Have you heard?

"Today the prime minister will claim....."

And today, with tedious predictability, Nick Robinson will make a counterclaim.

The link that Nick gives is to the Official Site of the Prime Minister's Office, and a page entitled Structural Reform Plans. We are told "The Prime Minister has announced new plans to hand power to the public with every department publishing a plan that sets clear priorities and measureable milestones."

How does the PM think he can hand "power to the public"? What a load of old tosh.

And what does "measurable milestones" mean? That sound just like 'New Labour speak', a recipe for yet more bureaucracy, bean counting, massaged figures and spin.

I'd much rather government departments actually got on with what they were supposed to be doing than wasting time and money trying to convince the public that they are achieving 'measurable milestones'.

Is it just me, or do other people find this type of Office Jargon intensely irritating? See here for other examples: 50 office-speak phrases you love to hate: https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7457287.stm

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Hey hey hey

I for one welcome this with open arms, let's forget about The PM's 'Big Society' in actuality this is 'Small Society' and I dont care if these ideas come from the right or the left of any party, they are coming and that is what matters.

The cuts are already upon us and they are so needed to reduce huge inefficiencies in the Public Sector, I have worked in both. Sure jobs will be lost, scroungers will have to find something else to do, big wow, this is what is needed, we have to start being open and honest about this. People need to be more mobile, how obvious is that, look around at any Emerging Market Country that is growing and see how the economy operates, it is evolving, and we in our beloved United Kingdom have to evolve as a society too.

The horizons are changing, the world is shifting and evolving, paradigm shifts in the way we think is occurring. I welcome these changes with open arms, all things are possible if we as communities work together, if we all take our turn and play our part.

Let's go for it! Change our negativity into positivity! Put respect, love, dignity, passion and care back into our vocabularly!But we also need to inject 'change' and 'success' into our working lives as well.

But above everything else we all do

Let's Stop Living in the Problem and Start Living in the Solution!!!!

Chis Moore

Bolton
Lancs

This is what the Tories always do...They cut the strings of responsibility and accountability then set about slowly throttling the life out of public services the British public are quite happy with, all the while denying the mess is anything to do with them. Its history repeating itself. A return to the old policies of the 1980s but spun in a different way.
We want our politicians to be answerable for our public services, that is what we elected them for.
The public will not have any more say in these things than they do now. It just provides a 'fig leaf' excuse for the government to hide behind as the anger mounts, just like last time. I don't think this is going to fool anyone.
Everything to these people is a 'market' where there is profit and loss, winners and losers. Look at the housing market, does that serve everyone? Who can afford to live anywhere at today's prices? Is this what will happen to education, health and other services in the long run? Its what they always try and do...Same old same old...

At 05:34am on 08 Nov 2010, muggwhump wrote:
...then set about slowly throttling the life out of public services the British public are quite happy with,

Are you happy with the service at your nearest A n E? I'm not

r u happy with the service provided at ur local Town Hall ? Mine is mixed.

r u happy with the state of your roads? I'm definately not

r u happy with ......

"We want our politicians to be answerable for our public services, that is what we elected them for"

Strangely enough i am only really interested about the services I get in My Town not urs, how is this the responsiblity of the Government i want the CEO of my hospital to be answerable to me!!

"The public will not have any more say in these things than they do now... "

Well they will if they have answerability for local services!! They actually night get involved, I will

"...Same old same old..."

Get real it is you Muggwhump with the same tired old criticisms, wise up, open up, be honest, live in the solutions instead of living in your ur defeatist negativity. It is your lack of energy that has sucked the lifeblood from our communities, always expecting something to be provided for free by someone else. Try some role reversal and society can mend itself, if not we are destined to sink ever deeper into the pits of despair, more addiction, more crime etc etc

Chris

Bolton

Lancs

Excellent Chris!
Your positivity is a tonic!
am sick and tired of the " Coalition BAD " stuff from the BBC and the media in general.

The UK has a problem , NOT of the coalitions making.
Time to attempt to fix it , not sit griping on the sidelines in an effort to destabilize an embryonic government.

How come other countries function perfectly well with a coalition government without their media trying to strangle it at birth?

I think Muggwhump has got real Chris.

I expect a government to govern. I expect standards of healthcare, housing and education to be safeguarded by national standards and national investment. I don't want a market-driven post code system underwriting the most essential elements of a civilised society, thanks all the same. And that's why I am interested in more than my local patch. Because if there are big discrepancies in the quality of provision, even bigger than they are now (because we can all agree the system is not perfect) then things get worse for us all.

This empty rhetoric depicting a self-governing series of little fiefdoms, each one disconnected from the other, is a recipe for disaster, but it seems to be the cornerstone of the coalition's Big Society.

I care passionately about local services. I would always argue that they should be better. But I pay my taxes for an effective, properly supported and invested-in set of public service employees to do a strong job on my behalf. Why? Because, believe it or not, I already have a full time job and so does my wife. As do most people in this country. We work harder than ever before to pay for the basics in life, and on top of this, we are expected to be thankful for the chance to become unpaid aldermen of our towns, villages and boroughs. I prefer the other way - paying fair taxes for decently run services.

There isn't a single right of centre party who hasn't had to replace much of what they stripped away. There were more Quangos when Thatcher got booted out in 1990 than when she arrived in 1979. She may have been ideologically opposed to them. But some of these organisations really are necessary - the coalition will find the same.

Want me to be an unpaid government inspector? Then intervene in the property market. Adjust prices downward. Write off half my mortgage so either me or my wife can work part time, then yes you can have your big society. But until then, Cameron, Osborne and Clegg, I see you for the feckless, ideologically driven, responsibility-shy vandals that you are.

David

Who suggested you become an unpaid Government Inspector? Not me, but I'm sure you could do something, just a tiny little something in your own backyard, no more than that.

Many people work very hard in this country, they always have, and a few people have always helped out too. We just need to turn the few into the many. No more than that.

Chris

Bolton

So I will be able to have data showing that my local council has not organised care for the elderly properly. As I am not using this service (yet) and have no regular contact with this aspect of their work I was unaware of the problem. As we may all have to call on their services (even if we think we have made provision) this is a matter of concern. Having some concern for others I am concerned that my local council is not providing adequate care for the elderly. So, I am pleased that the standards are being made more transparent.

But does this help? In a general way it does, because knowing where you are is the starting point for improvement. There should be a culture of improvement. But here is the problem. In the case of care of the elderly, you could argue that more old people are visited. With the demand for increased mobility more families are going to move away from their parents. You could also argue that the care workers should stay longer with each old person in order to improve the quality and perhaps encourage them to do more for themselves and hence need less from public services in the years to come. Having the data will tell us where the balance is struck, but what if I am not happy with where the balance is? What if the issue is to do with resources?

I could go to my local councillor, who happens to be the council leader. But I live in an area with a large proportion of older people with very little social housing - how representative are we? I could help local groups who are working with the elderly (which I do, two unpaid days a week), but we fill in the gaps. We do not take the lead as we don't want the long term responsibilty and accountability of managing public funding (taxes or donations).

However, as I write this I have had an idea for a University course. What about Charity Administration? There are obvious business skills that can be taught. In addition there are special skills needed in recruiting and taking advantages of skills of volunteers. Too many charities both succeed and then wither because they are the project of one dominant person. If we are to have a Big Society can we rely solely on enthusiastic amateurs? I'd like to think we could, but the reality is that we need such a big cultural change that some training and guidance even if it is OU style distanced learning would help.

Who is asking me to become an unpaid appendage to government? We can debate the semantics if you like, but from Nick's blog above, I quote:

What, you may ask, will ensure that the services themselves improve?

That's where - according to coalition philosophy - you come in, dear reader.

Each Business Plan will promise to publish data - some of it never published in this form before - to allow parents, patients, victims of crime and so on to monitor standards and demand improvement.

So, for example, crime maps will be published showing crime stats street-by-street and reoffending rates will be shown prison-by-prison as part of what one insider promises will be "an avalanche of information".

David Cameron will claim that:

"Instead of bureaucratic accountability to the government machine, these Business Plans bring in a new system of democratic accountability - accountability to the people.

"So reform will be driven not by the short-term political calculations of the government, but by the consistent, long-term pressure of what people want and choose in their public services - and that is the horizon shift we need."

Some will applaud the ill-informed enthusiasm many greet this news with, but I won't be among them. We already do more than our 'little bit' in our own backyard and without objection, as do many others. But I strongly contest the idea that some network of smile-or-die positive thinkers is enough to move us beyond the social effects of these huge cuts. It has been debated elsewhere as to the speed and severity of the cuts, so no need to go into that again here, but suffice to say, there are alternatives to this 'let's all muck in together' nonsense. I am all for collective endeavour, but I am not for government having the minimal or zero role to play in that. It is nothing less than an abdication of responsibility by government. I take all of my personal and civic responsibilities very seriously. When, I wonder, will they?

6#

So, you didnt actually follow Nick's link to the No10 site before indulging in your typical flowery rhetoric then, Mugg?

"I take all of my personal and civic responsibilities very seriously."

So seriously it seems, that the task of doing anything beyond moaning about an abdication of responsibility is too much effort, without being paid for it.

Although I can see plenty of other things in the concept that could lead to it going pearshaped in exactly the same way Labour's target culture did, by the same token, that doesnt mean that it is not worth examining the concept in more detail before sounding so dismissive.

11#

Good ideas Boiler. At least you're examining the concept in more detail.

9#

You've got completely the wrong end of the stick, mate. I doubt you've even looked at it.

Boilerbill

U make some great points about charities and how they could be improved. There is an abundance of data waiting to be utilised. In this era we have the skills and software to disseminate the information in an appropriate and useful manner. I want to know what the figures are on my doorstep.

I am personally interested in Community Interest Companies(CICs), note the word Community, they are locally based not national organisations. They sit somewhere between a charity and a Ltd company. They should be run as a Ltd Company but any profits have either to be reinvested in the company or donated away to other charities/CICs.

David

I am not advocating abidication of Government responsibilty either, the elected Government is accountable to the electorate, but pls give this a chance, just a chance. Let us not destroy initiative before it is given a fair hearing, that equally goes for initiative in Private Business(Listen up Lending Banks)

As for Big Society this is a misnomer, we need Small Society that is understandable by us all

Chris

Bolton

The Hayekist march goes on. This is the same philosophy that led to riots in the 80s and the credit crunch.

Africa has been doing big society for years and now if people have a problem with a medical service they have to go see the bishop or other charity boss who runs it rather than their local mp.

the guardian class want the power without the responsibility like the famous British Rail Boss quote 'We could run a very good railway if it wasn't for the passengers'.

So what if everyone knows if something is not working. if the people running the service are unelected and unaccountable how does that help? It will turn into feudal tyranny. which is probably why it appeals to the monarchists?

Do you think Letwin is being kept out of interviews because he would give the Hayekist anarchy game away?

Cameron might say he wants the people to have power but what happens if they decide to rise up and take it?

It's a good idea to see what they are up to and how the reality of implementation changes their theoretical policy ideas. It won't achieve the things DC thinks it will though. Pressure groups will demand changes/improvements that require money that the Govt will not be prepared to spend. Resulting in voters switching parties. It will provide information for media campaigns when they really turn against the Govt, which happens to all Govts.
I expect DC to say in a few years, like Blair did over FoI, why did we do this?

Nick,
You have got to be the last remaining person in the country who gives a toss what these parasites we call 'politicians' say; let alone consider it worth reporting.
Its just rhetoric my friend. Carefully crafted speeches that allow them to sound like they might care about us whilst actually saying nothing meaningful at all.

So phase 1 of the Condem masterpan was completed. Those already on the sharp end of society taking further cuts and finding life harder than ever before. The low paid working class shouldering disproportionately the burden of austerity brought to them by the wealthy bankers and being seconded by those who don't have to worry financially.
And now phase 2.
The architects names being rubbed out. Diminished responsibility and accountability.
So we rob the poor AGAIN. Facilitate Misery. And then the responsibility apparently lies with the poor themselves.
Oh well. I guess a good bit of cameron sweet talk and a professional airbrushed photo or two will spin the day.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

no.16

It feels and smells like the wrong end of the stick for sure.

And Chris, there is nothing I can do but give it a chance. It is happening now and there is no turning back. But while I will continue to be active in my children's school, at the local health centre, even in local politics, this activity I can assure you, will not fill the gaping chasm left by this over zealous reform to public services.

One truth doesn't displace another, and while there may be aspects of the state having got too big under Labour, it was not reason enough to pare things back to the bone in this way. This is ideology in action, not by any means the sort of 'sense' and measured thinking one might have hoped to get from a coalition.

So, correct me if I am wrong (and I am sure someone will): The people who complain the most will get the best services?

But having said that, what power will I have to 'force' the improvements? I cannot direct who gets employed or what their salaries will be - if they ignore my complaints, what will happen?

This is big society in plain English,this government want everything for nothing,people freely giving up our time for charity healthcare,schools,look after the old (not say we don`t now) help run our services for free though`s who don`t are selfish,the unemployed people that won`t and the ones want to but can`t will be made to do other work which people are getting paid for at the moment like cleaning or gardening for the council or private sector (tesco,morrisons and others)who make millions profit a year.
Well I was laid off today so rather than sit and do nothing for my dole money I`ll do my bit at downing street as PM since I get a free house,a car supplied with a driver and most days free food and drink and expenses, that come with the job, I think I could survive on 50 odd quid a week the money saved would be enormous for the country,so how would DC like that one.

More transparency has to be a good thing if the data is understandable. The public sector is too large and people I know who work in whitehall says driving change is like turning an oil tanker around. Journalists and politicians have said the same. Localism is the answer. We need to be keeping councillors to account and if there are benchmarks against which performance can be measured and outcome data published, in principle it will be easier to do that. I worry though that armies of civil servants will be needed to transcribe this data and in this financially constrained time something else will need to give if this is the case. We do need to take longer term views of our services but as each parliament is only 5 years there is always the risk that the next government will just undo it all.

You will always get the negative defeatists like David Parker and Muggwhump who presumably think the last 13 years have been successful using the centralised, beurocratic approach. I expect the families of the patients at Mid Staffordshire Hospital may disagree as do 1. Centralism and large organisation beurocracy does not work.

no. 14

that's correct. And why? Because people do plenty as it is, not the flat 'nothing' that is implied by these policies. You need to get real. People are already maxed out with family, civic and work pressures. And now the government expects us to cheer when we're told we can effectively run public services too. Ridiculous.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Sagamix wrote

"by contrast, you're being very astute indeed ...

"The values of cultural liberalism are more associated with the left."

... and also very kind. I too consider the left to be more cultured and liberal. One of our "once in a blue" points of agreement - I raise my mug of TEA (just the drink, don't worry, no acronyms or references to American historical events) and I go, "cheers, Andy."

But I was more asking you about political bias. Whether you, for example, saw the BBC as left wing politically. Seems, from what you say, that you do.

Which is interesting since if I'm correct - and why wouldn't I be? - it more or less proves that you're a right wing extremist."

Well any post accusing me of being "Extreme right wing" requires an answer but that post is also an excellent summary of Sagamix's vanity and arrogance and I can just imagine him tittering to himself as he made his accusation, convinced he ahd proved something

Confusing being more culturally liberal with being more cultured shows a lack of intelect and a degree of smug arrogance. Someone looking at Tracy Emin's unmade bed and deciding it's great art is probably more culturally liberal than someone looking at it and deciding it's an unmade bed and that they prefer Monet. Is the former person 'more cultured'? No. Only the pompous woud say so. It's a matter of opinion and opinion isn't fact - except of course to Saga.

As for why one of your posts might be wrong...more smug arrogance from saga. Most of your posts are wrong. Miles wide of the target, full of idiotic claims which you can never back up, full of immature miss-readings and miss-quotings of other people's posts and devoid of any attempt to answer other people's arguments - mainly because you can't. You start with your opinion and build an argument which 'proves' your point by assuming your opinion is fact. 'only the extreme right and left think the BBC is biased'. Nonsense. The current DG himself admitted that the BBC was biased against the Thatcher conservatives and even Andrew Marr has said the BBC has an inbuilt bias because of the people it attracts. Are they 'extremists'? What you really mean is 'I think people who think the BBC are biased are extremists'. Although of course you have no evidence.

Anyway, as they say on 'Dragons' Den', I've heard enough, I'm out.

"You have got to be the last remaining person in the country who gives a toss what these parasites we call 'politicians' say; let alone consider it worth reporting."

Kinda runs against the grain for someone holding the job of Political Editor with the BBC News Team, doesnt it?

"It is happening now and there is no turning back. But while I will continue to be active in my children's school, at the local health centre, even in local politics, this activity I can assure you, will not fill the gaping chasm left by this over zealous reform to public services."

Serious, genuine, honest question. As it is happening now, in your community, where do you see these gaping chasms appearing? Given the amount of outsourcing of council services that have been going on for some considerable time already?

"One truth doesn't displace another"

Yep, wholeheartedly accept that.

"... and while there may be aspects of the state having got too big under Labour, it was not reason enough to pare things back to the bone in this way."

Where is this happening? What exactly are you seeing right here, right now, being pared back to the bone?

"This is ideology in action"

Well, maybe it is. It could be argued that by making the state too big that the previous administration gifted the current one the means and the opportunity to put this ideology into action. In the same way that, as you say, with the state growing too big under Labour that similarly, this was their "ideology in action"....?

When are we ever likely to achieve the affordable happy medium?

"...not by any means the sort of 'sense' and measured thinking one might have hoped to get from a coalition."

I'm not saying it is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but how do you know that?

Hey Chris (chrmoo69)

"pls give this a chance, just a chance. Let us not destroy initiative before it is given a fair hearing, that equally goes for initiative in Private Business(Listen up Lending Banks)."

We just cannot risk services through implementation of this baloney. Anything of this scale has to be thought through carefully. However, the concept is on a par with much of the postmodern rubbish that Blair liked.

You have to join up the dots and fill in the gaps, rigorously. Just saying that we can see all the data, so we'll all muck in together [then a big leap of faith]... ah, the problem's solved! That 'big leap of faith' bit has no depth, no models, no structure, and is basically akin to something out of a self help book.

"Let's Stop Living in the Problem and Start Living in the Solution!!!!"

Look Chris, coming out with daft management consultant phrases adds nothing to the discussion, and makes you sound as vacuous as this whole idea.

"The horizons are changing, the world is shifting and evolving, paradigm shifts in the way we think is occurring."

Chris, you don't have the slightest idea what a paradigm shift is. The more you use completely inappropriate phrases like this to make it sound like there is some depth to the argument, the less credible you seem.

24#

I think the broad thrust of what you're saying is right. And those are exactly the kinds of questions we need answers to, if it is ever going to stand a chance of working.

Juliet50

I am not an apologist for New Labour by any means, but it is interesting that you should leap to that conclusion. Is it because I happen to disagree with the approach taken by the current government? Well you might be surprised to know I took issue with some of what New Labour did too.

Public services and the infrastructure of public life are not things to just 'have a play with' or 'have a bit of a run at' and let's see what happens. If my worry about their erosion seems defeatist to you, I heartily apologise. I must try to express myself differently. Disagreement and debate shouldn't equate with defeatism and I'll be looking forward with the utmost optimism to a change of policy or a change of government in the future.

Calling the punters bluff.

So will the voter actually want to get involved. In most cases no I suspect. Perhaps enough will engage. Usually more moan than do anything.

And will the service provider respond, other than the usual brush off and repeated stonewalling. Hmm. Very entrenched, very unresponsive. Definately do not see the local resident as the customer. This requires a massive culturaL change and this is very difficult. Not impossible but very difficult.

If I was producing 700 pages full of tables of data 'very excited' is the last thing I would be. There is a very real differnce between publishing data and doing anything with it. Most collected data simply ends up in a vault. People who collect data are seldom involved in the next stage. Genrally, somehow they think because data is collected that something will happen.

Its interesting but I think DC is underestimating the interia in the system. If he can change things it will be quite a feat.

Changing things is a bit like a snowplough. If you are not very careful it all packs up in front of you and moving forward gets more and more difficult. As Obama is finding in the US. The big weakness in this appraoch is the critical element which is - will enough voters engage when given the opportunity and I would not bank on it.

8. How come other countries function perfectly well with a coalition government without their media trying to strangle it at birth?
-------
Good question. Also a good question would be how they operate one without every concession by a party (that is, the ultimate necessity in being able to form and maintain a coalition) being labelled as a traitorous u-turn. Accusations of conceding too much (or actually changing your own policy rather than letting it go through to salvage the coalition) are subjective and thus fair enough, but from the general tenor of reporting you'd think that doing something you don't want to get some things you do want is in of itself an act of terrible betrayal.

Personally I am still mostly sceptical about these plans and like 19., I doubt it will achieve the things the Prime Minister would like anyway. Even with the normal political speak surrounding the idea (as succinctly laid out by 20., if a tad harshly in my opinion. Just a tad) Nick is certainly right about this idea not gripping people (and I assume political spinning must have some success or at least be neutral for the majority or they would not all continue to do it).

The target business seems reasonable, for schools at the very least (the others I have less direct knowledge of), but taking an extremely unscientific poll of 'people I know' I find very few who are enthused about these ideas, regardless of political leaning. There is such a pessimism prevailing even those I'd think would be ecstatic about these kind of plans are subdued, and I'm so chronically undecided on most things that I certainly couldn't motivate them.

Unless we get a very surprising economic boost, which does not seem likely on the sort of scale needed or as soon as needed, I find it hard to see most people becoming less gloomy about the Coalition's plans at all, and so more enthusiastic about and engaged in ideas like the above. It has some merit, but will amount to little I fear.

If they end up having that by-election in Woolas' seat, I'd bet good money both partners get a real beating.

It's a tough time to be a fence sitter.
---------
21.Oh well. I guess a good bit of cameron sweet talk and a professional airbrushed photo or two will spin the day.
-------
Yes, because we never had anything like that going on in recent times.

juliet50 – the last 13 years have seen a marked demise of stories about elderly people dying while waiting on trolleys in hospital corridors. Do you remember those stories fondly?

It's seen a demise in stroke patients with club hands and calipered legs. Do you miss such sights?

It's seen a demise in the number of schoolchildren sitting in leaky classrooms. Do you consider this bad?

And while you're discussing centralism, perhaps you'd care to recall which government cut local democracy and centralised decision-making – and for overtly political reasons. I suggest that you look at the 1980s for this.

So what Snooty is really trying to say is that he & his chums are incapable of doing the jobs we elected & pay them to do.

It’s a great plan; first, wash their hands & transfer their responsibilities to non elected individuals & groups.
Second, come election day announce that they are responsible for nothing since it’s all Big Society now & the public have only themselves to blame for their inadequacies.
Third, keep on fleecing the general public for taxes to pay for services that they no longer get.

I have my own plan for saving money at government level & it goes like this:
Since nobody wants to do their jobs, take responsibility for their actions, or listen to what the public actually want in Parliament, sack all MP’s & use the Houses of Parliament for affordable Housing for those who “really need it”.

Finally, bring in the CBI as our new Government (the Government always listen to them anyway, so let’s cut out the middle men to save money).

NB: Jokes aside people just remember; a non elected, uncontrolled private monopoly is no better than a public owned monopoly.

PS: Shame Snooty couldn’t manage to pass his philosophy onto the EU during his recent meetings - one rule for us & another for them.

Fubar

It will take some time to happen, but it will. There isn't a single government that has tried to roll back the state that hasn't later had to reintroduce all that it stripped away and more besides. See the Thatcher years for proof of that. Most of what will happen as a result of this short sighted policy, particularly the negatives will be felt over time.

First off, people who probably don't need to be laid off are being told they are redundant. That's beginning to happen in schools on my patch. Where the classroom assistants and support staff that made some quality teaching possible in difficult schools will have to be dispensed with. More of that to come I dare say.

Secondly there will be a slow attrition of services that at first you won't notice, but it will come in time. Libraries, roads, parks, street lighting, all begin to suffer...many of us can remember the last time this happnened well enough. Call me defeatist if you will.

Thirdly, the onus isn't on me to have faith in "all of us" to make sure there is no chasm opening up here. The onus is one the government to show me the plans that ensure this doesn't happen. Having looked through about half the pdfs on the government website I can't see anything so far, beyond blind hope and fervent optimism, that safegauards the future of public service provision.

Your attitude is akin to the musicians on the deck of the titanic. Keep playing boys, I can't actually feel any water around my ankles yet....

There are too many here who seem to be just putting out spin. Who has the time to criticise so many other posters here. There seems like a collection of political hacks here paid to do government work.

In short. The proposals are little more than empty words from a government more obsessed than Blair was with what the media is saying.

Mr Carter? time for you to attack someone else/

The BBC has got itself on completely the wrong side of the debate, yet again.

Their failure to understand that the era and state spending and big government is over never ceases to amaze me.

Does no one in the BBC understand what is happening accross Europe; the broad understanding that the social democratic project is unsustainable. That the people preaching sustainability for thirteen years gave us an unsustainable economy because the social democratic project grew wildly beyond its original principals. The consequences for all of us are not just its unaffordability.. but the damage it has done to our national character. Once hard working and enterprising with a respect for law and order there are now millions of workshy benefit scroungers with no respect for anything.

So a decade after the collapse of the totalitarian socialist states the democratic ones are beginning to fall apart as well.

But the BBC completley misses the argument again and again and indeed has lost its own authority to repesent an independent point of view. When all your journalists and support workers go out on strike to oppose a deal most private sector workers would give their eye teeth for; they can never pretend again to be 'impartial' in any future discussion about cuts. The BBC has utterly compromised its own independence.

It's a great time to be a tory...

This is just pure propaganda for the Tory party written by an (ex ? ) Tory. All that is missing is the word 'wonderful'

This is not, I think, a good idea.

So the public are supposed to take the runners of services to account.

I wonder who in society is best placed to influence the people in control of, say the police force? Is it the less well off people, or the more well off people, I wonder.

One part of the public services where a system like this is already in place in effect is the school system. The well off 'vote with their feet' and move to the good school, concentrating the well off kids in the good school, leaving the less well off in the bad one.

Now they don't even have to move any more. They just convince the council to give all the money to their school.

Brilliant idea ! Instead of targets for highly complex and involved areas being set by ministers who don't have a clue how these services work, we will have targets set in an 'X-Factor' style telephone poll by the general public - the same people that are keeping Wagner (long may he reign) in the 'X-Factor' will be deciding what your hospital / school / council should be spending your money on.

I find it ironic that this comes out on the same day as the public enquiry into Stafford hospital is announced - a hospital which killed people because managers were chasing targets set by an uninformed government rather than listening to resident experts.

"The best laid schemes of mice and men gang aft ?"

Yet more expenditure on yet another government website.

Yet more expenditure on yet more statistics - every government department reporting every month.

Heaven knows how many civil servants at taxpayer expense to run it all.

And at the the end of it all the big gain is that the elected government allegedly running the country (over £2.5m in pay just for the ministers) will be able to deny all responsibility for anything that happens.


It's a great time to laugh at the tories.

27#

Dave, I see what you're getting at, but I'm not convinced that is what they're saying. I understand fully what you're saying that our plates are full enough already, one thing I have noticed more than anything since I turned 40 was how time seems to go so much faster.

Remember, I'm not saying the concept is perfect, but I dont think we should dismiss it completely out of hand. Look, the key is in Weary's post. How do we connect with it, what is going to be our way of (hate using this kind of management-speak, but its the only word for it) "interfacing" with the system, going forward? There has to be some sort of "front door" that we as citizens can go to in order to push through the kinds of improvements that matter to us locally.

In the case of where I used to live in England, I would have suggested maybe the parish council offices as being the hub for the locals - there really never seemed to be anything else happening there positive for the community - whether some of the organisations or service providers or charities or whatever they are going to be could use these facilities surely must be worthy of some consideration?

I dont think there is any value to be had for anyone by rushing out an idea to press in order to just secure positive soundbites for 24 hours, especially where something like this is concerned. Where you're talking about a big shift in how things are going to be done and if you expect the public to "take some ownership" of their own local services and bring back some of the self-reliance we used to see in the 50's and 60's and bringing back community spirit, I'm all for it. However, as with anything, the devil is in the detail. And, at this precise moment in time there are key details about how it is meant to work that are not in the public arena.

One of which is what public services exactly are the big society organisations effectively being asked to run? What others are going to have to remain the preserve of the local or unitary or county authorities or even departments of state? These are things we really dont know yet. You cant realistically make it seem as if a tap is going to be just turned off and where there was once a lush oasis, there is now going to be just arid, barren desert.

Your original post said "I expect a government to govern. I expect standards of healthcare, housing and education to be safeguarded by national standards and national investment." Fair enough. Not disputing that in any way shape or form. I dont however, see what Nick has brought to our attention taking that away. Restructing it, yes. Destroying it, no.

"I don't want a market-driven post code system underwriting the most essential elements of a civilised society, thanks all the same."

Sorry, I dont see how what Nick has shown us today reinforces what you're saying. Look at how many of your public services are now provided by outsourcers, by private companies paid by councils and others. Labour had ample opportunity to take so many of these services back in-house - for example, where I was brought up in Coventry in the 60s and 70's, there was quite a large Civil Engineers department that maintained the infrastructure, roads etc. I dont think that the service back in my home town has got better since these types of services were outsourced. I think these are the types of things that councils SHOULD provide. Now, the key isnt so much time and cost as quality. What isnt being adequately driven at the moment by those who are managing the contracts with the outsourcers on behalf of the councils.

"And that's why I am interested in more than my local patch. Because if there are big discrepancies in the quality of provision, even bigger than they are now (because we can all agree the system is not perfect) then things get worse for us all."

Yes, accept that. But who is the better judge of quality? Someone miles away in Whitehall who is only marking time til he or she gets their final salary pension, or someone local who knows what the local conditions, quirks, etc are? Take gritting roads during winter for instance. Surely the local knowledge is going to be highly beneficial where some counties are directly affected more than others?

"This empty rhetoric depicting a self-governing series of little fiefdoms, each one disconnected from the other, is a recipe for disaster, but it seems to be the cornerstone of the coalition's Big Society."

But Dave, thats exactly what you've got now anyway. Dont you see? Do you see any evidence of joined up thinking between parish, unitary, borough, county councils and central government? The only link we readily see is the hand of the Exchequer on the funding that local authorities get over and above what they raise in council tax. It doesnt seem to be any more of less a cornerstone of Big Society any more than the existing system. I genuinely dont see how you reached this conclusion.

"I care passionately about local services. I would always argue that they should be better. But I pay my taxes for an effective, properly supported and invested-in set of public service employees to do a strong job on my behalf."

And, hand on heart, do you really believe you're getting that now, under the existing system? Despite how much you're paying for it?

"We work harder than ever before to pay for the basics in life, and on top of this, we are expected to be thankful for the chance to become unpaid aldermen of our towns, villages and boroughs."

Sorry, I cant see how you got to this conclusion. Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick, but I dont think its a case of you being locally accountable and unpaid for it, more a chance for you to get your opinion in about what is acceptable in your area and what is not. If you dont think you're getting enough focus on a particular aspect, be it care for the elderly, be it maintaining the local sea defences or whatever, you get the chance to air your views more regularly than just at five year intervals when you can kick out the previous incumbents and replace them with another set of pocket-lining no marks from the opposite political colour.

"I prefer the other way - paying fair taxes for decently run services."

Wholeheartedly agree. So, dont you want your voice to be heard, dont you want to have a say in what YOU consider to be "decently run"?

"There isn't a single right of centre party who hasn't had to replace much of what they stripped away. There were more Quangos when Thatcher got booted out in 1990 than when she arrived in 1979. She may have been ideologically opposed to them. But some of these organisations really are necessary - the coalition will find the same."

Not sure what this has got to do with the subject and yes, some quangos are necessary. Others, you must surely agree are not.

"Want me to be an unpaid government inspector? Then intervene in the property market. Adjust prices downward. Write off half my mortgage so either me or my wife can work part time, then yes you can have your big society. But until then, Cameron, Osborne and Clegg, I see you for the feckless, ideologically driven, responsibility-shy vandals that you are."

Well, thats an entirely different subject. Had there been a social housebuilding scheme running over the last 20 years, not only would it have taken a significant amount of heat out of the property market (and therefore have had an effect on house price inflation), it would have provided thousands of jobs in construction, hundreds, if not thousands of opportunities in newer localised facilities, healthcare, transport and lord knows how many other sectors. Maybe this is what we should be aiming for and you may well be right, the coalition is not going to take the necessary steps to achieve that.

But I dont know about you, but I dont personally see standing still and bemoaning it all as being an option either. Someone has to come up with an idea for positive change that is affordable and gets the people thinking about getting back that valuable community spirit that we seem to have lost.

If this is a start in that direction, if it has been comprehensively thought through and planned and if we're given the right tools and support to make it work, then I applaud it. If it is not, if it is just another passing soundbite, like Prescott's 10 year transport plan, that vapourises before it gets written down, then I could understand your dismissiveness. But, its very early days as yet.

NIck,

Will you be striking with your colleagues?

Will you be part of the bunch who are planning to ruin Christmas programming because you are unwilling to face the same hardship as the rest of the country?

The state of Britain is a fact of life and criticizing and counter-claiming every attempt by the coalition to fix it will get us nowhere. This announcement is a clear sign of David Cameron concern and acting to amend the situation, whether or not it will work is in principle irrelevant because at least it is progress, a step towards our goal which is an improvement over doing nothing; and by picking at every attempt the coalition makes to improve Britain is counteractive and of no benefit to the country.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"It will take some time to happen, but it will."

OK Dave, the end of the world has happened yet, but you know its going to.

"First off, people who probably don't need to be laid off are being told they are redundant. That's beginning to happen in schools on my patch. Where the classroom assistants and support staff that made some quality teaching possible in difficult schools will have to be dispensed with. More of that to come I dare say."

I dare say you may well be right. I'm not saying at all that the fat that needs to be trimmed will be trimmed, the waste that needs to be got rid of will be rid of. Take for example, the remuneration and allowances to council execs, which are every bit as profligate as those at Westminster, but are not high in the public's view at the moment. Unless the public, US, do something about it, they will continue to protect their own empires and trim the front line instead. Dave, what I'm getting at is that by kicking the backside of whoever the local MP is or taking it out on central government every five years, you're not going to get LOCAL accountability by local politicians and service providers coming down from on high except at a national "one size fits all" level and you and I both know that there are significant enough regional differences that make this one size fits all approach undesireable, unaffordable and unworkable. Youre absolutely right in saying the Centre should provide the framework, the laws, the means by which to deliver the services. But, at the sharp end, its YOU the "end customer" who is the one in need of these services. What if they are not giving you what you need, what if they're only telling you what they can - or are prepared to - give you? And if it doesnt fit the template then tough? Wouldnt it arguably be better for you to "pull" what services you need rather than having to accept what is "pushed" by someone hundreds of miles away who doesnt understand what you need locally?

I've mentioned this book before and I think its an important peice of reading for anyone interested in public sector reform at a local and indeed national level: Systems Thinking In The Public Sector by John Seddon.

See if you can get a copy of it from the local library if yours hasnt closed down yet.

And as for the Titanic comment... I'm trying to get away from that kind of exchange, as this board does seem to attract contributors very heavy on rhetoric, like flies to dung and before long it stinks the place out.

We can do better.

Before changing the ownership or governance of an organisation, it is best to sort out the problems of that organisation.

Central government, having messed up organisations and slashed their budgets, is now handing them over to "local people". Well thanks a lot!

Robin @ 41 wrote:
The BBC has utterly compromised its own independence.

>>

Morning, Robin. Let me know if you ever need a break and I could write your posts for you; complete with quirkily placed semicolons. I've read quite a few of your comments over the months, so I'm sure I could do it; although strictly speaking I would only need to have read one.

An avalanche of information eh? Ah yes, that old chestnut - tell people you're giving them information so they can make their own choices, and then swamp them with so much of it that no one can be bothered wading through it all to find what they want. Okay, so the pressure groups and Private Eye will dig through it and find what you don't want to be found, but they can only preach to the converted anyway, so they're no threat. Then, even if something bad does get unearthed, at least you can say you were being "transparent".

Transparent is certainly the word I'd use, but I'd use it to describe the motive behind this, rather than availability of the information.

Incidentally, once everything is out of governmental control, what will be left for the politicians to do? Can we just dissolve parliament permanently? Is fully-blown anarcho-capitalism the end goal?

andy @ 29

I don’t rate an unmade bed higher than a nice watercolour, Andy, I’m with the patio crowd on that. Damien’s “Shark in Formaldehyde” on the other hand – very powerful. A better physical manifestation of this "BS" approach to public services, I can’t imagine. And it was done many years before we even knew about it. Hats off to Hirst.

On the business of you being “extremely right wing”, I sense you’re not happy with the description but I’m not sure why. I don’t mean in the unsavoury BNP sense of the term if this is what’s worrying you, I mean the small state, low tax, market-rules-okay model which the vast majority of your posts laud as being the way forward.

In the structural reform plans is there any mention of how many MP's and Lords will lose their jobs ??? not to mention the reductions in the assemblies...

There is no need for the numbers we have....

Good Morning Nick,

really useful link which I followed to the Structural Reform Plans. I ended up at Number 10 with the first page dated 16 July 2010, haven't they had enough time to do anything, or are they too busy with more plans. This is worse than Stalin with his five year plans, just so much hot air, next thing they'll be saying 'out of Afghanistan in five years', or 'the war will be over by Christmas'.

52. At 10:09am on 08 Nov 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:

"I'm not saying at all that the fat that needs to be trimmed will be trimmed, the waste that needs to be got rid of will be rid of."

===================================================

Hey, fubar.

Would you include the SEVEN HUNDRED PAGES of tables and promises' as part of the fat?

How about all the civil servants it took to generate all those tables and promises? What about all the civil servants needed to monitor those 'promises' and generate all those monthly reports?

If we re-named the 'promises' as 'targets' .... wouldn't all this bureaucracy, statistics and websites remind you just a little bit of the labour lot we just got rid of?


(... and all the purpose of allowing a few highly paid ministers to evade any responsibility for outcomes.)

pdavies...

how interesting that you place a higher importance over style than substance..

newlabour to the core...


It's a great time to be a tory...

People want more and more public services so that they have to think and do less for themselves. Giving people more information about how well their local services are being run will show people exactly what is involved and just how big the bureaucracy has become over the last 40 years and how little it has done to improve standards.

People who complain about the austerity measures must truly believe that you can get something for nothing, but as a young adult I know that my generation will be the one that ends up paying £2 for every £1 wasted on pointless bureaucratic paper shuffling discussing, tracking and justifying targets that in the end don't meant that the services are high quality.

fubar_saunders please restrict the length of your posts. I for one refuse to read them.

This is "style over substance". Where is the implementation of the policies of Phillip Green?

Sadly, the Civil Service is back to its normal tricks of doing the minimum it needs to in order to meet the needs of the government of the day.

A bad day for politics and the country.

Robin @ 60

You misread me, Robin. Your style is admirable; it's the content that needs refreshing.

To be honest, I don't think I'm the only person to notice.

6. At 05:34am on 08 Nov 2010, muggwhump wrote:
This is what the Tories always do...They cut the strings of responsibility and accountability then set about slowly throttling the life out of public services the British public are quite happy with, all the while denying the mess is anything to do with them. Its history repeating itself. A return to the old policies of the 1980s but spun in a different way.
We want our politicians to be answerable for our public services, that is what we elected them for.

this plan - if it is given a chance - will allow people like me who take an interest to shape policy in areas where previously we have been given little access to.
a perfect example is how the UK has legislation and laws to stop sharp and often unenforceable practices of some businesses and banks, who ignore common law and flout it at every opportunity, to gain financially from it, until it is about to go to court, then settling out of court immediately prior to the case becoming legal precedant.

im hoping myself and others, can voice objections to the relevant departments, and end the toothless ineffective quangos that only concern themselves with anything, if there are thousands of of cases of the exact same problem.

the last labour government took the conservative idea and made the bank of england independant - but at the same time brought in the labour idea to remove restrictive powers to stop banks over stretching AWAY from the BofE and gave them to the jobs for the boys quango, the FSA.
we all know how the FSA stood by and did nothing as banks feasted on cheap market credit to fund their lending and profits, without having anything in reserve incase of default.
the FSA could only warn the labour government, who, as it didnt fit in with their plans, ignored them and got us in deeper.

then when the proverbial hit the fan - labour refused all accountability and blamed it on a "new" global market place.

any shift away from the last government's crass inaccountability is to be welcomed.

#24. Yes it will be those who complain the most that get the best public services. Namely the most literate amongst us, those who had the best education, those who are perhaps stay at home mothers who can afford to write letters to their local politician whilst the nanny looks after the children. This is basically a way of letting the rich elite get better public services under the guise of public accountability.

No one can have thought David Cameron's big society would bring about a more equal one. I can't imagine many people who voted for the Lib Dems wanted a big society. But that's life.. we somehow let Cameron take power when he failed to win an election against an unelectable opponent. This is what you get. Being somebody who's wife doesn't drive a 4x4 is going to get a lot harder over the next 5 years.

Since the Labour government came in there has been a real change in Societal attitudes. They made all government jobs paid posts, so instead of having an army of dedicated local volunteer counsellors (my Dad was one), all of the posts became paid. Now hardly anyone volunteers to work in their local government. They expect to be paid for their time. Local people are disengaged fomr their government - they sit back and expect things to be done for them, rather than getting involved.
In the old days, if you couldn't find work in your home town, you went and found work elsewhere and relocated - my grandparents did this. If you couldn't afford a house in your home town, you moved to the outskirts and commuted in - my parents and I have done this.
These days people expect to be paid to stay in their home town. They exepect work to be provided in their home town, rather than relocating. Rather thanrepair adn maintain their council house, they expect the government to do it.
I welcome anything that gets people to accept responsibility for themselves again, to take pride in their communities and the services they provides to local residents and to feel like they can make a difference.

No29 AndyPandy,
More nonsense from the 'Kindergarten Kid'. Last week he was telling us that a single lady in London can decide who is to be the MP for a constituency in Birmingham.
He is becoming to political discourse what Ann Widdecome is to ballroom dancing.

Lets hope this transparency with travel all the way to CAFCASS

#66 I like Mr Camerons big society idea, I'm thinking of applying for the job of head of CAFCASS for far less money that Mr Anthony Douglas gets

“Oliver Letwin is fond of recalling how in the days before privatisation, ministers used to be asked questions about why someone's telephone line had not been installed on time. His aim is that in future it will seem equally bizarre to ask a minister about the performance of an individual school or police force.” - @ Nick Robinson

This is a good quote - encapsulates well an alternative approach to public services.

Do we want a vibrant “buzzy” scenario, based on diversity and choice – and on how much money and influence people have – such that we get pockets of state-of-the-art brilliance (learning institutions and medical facilities that visitors come from all over the world to see and take pictures off) but at the risk of a wider neglect and mediocrity elsewhere?

Or do we more just want a decent local school for our kids to go to, hospital to treat us for serious illness ... access to, and quality of, these core services to be the same for rich and poor?

It’s an important choice between two quite different notions. Touch of the Blair v Brown, in fact - this was one of their biggest running arguments.

Balanced or biased. It is interesting to see how many defend the status quo despite the fact that we have a record debt as a consequence of Labour's watch (end of boom and bust anyone?). I voted for Blair in 97, I'm a Lib Dem now. Yet DC has been landed with a Gordian knot of a problem, largely but not wholly as a result of Labour's financial laxity in government.
We as an electorate and populace will always feel the force of government's actions, irrespective of who's fault it was. We are not blameless, property prices is a result of our herd mentality, cheap credit does not mean you have to borrow to the hilt with no thought of tomorrow, a personal lack of saving and investment does not absolve us from having to pay the debt back or look after our own old age. Living on the never never has to end, and part of that means government and us will tighten our belts - starting now. We must do the best we can to protect those weaker in society, but let's face it we are a very complacent bunch and have far too great a dependency on welfare - that has to change. If you want a dynamic, thriving society, then you do have to face reality, deal with more issues yourself, and yes have to think and work differently than how we have done to land ourselves in this pickle now.
Necessity is the mother of invention, and you may not think it but out of these cuts opportunities will arise for individuals and communities to improve how they do things rather than relying on a hand out from "the state" to do it for them. You can moan and protest or you can use that energy to actually create a genuinely better society.

pdavies..

there is no need to fix an argument that is not broken. What am I to do? Suddenly become a latter day convert to the church of all spending all controlling government? I doubt it.

There is no harm in continuing to reject those on these posts whose belief is firmly that a little more money is all that is required and give them the reasons why the model is broken. They are addicted to public spending and like all addicts it will take time and hard work to wean them off it.

besides all this I have already made the arguments that no developing country is holding up the UK economy as a shining example of how to build a health service or a comprehensive education system...despite the fact the socialists spent years arguing the NHS aws the 'envy of the world'. It's now the laughing stock of the world, insufficiently funded, wasteful, with demoralised professionals waiting for retirement on feather bedded pensions. It needs reform, newlabour promised it but never delivered; just eleven reviews. And a million insulting catchphrases like 'a cure for cancer' ...who on earth doesn't want that?

Enough.

It's a great time to be a tory...

PD @ when I'm

Mmm, I'm afraid so. Time was I'd get up early, beat the rush hour traffic, get myself down to HMV Oxford St for the latest Robin. Seems so long ago. Now, I don't bother even getting it at all - just put on one of the old ones.

68 - yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

You are just a stuck record aren't you? I just hope the nurse comes along soon and gives you a poke to move you along. The same lame post in response every time I post.

As with responding to sagamix, so with responding to you. In "Dragon's Den" terms, I've heard all you have to offer and you have nothing of interest to offer. I'm out.

sagamix..

I'm very flattered you are still listening to my old tunes... and find them relevant.

It's a great time to be on the right side of the argument. And a tory...

So how does this latest tory fiasco work in practice then?

Here's an issue where I'd like to hold someone to account.

40+ convicted terrorists to be released over the course of the year. Each one to require near constant supervision by probation/police/security service at an estimated cost of ~£200,000 per year/person. No (realistic) plans for any of them to be deported.

Is this in one of the targets, sorry, 'business plans'?

As a tax payer, who do I hold to account for this lunacy? The probation service? The local police? The governor of the prison that releases them?

Personally I hold Cameron responsible. I used to blame Brown, but now he is gone and Cameron is PM - regardless of what rubbish he comes up with to pass off the blame.

#41 Yes. Typical left wing BBC bias!
#42 Yes. Typical right wing tory bias!

I need to go and lie down.

59#

No jon, I wasnt referring to that as part of the fat. I was referring to the remuneration and allowances rates for councillors and council execs and how the habit seems to be that altruism and voting for Christmas never seems to affect this particular bunch of turkeys. As someone else mentioned, you could also scale that up to include the occupants of the HoC and the HoL, if you so wished.

You've got your own reasons for your barrages of negativity, inertia and doing nothing and picking holes in everything anyone says. I, conversely, have my own.

All I know is that if we were all like you (and depressingly, a not insignificant number seem to be), then nothing would ever get done, no forward motion of any kind would ever be achieved because you'd all be far too preoccupied with sniping and moaning.

Maybe thats exactly whats going to happen. Maybe thats going to be the fate of Big Society, for it to fall flat on its well intentioned derriere, because the people just couldnt give a s... about anything anymore.

It wouldnt surprise me in the slightest.

62#

Then do as I do with yours and scroll past them.

If you want to just listen to the sound of your own voice thats your choice. I have as much right as anyone to debate in whatever fashion I wish.

If you want quota driven posts, go over to the Daily Mail site or back to Have Your Say.

62. At 10:34am on 08 Nov 2010, diddlysquat wrote:
fubar_saunders please restrict the length of your posts. I for one refuse to read them.

He'll be utterly devastated. Tell you what, for a small fee, I'll read them for you. No call-out charge. What do you say?

Fubar-Saunders 47

Fubar, it really is the concept of less state control which is so difficult for people to grasp, after so many years of a totally different approach by Government.

However, here is the problem that I believe is the real reason it may not work.

I once lived in Scotland, where on a small scale this idea of community is common place. Problems in the community where discussed at the local church or other venues and the Police would attend. People discussed how their area could be improved, how well the police were looking after their needs, anti social behaviour, schooling etc.

To a certain extent it worked well, in the sense that when there was a big issue to discuss, people attended and would resolve to deal with the problem. However, when everything ran ok, the Police would not attend, people lost interest and only the busy bodies, with their own agenda, came along to the meetings. Thus the forum for proper discussion was completely lost.

Why this sort of thing may not work on a large scale, is unlike the situation in Scotland, where it was Scottish people all with a very similar outlook. England in particular is made up of many different types of people, often from different Countries, with totally different outlooks on what they expect from schools, the Police etc.

The makeup of Britain has changed so much over the years, that the proper sense of community has been lost. For instance, someone like me, and there are many people like me, who travel and move so much with work, can contribute very little to community life, as in most instances I will be new to the area. So many Women work now, so the involvement that in the past would have come from them, in community life, is limited.

There is also another reason that Camerons measures may not work. British people, as a general rule, compared with a lot of other cultures, are not very good at taking responsibility for themselves. They rely on others to make the decisions for them. This tends to give power to the wrong sort of people, this even on the small scale in Scotland was a real problem.

Now I really, probably like many others, do not know exactly what Cameron and the Coalition have in mind and what form these reforms will take, but I do see problems. It has to be remembered that time marches on and Countries and their people change. A throwback idea from the past, to a time when families, sense of belonging to your area, less immigration, schooling and Police were totally different, may not be a solution to problems now. We may wish it to be different, but being realistic about what can be achieved in the society that Britain has become is very important.

Robin @ 41 wrote: The BBC has got itself on completely the wrong side of the debate, yet again.

Robin @ 76 wrote: It's a great time to be on the right side of the argument.

>>

Interesting. But how do we know which is the right side and which is the wrong side of any particular debate? Will you tell us?

You know who you're reminding me of, Robin? Tony Blair. Very much his style, you know.

77#

Try the ECHR. You can hold Cast Iron responsible if you wish, as he hasnt managed to grow a pair, but considering the likelyhood of the Great British Moaning Public (of which you're a key member) ever electing a party that will do anything about it (other than sending their more troublesome members to Brussels on a three year gravy train) is somewhere between Zero and Minus One, I'd suggest you get used to it.

#71 wh ynot go an try living in north korea or china or USSR

82#

Your opening paragraph is quite a significant one Suze. Scale it up many times and you get exactly the nature of the problem.

What I think is going to be the interesting bit (and I'm not even saying that Cameron is going to be the one to deliver it, because I dont think he will) is that after the last 13 years we, the electorate, were presented with an opportunity to draw a line under the way things had been descending and effect a real change.

And in the end, we couldnt be @rsed. We'd much rather topple out of bed at 10AM and come onto a BBC board and whine about how its getting worse than do something about it. Its always someone elses fault and its always up to someone else to fix it. I thought that as a nation we used to be self reliant, industrious and understood the value of community. Now these are things to moan at and to decry and to blame someone else for.

In terms of reversing it, it'll probably happen one day. But probably long after you and I and the others are all reduced to dust, back in the soil from which we came.

#85
USSR?!?
While we're at it, can we have a blog about the Cuban missile crisis

79. At 11:39am on 08 Nov 2010, Fubar_Saunders
"I was referring to the remuneration and allowances rates for councillors and council execs "
======================================

Taxpayers who are still in the UK are paying £2.5m pa just for the cabinet - thats direct pay, not including 'on-costs' such as their secretaries, personal photographer etc. God knows how much it comes to if we include all the back up staff creating 700 page documents.

Now we are being told that all that government is intending to evade responsibility for as much as possible.

My view is the captain of the ship takes responsibility.

If the captain wants to leave the stokers mate (or a couple of the passengers!) in charge on the bridge, then thats his decision. If the ship crashes the captain is still responsible, even he is asleep in his cabin.

"In other words, instead of setting targets for schools, hospitals, police forces and the like, ministers will set themselves targets to ensure that they free up teachers, doctors and police officers to take the decisions about what needs to be done."

This is the nub of the matter - target driven services have lost track of their raison d’être. Short term objectives have been delivered at the expense of end user - nowhere was this more apparent than at Stafford hospital, where the patient care was secondary to the targets.

The rise of middle managers who have been over promoted because they are on message in both the private and public sectors does not helped matters, unwilling to take a decision for risk of not going by the book the bigger picture gets been lost along the way.

And I'm flattered that you're flattered, Robin (76). So it's the end of social democracy we're seeing, is it? I see. Or rather I don't. Given it's the implosion of the (anglo-american) ultra free market model which has left virtually every country in the developed world with a bill which will take a generation to settle, it's that we should be saying goodbye and good riddance to, I'd have thought. No?

As much as I hail the idea in principle of open, honest and transparent politics this fails to meet those in any way.

As #2 DistantTraveller wrote, it seems to be just another way for the government to manage and control statistics to convince people of the government line. Also, this seems to be regurgitating the line of the ONS, and I never really thought much of their statistics either the majority of the time.

When I wake up every day, I live in the world of my life from my perspective. When politicians wake up every day, they live in their own world with their own perspective. What the government are doing may seem like merging these perspectives to create accountability but all I see is an attempt by government to merge the individual perspective in to the government perspective. If the government want to be more accountable to the people then the merger we really need to focus on is that government perspective moving much more towards the individualistic perspective that each and every citizen lives through each and every day.

Also DC seems to be missing a point here....govern for the long term???

Like that will ever happen in this country, the only way we could ever have a long term thinking government would be to throw out democracy completely and bring in some form of dictatorship where they know there will not be an election constantly round the corner.

According to a report in Telegraph, Cameron says 'We will be the first Government in a generation to leave office with much less power in Whitehall than we started with.

This is total bunkum. EVERY government leaves office with less power than it started as more authority is snatched day-by-day by unelected officials at the EU. If Cameron is serious about 'power to the people', he should begin by repatriating authority from Brussels back to the electorate. He should also tell them to get lost on the EU budget increase. Savage cuts to the EU budget are urgently needed - certainly not an increase.

Cameron talks about an alternative to Labour's culture of targets - but now on the Number 10 website he is referring to "measurable milestones". This is yet more meaningless twaddle. Yes, of course we want an end to New Labour's culture of targets and micro-management, but this is just window dressing. No real substance at all.

Cameron also says "We are going to take power from government and hand it to people, families and communities". Does he mean more power to Local Councils perhaps? Does Cameron not understand that Local Government are all too often tinpot dictatorships, riding roughshod over the wishes of local residents? We regularly see Local Government caving in to fat cat developers instead of paying any attention to what people want in their own communities. Local Government needs less power, not more. If Cameron wants more 'power to the people', he needs to bring in legislation to end the 'cabinet' system of local government (introduced by Labour) which allows a handful of people to organise a stitch-up. Local government is not the solution. It's actually part of the problem.

"Taxpayers who are still in the UK are paying £2.5m pa just for the cabinet - thats direct pay, not including 'on-costs' such as their secretaries, personal photographer etc. God knows how much it comes to if we include all the back up staff creating 700 page documents."

I dont dispute those figures and I agree that such costs are superfluous.

As it is a favourite question of yours jon, to anyone who dares to have the temerity to have at least given someone else a chance to lead us, those who you deem as being tory apologists and Vichy-like conspirators and collaborators, I'm going to ask you the question.

What would you do instead? What is your solution then? You obviously, plainly think that Cameron isnt even in the right park, let alone barking up the wrong tree - so what would YOU do about it?

Lets hear you lay out some sort of positive plan, some sort of idea instead of just whining like a petulant schoolboy, eh? You often demand to know what everyone else would do without offering any ideas yourself. Come on. A Chance to put your money where that very ample mouth of yours is.

"Now we are being told that all that government is intending to evade responsibility for as much as possible."

Conjecture. You're not being told anything of the sort. They, at local or national level will still be responsible for SUPPLYING the services, either directly or by outsourcing. YOU as the citizen will have an opportunity to SHAPE and DEFINE those services and hold those delivering the service LOCALLY to account.

Not quite the same is it?

I look forward to the extra box on my 2015 ballot paper (and not a moment before due to Torylition democracy in action) which tells me that before I think about voting against the Government, have I considered all 700 pages of timelines and milestones (not targets). Presumably if I have and form a negative view on it then I should still put an X for my favourite Torylitioner and blame myself for either not doing well enough in my volunteer post or heaven forbid for not volunteering at all.

Vacuous management rubbish from a govt lead by an ex PR man. Spending and taxation plans, foreign policy, law and order etc - true policy - I might well disagree but at least its what I expect the govt to be doing. Stop patronising us with so-called "power shifts" and "big society" and just be honest about idealogical spending cuts (along with those that all parties agreed are needed).

I remember the last time this approach was tried in the 1980s.

Situation: a small cottage hospital in West London - built and paid for by the workers and employers along the Great West road in the 1930s, then adopted by the NHS.

The then-new NHS Managers, stripped of their performance targets and "cut free from the dead hand of Whitehall" decided to close it down, sell off the site and use the money miles away on one of their pet projects - a new HQ. The elderly patients would then be "treated in the community", i.e. dumped on their relatives.

The local community groups and councillors met with the NHS Managers, who told us that now they were in charge - no more Whithall interference - and they had decided closure was the only option to save money and get the capital value out of the old hospital to fund their new plush offices.

We went en mass to the (marginal) Tory MP's surgery - we laid to out for him - if this effective theft from our community went ahead, he could forget re-election - period.

The closure decision was recinded with days - the so-called independent NHS Managers had their leashes pulled hard by the DoH - political power was still a reality, despite all the claims to the contrary.

The notion of "accountability" is meaningless without the power to MAKE managers change - in the USA they elect dog catchers and everyone upwards, they contract out everything to the private sector they possibly can - then the commercial managers of the service companies fall over themselves to keep their "customers" happy - those that ignore public opinion are voted out.

It's true about Ministers being asked about phones - but it only passed into mythology once Post Office Telephones were sold off and the investment starvation that characterised the nationalised industry era ended when BT raised the billions needed to create the infrastructure to provide new phones - which we have all paid for ever since in higher bills - ditto trains - ditto water - ditto electricity and gas. The csot of all these services has mushroomed to many times what they were under State ownership...

So unless this policy is going to be carried out in tandem with extensive abolition and/or privatisation of local services, then the same dynamic will exist with politicians as it did in the 1980s and there will still be a political price to pay for unpopular decisions.

Call me a cynic, but I really don't think most people have the appetite for vastly more involvement in local services - ask anyone involved in organising or providing these sorts of activities - there simply aren't the volunteers out there who are willing and able to get involved - and many of those that do are fuitcakes, on ego trips or bigots trying to inflict their prejudices on those around them. (This includes many elected politicians too, I'm afraid.)

The load carried by school governors is already massive - being an elected local councillor is also a huge amount of work - who has the time, the aptitude or the energy for this today?

What we all want is GREAT RESPONSIVENESS in our services combined with greater transparency. To run a local government planning office or manage child protection services requires not only common sense, but it also needs professional expertise in many areas, often to post graduate level.

Quite why moving the performance targets away from the services themselves to some nebulous notions of monitoring just how libertarian Ministers are in "rolling back the Central State", then hoping that in some magical way we are all going to put pressure on those responsible at the local level seems pretty specious to me.

In order to be informed about what is going on, you'd need to be able (and have the time) to wade through all this performance data, interpret it and put a coherent case for change together.

Local media would be a vital catalyst in this process, but as we know aside from the BBC, local newspapers are in long term decline, ITV regional news is a ghost compared to what it used to be, and ILR is becoming a network playout device for pop music, not a serious player in local news. (There are notable exceptions to these sweeping generalisations..)

I'd say that decentralising public services is the real solution.

Blow up the Whitehall machine - devolve as much as possible to regional government - build on the success of Scotland, Wales & N. Ireland - create strong elected regional assemblies, scrap the counties and scrap the central bureacracy - then operate each region as an autonimous part of the UK, only coming together for strategic issues, e.g. foreign policy and defence. Westminster could shrink by 2/3rds and the Second Chamber could be made up from Regional Government nominees - finally bye bye House of Lords - and the English Revolution would be complete.

Regional politics wouild be much closer to the grassroots and doesn't need to compromise local priorities for national ones - US state elections shows quite clearly how this works - allow different regions to operate different priorities - just like to USA of German Lander.

At the local level allow councils to be flexible in their operation, but insist on a voluntary tier of community/parish/town councils where the activists can come together and take as much - or as little - responsibility as they can at the very local level.

We live in a representative democracy - so we elect people to represent us. Those people are usually politicians - so does the "big Society" mean that we no longer going to make decisions and hold public bodies accountable through our elected representatives?

There is a strong whiff of anarchy in the air - the implication is that the democratic process doesn't work - that only some form of genteel local "vigilante" action combined with the magic of the market are the only legitimate means to form and direct society.

In parallel the professions are to be cut free of direct accountability and allowed to direct resources as they see fit - doctors decide on healthcare, head teachers run their schools - hands off to all elected representatives - accountability is now to the "court of public opinion" alone.

Either we agree that democracy doesn't work and give up on it, or we need to reconsider the form and structure of government that we elect our representatives to work in and try to change it so it works better.

Stripping away the democratic structures when there seems to me to be a major risk of serious global and national economic poblems would provide a dangerous vaccum.

If this all goes as pear shaped as it seems likely to do, the rebound will concrete in the public's view on the state provision of many services, just as it has with the NHS which the last radical libertarain Tory government seriously thought they could gradually privatise - that is now a dead duck.

Fubar_Saunders 86

Further to my point, as I have travelled around Britain, I soon came to realise that the freedoms that the British were looking for were not the obvious ones. The Coalition and Labour have it all wrong. Before a Government changes to a big society it has to firstly give the public the belief that they have some control over their lives. This is the first step. Suddenly trying to change a society which has become reliant on an overbearing state, to one where there is no Government structure does not work. Even China understands this concept.

For instance I worked in places like Cyprus, the people there find Britain and like minded Countries very restrictive. There are rules and regulations for everything. From driving your car to your dustbin being in the right place. Loosening the control of the state in our lives is not the same as withdrawing the state, but the Coalition seems to believe it is. The same as minorities with the loudest voices, are still allowed to control policy in Britain, the majority no longer have a voice. Nothing has changed in this way under the Coalition.

These particular problems lead to a feeling of frustration and helplessness, which in turn leads to apathy. This is the point Britain has reached at this time.

Your own party, UKIP, seem to be the only party that understand the problems and the proper role the state should play in our lives at the moment.

# 91 AlphaPhantom

"If the government want to be more accountable to the people then the merger we really need to focus on is that government perspective moving much more towards the individualistic perspective that each and every citizen lives through each and every day."

Yes! Another way of putting this is that the government should listen to what the people want. Voters should be able to choose who they want to be in government, based on what a party puts in their manifesto in the lead-up to an election. And then expect politicians to stick to their promises!

Interestingly, (in relation to the Woolas debacle) Hatty Harman is quoted as saying"It is not part of Labour's politics for somebody to be telling lies to get themselves elected"

Oh really? How then does Hatty explain Labour promising in their manifesto to hold a referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty then breaking their pledge? Clegg did exactly the same.

94#

If AV goes through you'll end up with a LOT more boxes on your ballot paper than just those!

Nice to see you back after your two sabbatical......

Nick, cursed you for shutting last blog early, again, but you did this one at 1 min after midnight !

Is Cameron related to Mesmer ? Coming up with a grand sounding wheeze that gets us to do his job ?

A whole lot of quite probably uninteligible statistics, and we all know about them, will be produced, by who ? Those who want to prove they are doing ok ? Well that worked well in the Staffs Hospitals didnt it. Then we are supposed to plough our way through them and complain !

Nobody listens to complaints any more, I have had several ignored by the BBC for example. Not even a get lost in response.

Oliver Letwin may make fun of the fact that Ministers used to be asked why someones phone was not connected on time but that is really how it should be. The buck stops with them and they are paid a damn good salary, ( plus expenses), to provide the services they said they would to get elected. Now they want us to do their job for nowt !

Some variation of how long you can get away with fooling people must come into play soon.