Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Agency heads roll, but two governments should carry the blame
Link
See BBC NEWS | Education | Results fiasco test chief quits and BBC NEWS | Politics | CSA chief resigns amid criticism
Today Jonathan Ford resigned as head of the National Assessment Agency, following a fiasco of English testing for 14 year olds, while Doug Smith, head of the Child Support Agency, resigned amid a prolonged and powerful attack by MPs on the "chronic, systemic failures" of management across the agency.
If these were merely the isolated failures of isolated agencies, then today would have been a simple coincidence. But they are not. They are part of a long series of systematic failures in public sector agencies. Over the last few years we have seen fiascos on passports, on CRB checks for school teachers, on exam results, and on the introduction of computer systems in many parts of the public sector. And, of course, we saw the fiasco of the Millennium Dome and the abortive UK athletics stadium.
It would be convenient to pin the blame on New Labour, but at least half of the failing agencies and systems were established by the Old Tories.
Rather, it points to a malaise in British politics which dates at least back to the Thatcher years.
The malaise is one of farming out the risks of untested policies to paid officials or unelected boards, making ministers accountable only for their intentions, and not for their results.
It was not always so. We may rather laughingly look back at the plethora of government departments, admirably satirised on Radio 4 in 'The Men from the Ministry' and later on television in 'Yes, Minister'. But the old system of departments - for all its faults - made ministers directly accountable for the implementation of government policy. This - in itself - was probably enough to make ministers think twice before establishing systems which could not possibly work.
The Child Support Agency was just one such system. It was doomed to failure from the start, structurally unsuitable for the task it was required to complete, under-resourced and sent off to sink or swim by a government (John Major's) that knew there was little chance that it would still be around to pick up the pieces.
So, quango heads have rolled. Doubtless others will follow. The public has already forgotten which minister it was created the mess. In this way, although they may have failed in their tasks, the quangos have satisfied their purpose - to take the heat off government long enough to survive just one more election.
Sunday, November 14, 2004
The wheel of misfortune turns. The Tories relapse back into greyness.
Boris Johnson sacked. See: BBC NEWS | Politics | Analysis: Johnson's fate was sealed.
So, Boris Johnson is gone from the Tory front benches. The wheel of misfortune has turned, and the Conservatives have relapsed back into greyness.
The Editor of the Spectator's career as a front bencher has been brilliant, brief and brusque. His talent for controversy made him easily the most popular Tory acquisition of the 2001 General Election. Not so long ago he was being tipped for leader. Two scandals later - one a Mellorite saga of private misconduct, and the other a major diplomatic incident between sub-urban and urban Britain - and he has become too great a risk.
Michael Howard was probably right to get rid of him. No politician can really survive a private and a public scandal in such a short period of time. But, as far as his party is concerned, this is a PR disaster. It brings back to mind Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitken, and all the sorry stories of sleaze and misdemeanour of the last Tory government. Not to mention the then secret affair between John Major and Edwina Currie. Worse, it sharpens the question of why Howard did not either sack him or vindicate him for the Spectator article which attacked the entire city of Liverpool. Instead, Howard (to mix a metaphor) threw him to the lions to see if he would float.
Well, he did float, for a bit. Now, thoroughly waterlogged, he is being allowed to sink less he take the whole Tory boat down with him.
Just another episode in the British political saga of the eccentric who couldn't hack it on the front benches, or the candle that burned too bright, too fast?
Not quite. It leaves the Tory party with a very substantial problem. Iain Duncan Smith was ditched (on the false allegation of sleeze) essentially because he was too boring. Boris Johnson was too flamboyant. Michael Howard is hardly a colourful figure. Oliver Letwin is so personally anonymous that (at this moment) I can't remember what he looks like or the sound of his voice.
This was all illustrated a little more than a year ago when Mori asked people to identify who the members of the shadow cabinet were. The results were as follows (September 2003)
Base: 952 British adults 18
%
Michael Ancram 26
Charles Clarke 10
Kenneth Clarke 21
Michael Heseltine 11
Michael Howard 26
Oliver Letwin 19
Theresa May 24
John Redwood 15
Ann Widdecombe 24
None 2
Don't know 38
Of course, John Redwood is back 'in' now, in a vague attempt to up the glamour factor. But the ultimate conclusion is that the Tories have nobody - except the rejected Heseltine and Clarke - who are able to command the public's respect. And now, with the departure of Johnson, they no longer have anyone who can capture the public imagination.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Right Idea - Wrong Target
Link
Lord Falconer threatens regulation of compensation sector. See also BBC NEWS | Politics | Firms warned over accident claims
It was in August that Tory spokesman David Davis took a potshot at human rights legislation. He claimed that it was responsible for the 'compensation culture' which was growing up in Britain. Lord Falconer is today to weigh into the debate by at - one and the same time - denying that the compensation culture exists, and simulaneously threatening legislation if 'No-Win, No Fee' companies don't voluntarily clean up their act.
Lord Falconer is merely echoing the 'Better Regulation Task Force' which in May dismissed the notion of a Compensation Culture as an Urban Myth, while at the same time presenting evidence for it. The story about the school that made pupils wear goggles to play conkers is merely amusing. But the large council that actually spent more than £2m of its £22m roads budget on tackling compensation claims in 2003-4 is proof positive that the compensation culture is no myth. Claims against schools have risen to £200 million a year, enough for 8,000 new teachers, while claims against the NHS rose to £477 million, the equivalent of 22,700 extra nurses. And then, of course, there is the rising cost of insurance premiums.
Both Wrong
Lord Falconer and David Davis are both wrong - but Falconer is on the right track.
Daytime TV - and the less popular satellite channels - are full of advertisements trying to persuade us to take our bosses to court. Then there's the youngish people who hang around shopping centres with clip-boards asking anybody who will give them the time if they have had an accident in the last three years. None of these ever mention the human rights act, so it's acutely unlikely that people who sign up with these companies are doing so out of a sudden desire to test out the limits of new legislation. Sorry, Mr Davis.
At the same time, given the amount of evidence, both in terms of companies that make their money by it and the hard facts of claim costs, to say that it is all just an Urban Myth seems a bit far-fetched. After all, if it is, who is paying the advertising costs? I suppose Lord Falconer doesn't watch daytime TV and so the question has not struck him in that light.
Predators
Regulating the claims industry is not the path to take. Falconer is a lawyer, and sees this as a blight on the legal profession. A better approach would be to go back to daytime TV and ask the question 'Who is being targetted by this kind of advertising?' It doesn't take much analysis to work out that the target audience is the same as for high APR car financing and consolidation loans. The message is a simple one: 'you may not believe that there's a large pot of money out there waiting for you, but there is and all you have to do is to contact our company'.
The outcome is also the same: people who are financially unsophisticated sign away their rights or future earnings to companies who will make disproportionate profits on the deal.
It is this kind of predatory commerce, which make its money by preying on the hopes and fears of the financially vulnerable, which needs our attention. The combination of hard sell advertising, bullying sales tactics, and an unfair division of either risk or winnings makes these particular companies unwelcome in our economy.
We can regulate on a sector by sector basis forever. In doing so we penalise genuinely beneficial legal and financial services alongside the sharks. It is time for government to turn its attention to the whole unpleasant spread of businesses that trade on false hopes and real miseries. And we should not be regulating these people. We should be eliminating them permanently from our economic life.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
'Tories ready for power' - but they haven't found the fuse box
See: BBC NEWS | Politics | Howard: 'Tories ready for power'
The Tories are ready for power, says Michael Howard. This of course is a truism. The Tories are always ready for power. Any power, any little thing that anyone wants to give them. But right now they don't seem to be able to find the fuse box. In fact, they don't even seem to be able to find the batteries.
Being ready for power is not the same as having a programme that will take you there, and, one year on from his leadership coup, Michael Howard still doesn't have a plan that is different from the old plan. It's perhaps just a coincidence that this is also the anniversary of the National Lottery - now the only thing for which the last Tory government is remembered. The Conservatives rolled the dice by getting rid of Iain Duncan Smith, but they might as well have picked a number out of the air.
One of the most fundamental rules of any kind of PR is that you never believe your own spin. You stay focussed on your goal, under-promise and over-deliver, and then let the surprised onlookers praise you while you smile in a British-sort-of-way and say 'just doing my job'.
Michael Howard's grasp of PR is clearly shaky. His party have produced a two-page dossier on his year one achievements. Successes in European elections, improved party finances, new offices, a new campaign director, and greater diversity among candidates. New Offices? They might as well have printed that they had ordered new deck-chairs for the Titanic. Success in Europe? Perhaps - but accompanied by the spectre of UKIP rising to challenge them in every constituency across the country. And if UKIP take an average 15% of the vote, or if they halve the Tory vote as they did in Hartlepool, then suddenly even the safest Tory seats are looking unsafe. A new campaign director? Is this seriously an achievement? And greater diversity among candidates. Hardly something which appeals to their core voters, who effectively prevented their first black MP from being elected when they squabbled over John Taylor in Cheltenham. How quickly we forget.
Publishing a dossier is an act of desperation. Self-praise never makes for good PR. And the spin machine of Labour quickly produced its own nine page dossier highlighting his failings.
But the greatest failing of Michael Howard does not need a dossier. It just needs a sentence. In a time of intense disillusionment with the government, the Tories have not improved their poll position at all during Michael Howard's leadership. Nothing more needs to be said. We don't need to question Howard's conviction or consistency, as Alan Milburn has tried to. We don't have to question his judgment. We just have to look at his results.
Yes Michael, you may think you are ready for power, but the lights are still off and nobody is home.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Is New Labour just paying off old debts
See also BBC NEWS | Politics | MPs back gambling laws shake-up
Today the gambling bill cleared its second reading hurdle with 286 votes to 212 in the House of Commons. Liberal-Democrats, Church Leaders, Tories, and a fair-few Labour MPs fear it will lead to a rise in gambling addiction. Tessa Jowell says it will protect the "weak and the vulnerable." Former Labour health secretary Frank Dobson said: "There's no public demand for it and it's coming from American gambling companies."
Hmm. If there is no public demand for it, why is New Labour introducing it? The run up to general elections is usually a time for populist policy with as few risks as possible. Interestingly, in the NHS, the latest crop of 'reforms' such as Choose and Book and Practice-led Commissioning are being announced now, but won't happen for most people until after the election. A wise choice - there's nothing like a practical foul-up to spoil the most popular-sounding policy.
Tessa Jowell says that she is baffled at the "level of fury" her Bill has prompted. Whether or not you agree with the bill, her bafflement is perhaps the most baffling of all. Did she really believe that sneaking in a set of proposals that would have made Margaret Thatcher blush into a bill glossed as protecting the wak and vulnerable was going to go unnoticed? Doesn't she remember the protests by left-wingers and Church leaders, among others, when John Major introduced the Lottery?
It's a fairly established fact that Blair reintroduced the fox-hunting bill as a way of paying off old debts to the Left. A claim has been knocking about - Tessa Jowell ridiculed it on the Today programme this morning but she didn't deny it - that £100 million in lobbying has gone into this bill from American gambling companies. £100 million is a lot of cash.
Is New Labour paying off another old debt? What is most worrying about this whole policy fiasco is that, in Frank Dobson's words, it is "contrary to the party's normal, slightly paternalist, slightly puritan image". The public don't especially want it. The existing British gambling interests certainly don't want the added competition. The Labour party doesn't seem to want it. So who does? Why are we going there? Why is Jowell risking another backlash just at this time?
We shall watch carefully to see which debt is to be paid off next.
Previous news
 Â