A very timely question was posed by the editor of Prospect in the November issue as to whether Britain's "government is fit for purpose", to which a number of eminent figures involved in the world of Whitehall and Government argued their case for reform. Not one of them addressed what disturbs the electorate most: the lack of effective management of our democracy.
In the December issue Francis Maude replied with a piece in which the idea of management was not mentioned at all, leaving the reader totally in the dark. It was confined to such remarks as "This ever present issue"; "We absolutely welcome any challenges"; "There is a vision of course" (what vision?) and "stronger functional leadership", (the one thing we do not need). Morale in the Civil Service, particularly at senior levels, is already at a very low ebb and nothing could be better calculated to make things worse than the recent announcement that every member of the cabinet may pick ten or more "spads" (special advisors). Trust is limited between Government and the Civil Service, and almost non-existent between Parliament and the Electorate. We continue to have no clear vision about the country's future, with MPs devoting too much of their time to how best they can manoeuvre to be re-elected.
Michael Heseltine hit the nail on the head in his review into the UK's ability to create wealth, No Stone Unturned in Pursuit of Growth, requested by David Cameron—and subsequently published—last year, when he said that the Government operates on a system of "Departmental Monopolistic Functionalism”, where there are no Departmental, let alone National, business plans. Furthermore no mechanism exists for checking whether or not a particular policy is proving effective once implemented.
No organisation in the private sector would ever have got off the ground with such an absence of management. The most successful international industries—Asian car giants like Nissan, for example—continue to thrive because they are sensitive to the constantly changing environment in which they have to operate; they regularly question what they are doing, what improvements are needed and above all are quick to react. The task of government is obviously complex, but all the more reason why the system needs an urgent shake-up.
As a Financial Times editorial recently commented, “Politicians have used the crisis not as a platform for serious debate, but to score points off each other”. Members of the Government and Opposition front benches behave “not as serious statesmen... but as little more than... bickering schoolchildren,” the editorial continues. One might add "and not only in a crisis". There is no strategic thinking with Ministers making dramatic announcements of policy initiatives, which are both premature and half-baked because there has been no proper discussion or interchange of views between Departments, who are probably unaware that an announcement is about to be made. To add to the chaos, Senior Civil Servants, Permanent Secretaries and Ministers change jobs so frequently that they are incapable of mastering the work of their department, let alone initiating whatever reforms might be necessary.
Examples of how the left hand has no idea of what the right is up to are myriad. For example the High Speed Rail 2 is being planned without regard to whether commuters prefer to live near their place of work, or outside cities, where they are subject to costly commuting when there are large areas within cities, including many dilapidated empty buildings, which could be made available for affordable housing. We seem to assume that further growth in London and the South East is inevitable. Government should be planning for the greater development of cities in the Midlands and the North of England to create a better balance of industrial activity and population. Germany provides an outstanding example of the benefits of not having the degree of over-centralisation from which we suffer.
Recent attempts to reform the House of Lords have descended into complete farce. There has never been any objective debate setting out the pros and cons of an elected chamber with party members in both houses doing nothing more than play party politics. On the one hand there is general agreement that the number of members in the Upper Chamber should be reduced and on the other the PM continues to create new members in order to ensure that the Tories have a majority. The Commons' aim is to have a predominantly elected chamber which would not only destroy what is at present the only effective part of parliament, but lead to additional swingeing costs to tax payers.
We would probably all agree that one of the greatest national achievements in the last 100 years has been the introduction of the National Health Service, made possible by united support across the party political spectrum, and which, putting current vain attempts at reform to one side, continues to be valued highly today. Clearly there have been other important national milestones, such as the 1944 Butler Education Act which provided free secondary education for all pupils, but none of them have been of the same degree of national significance.
The House of Commons today consists almost entirely of professional politicians, who have no experience, let alone achievement, of working in the real world. Michael Heseltine has had an outstanding career as a politician and senior minister in government but continues to act as Chairman of Haymarket Media Group, the successful publishing business he founded in 1957. He is therefore well qualified to have produced such a challenging report.
There is a crying need for politicians and senior civil servants to be trained in the art of management—not administration—where team work is a key factor. It demands that they are trained to rise above their job and consider the impact of all of their planning and decision-making on other departments and the world beyond. No other single action would do more to improve the way our democracy is managed.
In the December issue Francis Maude replied with a piece in which the idea of management was not mentioned at all, leaving the reader totally in the dark. It was confined to such remarks as "This ever present issue"; "We absolutely welcome any challenges"; "There is a vision of course" (what vision?) and "stronger functional leadership", (the one thing we do not need). Morale in the Civil Service, particularly at senior levels, is already at a very low ebb and nothing could be better calculated to make things worse than the recent announcement that every member of the cabinet may pick ten or more "spads" (special advisors). Trust is limited between Government and the Civil Service, and almost non-existent between Parliament and the Electorate. We continue to have no clear vision about the country's future, with MPs devoting too much of their time to how best they can manoeuvre to be re-elected.
Michael Heseltine hit the nail on the head in his review into the UK's ability to create wealth, No Stone Unturned in Pursuit of Growth, requested by David Cameron—and subsequently published—last year, when he said that the Government operates on a system of "Departmental Monopolistic Functionalism”, where there are no Departmental, let alone National, business plans. Furthermore no mechanism exists for checking whether or not a particular policy is proving effective once implemented.
No organisation in the private sector would ever have got off the ground with such an absence of management. The most successful international industries—Asian car giants like Nissan, for example—continue to thrive because they are sensitive to the constantly changing environment in which they have to operate; they regularly question what they are doing, what improvements are needed and above all are quick to react. The task of government is obviously complex, but all the more reason why the system needs an urgent shake-up.
As a Financial Times editorial recently commented, “Politicians have used the crisis not as a platform for serious debate, but to score points off each other”. Members of the Government and Opposition front benches behave “not as serious statesmen... but as little more than... bickering schoolchildren,” the editorial continues. One might add "and not only in a crisis". There is no strategic thinking with Ministers making dramatic announcements of policy initiatives, which are both premature and half-baked because there has been no proper discussion or interchange of views between Departments, who are probably unaware that an announcement is about to be made. To add to the chaos, Senior Civil Servants, Permanent Secretaries and Ministers change jobs so frequently that they are incapable of mastering the work of their department, let alone initiating whatever reforms might be necessary.
Examples of how the left hand has no idea of what the right is up to are myriad. For example the High Speed Rail 2 is being planned without regard to whether commuters prefer to live near their place of work, or outside cities, where they are subject to costly commuting when there are large areas within cities, including many dilapidated empty buildings, which could be made available for affordable housing. We seem to assume that further growth in London and the South East is inevitable. Government should be planning for the greater development of cities in the Midlands and the North of England to create a better balance of industrial activity and population. Germany provides an outstanding example of the benefits of not having the degree of over-centralisation from which we suffer.
Recent attempts to reform the House of Lords have descended into complete farce. There has never been any objective debate setting out the pros and cons of an elected chamber with party members in both houses doing nothing more than play party politics. On the one hand there is general agreement that the number of members in the Upper Chamber should be reduced and on the other the PM continues to create new members in order to ensure that the Tories have a majority. The Commons' aim is to have a predominantly elected chamber which would not only destroy what is at present the only effective part of parliament, but lead to additional swingeing costs to tax payers.
We would probably all agree that one of the greatest national achievements in the last 100 years has been the introduction of the National Health Service, made possible by united support across the party political spectrum, and which, putting current vain attempts at reform to one side, continues to be valued highly today. Clearly there have been other important national milestones, such as the 1944 Butler Education Act which provided free secondary education for all pupils, but none of them have been of the same degree of national significance.
The House of Commons today consists almost entirely of professional politicians, who have no experience, let alone achievement, of working in the real world. Michael Heseltine has had an outstanding career as a politician and senior minister in government but continues to act as Chairman of Haymarket Media Group, the successful publishing business he founded in 1957. He is therefore well qualified to have produced such a challenging report.
There is a crying need for politicians and senior civil servants to be trained in the art of management—not administration—where team work is a key factor. It demands that they are trained to rise above their job and consider the impact of all of their planning and decision-making on other departments and the world beyond. No other single action would do more to improve the way our democracy is managed.
