another broad wide ranging category, now much maligned and held in disdain. Once the pinnacle of UKplc governance, held in esteem around the world, for its expertise, for its detachment and for its impartiality. What happened? Did we run out of good enough scholars to enter the civil services. No, of course not. A deliberate decision was taken to politicise the output of the civil service, overturning centuries of impartial advice. In this new way of thinking, unless civil services responses fully reflected the political aspirations of the government of the time, it was rejected and overturned. Such a small seemingly innocuous step but having catastrophic impact. Now there is no government edict, no report, no forecast, nothing emanating from government that can be trusted or relied on. Everything has to viewed with suspicion for political bias. There is no objectivity, there is no impartiality, everything is tainted with political expediency. Not any way to run a company let alone UKplc.
One woman overturned centuries of governance evolution and wrought chaos. Benefits? Once the initial feeding frenzy for the 'free' goodies on offer had subsided, are we better off, driven by profit for shareholder benefit? Have we totally lost the concept of service to the people to enable them to grow and blossom? Bring back Service to the People, bring hope for a better future for us all.
Showing posts with label civil service. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil service. Show all posts
Saturday, 4 February 2017
Friday, 5 July 2013
Smug to Judge
A scientific study has shown that the wealthy sic successful become desensitised to the real problems other 'unsuccessful' people face. They become harsher and more willing to be critical of failure to achieve without those benefits that their own success bestows on them. Quickly forgetting the past struggles they had to surmount those same problems that suddenly disappeared when they had the added clout of success. Success does indeed breed an attitude of success which then surmounts obstacles.
Vince Cable generally gives the impression of someone who has ideas and does test them before mouthing out. So I was taken aback when he took a neutral line with Zero Hour Contracts. How can you be neutral? This is abusive advantage taking of the vulnerable. It is disgraceful, how can any MP condone such practice.
The unemployed are pressurised and intimidated by the real possibility of benefit withdrawal unless they can weekly demonstrate they are seeking work and are willing to take work any offered. There are no middle grounds. They are subjected to weekly scrutiny by uncivil servants to see to just that. Uncivil servants that are no doubt themselves performance monitored to ensure they wrinkle out the target margins.
Potential Employers can hang out the bait of work and can then haul in a rich harvest of unemployed desperate to keep their benefits alive. All without cost or commitment from them, just hang this out on the line of hope and expectation. Zero hours means they contract nothing but the lure of a promise, yet require the applicant to to commit to making themselves available at a moments notice. To be plucked, at their leisure, if and when they have a passing moment off work increase. Outrageous. Totally an unfair terms contract.
The most evil act one person can play on another is to falsely raise hope and expectations. All the more so when that other person is vulnerable, threatened and in need of hope. A hope that is going to based on the shallow insubstantial offer of a possible something in the wind. Wake up Ed Balls there are no positives, this is an evil manifest.
Vince Cable generally gives the impression of someone who has ideas and does test them before mouthing out. So I was taken aback when he took a neutral line with Zero Hour Contracts. How can you be neutral? This is abusive advantage taking of the vulnerable. It is disgraceful, how can any MP condone such practice.
The unemployed are pressurised and intimidated by the real possibility of benefit withdrawal unless they can weekly demonstrate they are seeking work and are willing to take work any offered. There are no middle grounds. They are subjected to weekly scrutiny by uncivil servants to see to just that. Uncivil servants that are no doubt themselves performance monitored to ensure they wrinkle out the target margins.
Potential Employers can hang out the bait of work and can then haul in a rich harvest of unemployed desperate to keep their benefits alive. All without cost or commitment from them, just hang this out on the line of hope and expectation. Zero hours means they contract nothing but the lure of a promise, yet require the applicant to to commit to making themselves available at a moments notice. To be plucked, at their leisure, if and when they have a passing moment off work increase. Outrageous. Totally an unfair terms contract.
The most evil act one person can play on another is to falsely raise hope and expectations. All the more so when that other person is vulnerable, threatened and in need of hope. A hope that is going to based on the shallow insubstantial offer of a possible something in the wind. Wake up Ed Balls there are no positives, this is an evil manifest.
Tuesday, 10 April 2012
Politics Without Parties
No apologises, this is going to be a long read. As it is central to all my political thoughts, stay with it, it might reward. I have previously set the challenge, Good Government, the Political No Vote, Centre Revolution, so how is it going to work? A democracy that is fully reflective of public opinion and is not carolled and strait-jacketed into a power base, survival at all costs organisation. As considered in my Consensus post, we need leaders, lots of them, all with slightly different take on issues. I am not even against political parties, per say, providing they are background support, not running and controlling what can or cannot be said and by whom. The over-arching objective is that the voters are offered individuals to choose between on their merits. In soliciting votes their views on the key questions of what makes a nation successful, are paramount. Not necessarily their own original views, just views that they understand and adopt as their own, with sincerity and not just for the voter appeal. Individuals who stand because they want to make a difference, not because of their wealth, connections or desire to win power or some popularity contest.
There is the first rub. Our media are fixated on failure or guilt that can be exposed in simple banner headlines. Subtlety, shades of opinion, complicated adjustments depending on degree are way out of their comprehension. It has to be either black or white. Either you are right, move on or you are wrong, in which case throw everything in, to prove how wrong. Not the vehicles to review a range of opinion or evaluate where a central position might lie, nor how extreme left or right any positions might actually fall. Not the place for measure considered debate, either right for that day, or wrong in which case lets seize on this error and display the weakness shown. Bully boy tactics dressed in grown-up speak.
The government of the day enjoys the luxury of a civil service, part of whose function are to present to the Cabernet minsters position papers. An elite cores review of any policy proposal, looking at all the consequence, knock-on events and implications for other policies. A whole gamut of allied and associated causes and effects that reverberate off the policy proposal. Likewise for any opposition counter policy proposals.
To escape the media blame game we need to get debate and objective critique of policy out into the open for all to see and consider. Not just government policy but any policy. Let us have the best informed and widest overseeing of all envisage consequences, benefits and penalties, so we can all reflect and judge the strengths or weakness of any policy put forward for the public dominion. Does not need a huge civil service army to effect. Nowadays we can exploit the on-line world. In a forum setting, ordinary citizens can lodge their reactions to any proposals, for and against. The forum moderator would be a small panel of 'civil servants' to hone the comments down to simple pro or con arguments. Voilà, a position paper is borne for all to see, to chip in, to tease, to test and reflect on all the varied responses. To arrive at their own opinion where the fair, pragmatic solution might lie. Ready to be persuaded to rise to another plane by their prospective candidate. Democracy might just work.
This then is the second rub. Money. To get ideas out into the public arena takes money. The more money, then the more effective, more attention seeking and more likely to wins the hearts of your target audience. Hearts, as you are only selling aspirations, not reasoned arguments. Money buys attention, buys respect and buys support. Money to buy media space. Money to buy slick attention seeking material and messages and money to buy audience research to iron out any misrepresentation's before launch. So a game only for a rich boy or organisation.
Completely counter to the goal of any one being able offer themselves and their sincerity for election. First a commitment. No one stands unless they are so convinced of their need to serve that they are prepared to risk all. Secondly a cap, a very low maximum figure, topped up by the state if need be, to promote and draw attention to yourself and then a minimal salary if elected. Since the salary element came in for our MPs, the desire to serve has been supplanted by the greed for a cosy lifestyle. This salary has to be scaled back, so it is not a feather bed but an adequacy that all, irrespective of social background can afford to serve their country. Finally public online sites where candidates can be seen, their views and opinions offered and they can enter dialogue with their electorate.
The next and is it the final rub? There is no ready made political party to take up the electorates voting decision and to run a government. Political parties are a lazy self-indulgent convenience useful to class based society. They no longer reflect our society. Our government should be a fluid alignment of the majority views, not cast in stone, a constant wheeling alliance of best interests, consensual views and trading off of benefits. That way we might just get a government that does actually reflect and respond to the society we actually live in. Not some ritualistic archaic left-over arrangements we currently toil under. A government in-touch and in-tune with its people, reactive and reflective of the constant changing moods, fears and aspirations.
No one suggested democracy was easy. No one claimed democracy gives you clear, decisive and consistent governance. We are after all herd creatures prone to take fright at the least alarm. It takes persons of stature and statesmanship to arise, be recognised, to lead and steady the herd, keeping them on track. That is democracy in action.
There is the first rub. Our media are fixated on failure or guilt that can be exposed in simple banner headlines. Subtlety, shades of opinion, complicated adjustments depending on degree are way out of their comprehension. It has to be either black or white. Either you are right, move on or you are wrong, in which case throw everything in, to prove how wrong. Not the vehicles to review a range of opinion or evaluate where a central position might lie, nor how extreme left or right any positions might actually fall. Not the place for measure considered debate, either right for that day, or wrong in which case lets seize on this error and display the weakness shown. Bully boy tactics dressed in grown-up speak.
The government of the day enjoys the luxury of a civil service, part of whose function are to present to the Cabernet minsters position papers. An elite cores review of any policy proposal, looking at all the consequence, knock-on events and implications for other policies. A whole gamut of allied and associated causes and effects that reverberate off the policy proposal. Likewise for any opposition counter policy proposals.
To escape the media blame game we need to get debate and objective critique of policy out into the open for all to see and consider. Not just government policy but any policy. Let us have the best informed and widest overseeing of all envisage consequences, benefits and penalties, so we can all reflect and judge the strengths or weakness of any policy put forward for the public dominion. Does not need a huge civil service army to effect. Nowadays we can exploit the on-line world. In a forum setting, ordinary citizens can lodge their reactions to any proposals, for and against. The forum moderator would be a small panel of 'civil servants' to hone the comments down to simple pro or con arguments. Voilà, a position paper is borne for all to see, to chip in, to tease, to test and reflect on all the varied responses. To arrive at their own opinion where the fair, pragmatic solution might lie. Ready to be persuaded to rise to another plane by their prospective candidate. Democracy might just work.
This then is the second rub. Money. To get ideas out into the public arena takes money. The more money, then the more effective, more attention seeking and more likely to wins the hearts of your target audience. Hearts, as you are only selling aspirations, not reasoned arguments. Money buys attention, buys respect and buys support. Money to buy media space. Money to buy slick attention seeking material and messages and money to buy audience research to iron out any misrepresentation's before launch. So a game only for a rich boy or organisation.
Completely counter to the goal of any one being able offer themselves and their sincerity for election. First a commitment. No one stands unless they are so convinced of their need to serve that they are prepared to risk all. Secondly a cap, a very low maximum figure, topped up by the state if need be, to promote and draw attention to yourself and then a minimal salary if elected. Since the salary element came in for our MPs, the desire to serve has been supplanted by the greed for a cosy lifestyle. This salary has to be scaled back, so it is not a feather bed but an adequacy that all, irrespective of social background can afford to serve their country. Finally public online sites where candidates can be seen, their views and opinions offered and they can enter dialogue with their electorate.
The next and is it the final rub? There is no ready made political party to take up the electorates voting decision and to run a government. Political parties are a lazy self-indulgent convenience useful to class based society. They no longer reflect our society. Our government should be a fluid alignment of the majority views, not cast in stone, a constant wheeling alliance of best interests, consensual views and trading off of benefits. That way we might just get a government that does actually reflect and respond to the society we actually live in. Not some ritualistic archaic left-over arrangements we currently toil under. A government in-touch and in-tune with its people, reactive and reflective of the constant changing moods, fears and aspirations.
No one suggested democracy was easy. No one claimed democracy gives you clear, decisive and consistent governance. We are after all herd creatures prone to take fright at the least alarm. It takes persons of stature and statesmanship to arise, be recognised, to lead and steady the herd, keeping them on track. That is democracy in action.
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Corporate Greed
Since the inception of Planning Law in 1947, a central aim, encompassed by Abercrombie in his first London Plan, was to banish squalid slums and give everyone the right to sunlight and open space to enjoy. We pay the price in multi-layers of heavy-handed bureaucracy to ensure we all benefit Pretty basic stuff but constantly being whittled away.
A large site, previously used by a utility company, on privatisation became surplus to need. The new foreign owner of this, our essential service developed over decades out of tax-payers money, was now to be maximised for the profit of their shareholders. I have no doubt that teams of experts were assembled and charged, (you will get more if you make more), with getting the most possible return out of this redundant land. Encouraged indirectly no doubt by our government who saw loads of lucre rolling into the exchequer when they sold off London Dock's, freed from planning constraints as the bait.
Our local Planning Officers do have to be mindful of the possibility of an Appeal against any unfavourable decision they might make. One important plank in their defence is that they are adhering to government guidelines. So when the government, as central policy, decrees that housing densities are to be increased to reduce the demand for green field take, our local Planner's have little option. A well muscled team can use that government directive to achieve whatever goal they have in mind leaving our local officer with no room to argue. What we end up with in our town is a new built 'sink estate'.
The one location that is doomed to ever spiral down until even the lowest of the low ask not to be sent there. Such is the certain future for this recently built development. Where developer profit, maximising the greatest number of households on the plot, is made regardless of all future consequences.They have no tie to the future of the development, only in the immediate, now, profit return to their 'foreign' investors. What we end up with is an overbuilt estate, gloomy, dank and sunless with mean spaces, dominated by car provisions and waste storage and tiny patios, (for a 'lucky' few), overlooked, cast in shadow, too small to plant and undesirable to sit out in. What left over public spaces there are, are 'greened' with robust unfriendly deterrent plants. The obligatory 'children's play area' reduced to a token with no room to run, to sit in the sun or enjoy some fresh air. Does that sound like the pre-war slums our planning laws were meant to prevent? Does to me.
Not just mean in layout and mean in usable public space, but also mean in materials and lacking in any imaginative design, detail or quality.
We have got to this point. The old presumptions that local pride and interest will ensure the quality of local development have been overturned. Now national corporations with interests far removed from the pleasure and enjoyment of local residents, now determine the quality of developments within our own patch.
Now for a final turn of the screw. The government rules that ultimately determine what shall or shall not be built are all city centric. Drawn up by civil servants that have no living experience other than London and its suburbs. Their mind sets do not encompass rural county towns but their rules, endorsed by a parliament focussed on timetables and vote catching, do set the limits. Take Taunton a rural county market town. Low rise with every expectation of still sitting out in the sun and enjoying the quiet of the countryside. Why should that expectation be set aside for all future generations just to meet a city orientated need to save space? Why should our town be forever despoiled to meet some other place needs. Ruined not just for now but for generations forward and lowering the bench mark by which future schemes are to be judged by. We need decisions by local people, judged in the context of their local concerns and needs. Not a National Policy applied regardless. A high rise development is not suited to Taunton. Flats are not the norm for Taunton and should never be. These are city solutions for city problems. Low rise and gardens are the norms for Taunton.
A large site, previously used by a utility company, on privatisation became surplus to need. The new foreign owner of this, our essential service developed over decades out of tax-payers money, was now to be maximised for the profit of their shareholders. I have no doubt that teams of experts were assembled and charged, (you will get more if you make more), with getting the most possible return out of this redundant land. Encouraged indirectly no doubt by our government who saw loads of lucre rolling into the exchequer when they sold off London Dock's, freed from planning constraints as the bait.
Our local Planning Officers do have to be mindful of the possibility of an Appeal against any unfavourable decision they might make. One important plank in their defence is that they are adhering to government guidelines. So when the government, as central policy, decrees that housing densities are to be increased to reduce the demand for green field take, our local Planner's have little option. A well muscled team can use that government directive to achieve whatever goal they have in mind leaving our local officer with no room to argue. What we end up with in our town is a new built 'sink estate'.
The one location that is doomed to ever spiral down until even the lowest of the low ask not to be sent there. Such is the certain future for this recently built development. Where developer profit, maximising the greatest number of households on the plot, is made regardless of all future consequences.They have no tie to the future of the development, only in the immediate, now, profit return to their 'foreign' investors. What we end up with is an overbuilt estate, gloomy, dank and sunless with mean spaces, dominated by car provisions and waste storage and tiny patios, (for a 'lucky' few), overlooked, cast in shadow, too small to plant and undesirable to sit out in. What left over public spaces there are, are 'greened' with robust unfriendly deterrent plants. The obligatory 'children's play area' reduced to a token with no room to run, to sit in the sun or enjoy some fresh air. Does that sound like the pre-war slums our planning laws were meant to prevent? Does to me.
We have got to this point. The old presumptions that local pride and interest will ensure the quality of local development have been overturned. Now national corporations with interests far removed from the pleasure and enjoyment of local residents, now determine the quality of developments within our own patch.
Now for a final turn of the screw. The government rules that ultimately determine what shall or shall not be built are all city centric. Drawn up by civil servants that have no living experience other than London and its suburbs. Their mind sets do not encompass rural county towns but their rules, endorsed by a parliament focussed on timetables and vote catching, do set the limits. Take Taunton a rural county market town. Low rise with every expectation of still sitting out in the sun and enjoying the quiet of the countryside. Why should that expectation be set aside for all future generations just to meet a city orientated need to save space? Why should our town be forever despoiled to meet some other place needs. Ruined not just for now but for generations forward and lowering the bench mark by which future schemes are to be judged by. We need decisions by local people, judged in the context of their local concerns and needs. Not a National Policy applied regardless. A high rise development is not suited to Taunton. Flats are not the norm for Taunton and should never be. These are city solutions for city problems. Low rise and gardens are the norms for Taunton.
 |
| High-rise does not suit Taunton |
 |
| No matter the quality, it is the wrong answer |
Tuesday, 31 January 2012
All Joined Up
First reaction was a worried concern at the news that HMRC records were to be used for the first time to track defaulting fathers failing to supporting a child. The more I thought the more rational it became. We are all required, on penalty of imprisonment, to submit all sort of our personal details to various branches of government. Income Tax is one obvious, but passports, car tax, bm&d certificates, various benefits, the list just goes on. Previously each of these records would be been laboriously penned by clerks into the respective department ledgers and then closely guarded by them. However the information you were legally required to lodge was and still is accessible to any other department with a legitimate right to know. You as a citizen had and have no rights on the use the government makes on any data that they require you to submit. Better, much more efficient, then to have one central source of government held data about each of us, rather than duplicate entries and an increased scope for them to get it wrong or have to justify the same issue multiple times.
It is just a matter of trust. And there is the rub. None of us trust the government any longer. The skilled, experienced pragmatic clerk with discretion to waive or redefine rules occasionally lapsing into the bumbling buffoon has been swept aside by uniform absurdities. Rules to be adhered to without reason, without sense, keeping to a strict interpretation, no matter how inappropriate, thus, keeping the nose clean, without the least risk of criticism, has become the mantra. That is the new wave of inexperienced, mind-numbed data bashers who cannot see the tree, let alone the wood, for the chance of a canker on the leaf. Civil service declining standards and ineptitude is not the only point. Government are on record for abusing the data they gather about us. Selling them on for commercial gain, taking too relaxed a view of our need for privacy about our close personal details and affairs all the way to being too incompetent to guard the data they have either by preventing hacker access or 'leaving' data files for others to pick up.
Paranoia? No, the key details that enable your access to this electronic world and which are the summation of you as a electronic identity are very few. Add a few choice pieces of additional data, either a PAYE number, or employer, or NHS number, or benefit category and it becomes incredibly valuable to large numbers of commercial interests. Which is why they are keen to entice the government to give away our private data with irresistible largess.
If only the government could act responsibly, safeguard our data and be frugal with who has the right to access specific tiers of information with challenging accountability then a joined up government data bank would be the most sensible and logical step. No longer having to prove your identity to Revenue, Housing Benefit, NHS and so on each time. A one-stop shop makes practical sense on this C21. If only. In the meantime a pseudo identity for government purposes but keeping your real electronic self invisible. I dream.
It is just a matter of trust. And there is the rub. None of us trust the government any longer. The skilled, experienced pragmatic clerk with discretion to waive or redefine rules occasionally lapsing into the bumbling buffoon has been swept aside by uniform absurdities. Rules to be adhered to without reason, without sense, keeping to a strict interpretation, no matter how inappropriate, thus, keeping the nose clean, without the least risk of criticism, has become the mantra. That is the new wave of inexperienced, mind-numbed data bashers who cannot see the tree, let alone the wood, for the chance of a canker on the leaf. Civil service declining standards and ineptitude is not the only point. Government are on record for abusing the data they gather about us. Selling them on for commercial gain, taking too relaxed a view of our need for privacy about our close personal details and affairs all the way to being too incompetent to guard the data they have either by preventing hacker access or 'leaving' data files for others to pick up.
Paranoia? No, the key details that enable your access to this electronic world and which are the summation of you as a electronic identity are very few. Add a few choice pieces of additional data, either a PAYE number, or employer, or NHS number, or benefit category and it becomes incredibly valuable to large numbers of commercial interests. Which is why they are keen to entice the government to give away our private data with irresistible largess.
If only the government could act responsibly, safeguard our data and be frugal with who has the right to access specific tiers of information with challenging accountability then a joined up government data bank would be the most sensible and logical step. No longer having to prove your identity to Revenue, Housing Benefit, NHS and so on each time. A one-stop shop makes practical sense on this C21. If only. In the meantime a pseudo identity for government purposes but keeping your real electronic self invisible. I dream.
Thursday, 17 March 2011
When enough is enough
This will be a bit of a ramble but stay with me as I think we will get to somewhere interesting. Some years ago I was a committed school governor. Then Thatcher brought in People Choice or whatever it was called. Suddenly school governors had a bag load full of obligations and responsibilities and even more than that the local area would expect to hold the governors to account for any consequences. The more I looked into it the more it struck me that the actual controls were all held upstream leaving the governors to manage the dirtyend and to be the front line for complaints. I gave up being a governor. We now have 'The Big Society'. Again this seems to a have a very familiar ring to it. Pass down to the lowest possible level, the dirty coal face of making things work and answering complaints about shortcomings, whilst leaving all the real controls at a much higher level. I could go on but that would be a distraction.
Putting the rosiest picture forward, our politician are not intellectual power houses nor consumed with a passion for a particular view of life. Just regular guys and girls. It could be chance that our new Prime Minister has read the past, learnt the lessons and is reapplying what worked. Possible but implausible. What I am getting here is an over-powering whiff of success management. My definition of success would be to be solely in control of the steering, the brake and the accelerator, to not get my hands dirty doing work and to be well off the line of fire when the spray shots of blame starts. Given that our politician are not those intellectual giants it is the civil service mandarins behind the scenes that actually run and set this countries agenda. Yes they have to work within the constraints of whatever is current political flavour but, I suspect, have long ago acquired the skills to find presentations which match political aspirations but still drive towards their own determined goal.
What I think I am sensing is a civil service that has decided to devolve power to the lowest possible levels whilst ensuring they retain a tight grip on real free decision taking. Why? We are moving towards a totalitarian society. What better confirmation than the images of citizens contained behind wire fences so as to not trouble their elected representatives, this is as cynical take on demcracy working by our leaders as you could wish for.
You and I might argue the pace but the direction is irrefutable. When you view the populace as fraudster, cheats, skivers, shirkers, in all a shiftless bad lot, the only possible response is yet more control, more surveillance and more punishments. It trying to tie down and manage free spirit, it is an inescapable consequence, that government gets more and more complex, intrusive and finds it so hard to keep threads together. No wonder then that the mandarins are looking to simplify what they need to exercise that absolute control. We have a long game objective playing out here. Watch out in coming years for its manifestation in several different political disguises!
It is just another example of the glass half full or the glass half empty syndrome. If your starting premise is that citizens are liars and cheats you will readily find all the evidence to confirm it many times over. So justifying yet more control, surveillance and sanction. Sit firmly down on the can of worms. On the other hand of course if your starting premise is that citizens are proudly loyal, hard working, wanting opportunities to show and share their skills you end up with a different style of government. A style that sets out to enable, utilise and harness the energy and talent of the citizens to better themselves. For this view, only the lightest of hands is necessary and to a large extent it will self-discipline itself, leaving a minimalist government that mostly has to follow the will of its peoples. As against trying to suppress the will of the people to its objectives.
Yes of course we can all identify cheats and abusers amongst us but equally we can also identify the honest and self-sacrificing. You have to take a view, are we largely honest or largely cheats, half full or half empty? There is no doubt in my mind listening to the continual justification of measure after measure that relies on scare mongering about stopping cheats and fraudsters getting away with it, how our government see the issue!
Concomitant to the path to totalitarianism is an ever burgeoning bureaucracy that will eventually overwhelm and self-destruct. There are no cost savings down that road, the tools you need to manage grow ever larger and wider. What you save today you will spend double tomorrow. The proportion of government cost against the wealth of nation just rises and rises. We have too much government focused on the wrong end. We as a society need to sit back and rethink how we want go about governing ourselves, starting out with a much simpler model. There is of course a very entrenched and powerful voice that says you will never ever get to realise it.
Putting the rosiest picture forward, our politician are not intellectual power houses nor consumed with a passion for a particular view of life. Just regular guys and girls. It could be chance that our new Prime Minister has read the past, learnt the lessons and is reapplying what worked. Possible but implausible. What I am getting here is an over-powering whiff of success management. My definition of success would be to be solely in control of the steering, the brake and the accelerator, to not get my hands dirty doing work and to be well off the line of fire when the spray shots of blame starts. Given that our politician are not those intellectual giants it is the civil service mandarins behind the scenes that actually run and set this countries agenda. Yes they have to work within the constraints of whatever is current political flavour but, I suspect, have long ago acquired the skills to find presentations which match political aspirations but still drive towards their own determined goal.
What I think I am sensing is a civil service that has decided to devolve power to the lowest possible levels whilst ensuring they retain a tight grip on real free decision taking. Why? We are moving towards a totalitarian society. What better confirmation than the images of citizens contained behind wire fences so as to not trouble their elected representatives, this is as cynical take on demcracy working by our leaders as you could wish for.
You and I might argue the pace but the direction is irrefutable. When you view the populace as fraudster, cheats, skivers, shirkers, in all a shiftless bad lot, the only possible response is yet more control, more surveillance and more punishments. It trying to tie down and manage free spirit, it is an inescapable consequence, that government gets more and more complex, intrusive and finds it so hard to keep threads together. No wonder then that the mandarins are looking to simplify what they need to exercise that absolute control. We have a long game objective playing out here. Watch out in coming years for its manifestation in several different political disguises!It is just another example of the glass half full or the glass half empty syndrome. If your starting premise is that citizens are liars and cheats you will readily find all the evidence to confirm it many times over. So justifying yet more control, surveillance and sanction. Sit firmly down on the can of worms. On the other hand of course if your starting premise is that citizens are proudly loyal, hard working, wanting opportunities to show and share their skills you end up with a different style of government. A style that sets out to enable, utilise and harness the energy and talent of the citizens to better themselves. For this view, only the lightest of hands is necessary and to a large extent it will self-discipline itself, leaving a minimalist government that mostly has to follow the will of its peoples. As against trying to suppress the will of the people to its objectives.
Yes of course we can all identify cheats and abusers amongst us but equally we can also identify the honest and self-sacrificing. You have to take a view, are we largely honest or largely cheats, half full or half empty? There is no doubt in my mind listening to the continual justification of measure after measure that relies on scare mongering about stopping cheats and fraudsters getting away with it, how our government see the issue!
Concomitant to the path to totalitarianism is an ever burgeoning bureaucracy that will eventually overwhelm and self-destruct. There are no cost savings down that road, the tools you need to manage grow ever larger and wider. What you save today you will spend double tomorrow. The proportion of government cost against the wealth of nation just rises and rises. We have too much government focused on the wrong end. We as a society need to sit back and rethink how we want go about governing ourselves, starting out with a much simpler model. There is of course a very entrenched and powerful voice that says you will never ever get to realise it.
Friday, 8 January 2010
Government Savings
Almost without fail each new government has promised significant savings that just don't materialise. The political government has to rely on the executive civil service to implement its planned savings and they have an entrenched position with an equally long tradition of being able to successfully bury each saving plan. How can it be otherwise, all of the reins on the day to day running of the country are firmly in their hands even if they have to nod to the left or to the right depending on the current political flavour.
Realistically we should not even be talking about yet another round of efficiencies, re-locating offices there, cutting a few redundant posts here, using the backs of forms to save paper or not issuing pencils until there is no stub left. What is needed is a systemic fresh look at government.
Government funding is based on annual budgets. Each year proposals are put forward, based on last years budget outturn, for an equal or bigger budget requirement. Who in there right minds would offer a reduced budget? Cuts are then made on these proposals to bring them all into line with the planned spending limits. Then all hell lest loose as each department vies with another to establish the ascendancy of their budget over them. The top civil servants are promoted to their positions because they successfully promote their departments budget and see off others. It has nothing at all to do with how much it actually costs to run government. The status-quo is maintained year by year, minus a few percent, any losses more than made up when 'new' workloads arise out of government initiatives.
What we inherit then is government bloat. Old budgets are fiercely defended by the entrenched civil service, manpower shaved perhaps only to be re-instated plus at the next workload addition and a civil service more than capable of burying cost effective engineering or savings in a deluge of paper.
The only way forward is to utilise the ingenuity of the civil service to re-structure their provision of government services, achieve their own saving targets and earn the consequent reward of additional allocation. This will be a bloody process and as an opening strike the top two tiers of the entire civil service should be made to take retirement! What is needed is a complete overhaul on what and how government services are provided. There is some two hundred years of bloat to cut through. Basic question, what are the bottom line services that a department must inescapably provide and how many persons and acres of floor space are need to service it? Dividing the tasks by the cost of people and floor space gives an indicator of how much of our Nations resources are being used. Then political judgements can flow. What is the cost to the Nation of a soldier, a fighter plane, a teacher, how much does it cost the Nation to raise a each of the different tax levies? Are there any parallels that can be drawn? Might it be better to not provide one service but more of another or even is this service really inescapably needed? In fact what are the roles left to a central government when decision making has been devolved (see - "Working it out together")?
An approach like this will result in a significantly scaled back government and from then on efficiencies that achieve in reducing the cost of provision can be rewarded with commitment to fund a long term programme of investment, providing the further efficiencies promised are delivered.
Realistically we should not even be talking about yet another round of efficiencies, re-locating offices there, cutting a few redundant posts here, using the backs of forms to save paper or not issuing pencils until there is no stub left. What is needed is a systemic fresh look at government.
Government funding is based on annual budgets. Each year proposals are put forward, based on last years budget outturn, for an equal or bigger budget requirement. Who in there right minds would offer a reduced budget? Cuts are then made on these proposals to bring them all into line with the planned spending limits. Then all hell lest loose as each department vies with another to establish the ascendancy of their budget over them. The top civil servants are promoted to their positions because they successfully promote their departments budget and see off others. It has nothing at all to do with how much it actually costs to run government. The status-quo is maintained year by year, minus a few percent, any losses more than made up when 'new' workloads arise out of government initiatives.
What we inherit then is government bloat. Old budgets are fiercely defended by the entrenched civil service, manpower shaved perhaps only to be re-instated plus at the next workload addition and a civil service more than capable of burying cost effective engineering or savings in a deluge of paper.
The only way forward is to utilise the ingenuity of the civil service to re-structure their provision of government services, achieve their own saving targets and earn the consequent reward of additional allocation. This will be a bloody process and as an opening strike the top two tiers of the entire civil service should be made to take retirement! What is needed is a complete overhaul on what and how government services are provided. There is some two hundred years of bloat to cut through. Basic question, what are the bottom line services that a department must inescapably provide and how many persons and acres of floor space are need to service it? Dividing the tasks by the cost of people and floor space gives an indicator of how much of our Nations resources are being used. Then political judgements can flow. What is the cost to the Nation of a soldier, a fighter plane, a teacher, how much does it cost the Nation to raise a each of the different tax levies? Are there any parallels that can be drawn? Might it be better to not provide one service but more of another or even is this service really inescapably needed? In fact what are the roles left to a central government when decision making has been devolved (see - "Working it out together")?
An approach like this will result in a significantly scaled back government and from then on efficiencies that achieve in reducing the cost of provision can be rewarded with commitment to fund a long term programme of investment, providing the further efficiencies promised are delivered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)