This time last year, Sir Christopher Foster – a long-standing government adviser on economic policy was much in evidence. There was this interview in the Telegraph, and I heard him on BBC Radio 4. The link to the programme is no longer available, but I made notes at the time. The Telegraph piece makes some very good points about micro-management, but this bit stood out in the radio programme.
Foster offered a familiar list of problems: They were … (and I paraphrase)…
- too many initiatives,
- too many reorganisations,
- not enough planning,
- many more pieces of legislation.
- too much micro-managing by politicians,
- the overconfidence of politicians in their own abilities
… and of course, the relationship with the media.
And that’s all well and good. But – again – why do politicians feel the need to constantly try new initiatives? Generally, if they aren’t being seen to over-react to almost everything, they can expect a well-organised personal campaign against them from any one of a few thousand professional pressure groups.
An unwillingness to either comply – or loudly denounce – any one of these initiatives – will rapidly result in that career-ending verdict: ‘Out of touch.’
And should the relatively small cadre of ministers in central government really be spending longer planning for difficulties? Surely, that’s what the professionals in Whitehall are for?
Certainly, it seems that the people that become MPs are often puzzled spectators on the whole question of public administration. They often seem to lack the basic grounding in good governance, and are prepared to be bullied by their party whips into a spiral of short-termism. They have no idea about how to get government departments to do what they are supposed to.
They didn’t get selected for their grasp of public administration, after all.
And when a headline keeps them awake, they arrive at work the next morning ready to add yet another ropey patch to already-poor legislation. Instead of fewer, better, bills, before Parliament, we get more and more faulty legislation that is often being replaced on the floor of the House of Commons before it even reaches the statute books.
And the constant spiral of regulation is resented even by people who generally don’t mind big-ish government in general. Surely, there is a case for politians to have a more supportive bunch of civil servants that they bring in with them when they win elections? There was a very good programme on The Westminster Hour earlier this week (I don’t know how long this link will work, but it was very good)
I mention this today because one of the higher-volume political weblogs – Harry’s Place – has an interesting post on the possibility of a less neutral civil service. If this were considered at Whitehall-level, surely it would be worth considering at a local level as well?
