There has been a flurry of books published recently, on the subject of ‘broken Britain’.
Some look at the big picture of why ‘nothing seems to work’, like ‘Great Britain?’ by Torsten Bell, and ‘Failed State’ by Sam Freedman (featured at a Liberal Reform fringe at Conference). Others address more specific problems, like ‘Bad Buying’ by Peter Smith or ‘Fixing Broken Britain’ by Alun Drake. There are some scandal-specific books too which draw broader conclusions, like ‘The Great Post Office Scandal’ by Nick Wallis, ‘Death in the Blood’ by Caroline Wheeler, and ‘The Rise & Fall of DfID’ by Mark Lowcock & Ranil Dissanayake.
It is not just specific sectors like health, economics , transport, housing/planning, and education where astonishing dysfunction has been exposed. There has also been much emphasis on institutional problems; the turbid executive function, extreme centralisation, opaque administration, systematised ‘corruption’, absent civil servant competences, catastrophic procurement practices, a permissive approach to monopoly … and much more.
Most concerning perhaps at a time of severe financial constraints is the breathtaking neglect of value-for-money in governmental spending which all these books highlight; where lobbying and ‘generating the big juicy contract’ seem to dominate administrative behaviour too often.
Will Parliament enthusiastically set about addressing the problems set out in these books? Judging by the policy clumsiness of the Labour government, and the cynical anti-immigrant obsessions of the Conservative Party and Reform, this seems depressingly unlikely.
As the third largest party in Parliament, the 72 newly elected Lib Dem MPs may well be the only hope for the long-suffering British public. Constituency matters may understandably be the priority at present, but several Lib Dem MPs have now acquired ‘briefs’ to grapple with.
The opportunity exists, for Lib Dems in parliament and the Party, to recast their problem-solving approach on behalf of the public. But how?
Unsurprisingly, these ‘broken Britain’ type books emphasise the dysfunctional, more than the remedies. The Lib Dem’s own pursuit of remedies might usefully follow a few guidelines.
The ACTUAL Party and parliamentary policymaking system needs definition and redesign (ie not the theoretical system). Is it still ‘fit-for-purpose’ as a problem-solving service to the voting public?
Great care is needed in defining problems to be addressed, remembering that the public is the ultimate ‘client’ in problem-solving, not the media, lobbyists, party sponsors, or individual ministries. Investigations into problems and remedies should be undertaken on behalf of the public, not government.
Sector-specific problems need to be addressed alongside pan-governmental problems. Many sector-specific problems are really government-wide problems.
Integrity is important in policymaking & problem-solving; conflicts-of-interest must be absent. Expert and representative (non-expert) involvement are both necessary.
In the real world, and over time, there is no distinction between ‘policymaking’ and ‘implementation’, this being a civil service fiction. Unimplementable policy is not policy.
In problem-solving, precision is the lifeblood. Which problems are causes and which symptoms ? Concepts need hard definitions. For example, are we pursuing less regulation, more regulation or quality of regulation? How is ‘austerity’ defined? What is really private and what is state? What are the unit costs? What is the current policy & legislative landscape?
Policymaking methods themselves must have minimum standards and quality guidelines. How is good versus bad policymaking defined.
Don’t let the media tail wag the dog. The policy-remedy sequence should be ‘What to do. How to do it. How to present it’,not the reverse! Refocus publicity on defining the problem, meantime.
* Paul Reynolds works with multilateral organisations as an independent adviser on international relations, economics, and senior governance.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Calum Miller makes the case for a much closer relationship with the European Union
Aging, Development, and Living at High Altitudes (Oxygen Levels)
The Charge of the Light Brigade - A perfect analogy for the United Kingdom today
Lib Dems miss out by 4 votes in council by-election
New lunchtime concerts for 2025
A looming trade war?
Only 3 historical inaccuracies
Nigel Jones
Ruth Clark
David Raw
Peter Davies
12 Comments
Paul, you say “many sector specific problems are government wide problems”. Policy is too often made in silos by government and political parties. The focus should always be on the holistic effect on people’s quality of life. The fuel allowance cut is one example, where an overall analysis of pensioners’ income streams and circumstances is needed before making policy changes.
As another example when Education policies are debated, those of us who have tried to include statements about factors outside the school have had those statements rejected. This applies to government also and results in excessive pressures on teachers and leaders in our schools. Last year the Child Poverty Action Group investigated this and concluded that school staff are “reeling up against it”, that there are limits on what school staff can do, and therefore government must give more to struggling families. It points to a weakness in policy-making that fails to recognise the connections of various policies on people’s lives.
Steve Chalke, of Oasis Trust, in a book published last year called ‘A Manifesto for Hope’ stresses the lack of interconnectedness of all public services, the need for better use of the third sector and the widespread lack of working together by different agencies (public and private). The result he says is harmful bureaucracy, waste of public money and much less effectiveness of well intentioned legislation and effort by those who work hard to try to implement it.
Indeed, Nigel. The problem of ‘silo administration’ is ever-present in all governments, to the detriment of the public experience, and value-for-money in government spending. Different countries try and tackle the problem in different ways; a popular top-down approach exemplified by China is to have pan-governmental ‘commmisions’ or other senior government bodies charged with pursung objectives, rather than administeing ministerial responsibilitirs in silos. Ultimately, however, it is a problem of democracy. Public pressure forces government institutions (ministries and local/national government) to work together to address problems experienced by the public .. and of course those working at the ‘coal face’ of government-public interactions (like teachers). Weak democracy and Britain’s over-centralised state, plus weak controls over conflicts-of-interest, make the silo problems particularly acute in the UK.
@Nigel Jones. Absolutely. Reforms within schools can have an effect at the margins, but all the evidence is that educational outcomes are largely a function of broader social and familial factors. I had the chance to pitch this to my new (Labour) MP. I don’t think he bought it.
Nothing will change until there’s proper decentralisation in this country. Centralised politicians and ministries can make all the statements and diktats they like, but there’s basically no chance they’ll be implemented as expected / hoped. Tony Blair’s utter incomprehension that health services hadn’t improved by (I think) the 2001 election campaign when accosted by an unhappy voter outside a hospital is an example of this disconnect. He honestly believed that because the government had legislated and set rules, then they would be followed.
In practical terms, we can’t expect much of centralised government. It takes too long to make decisions – however well they are framed – and even longer to implement anything. Because decisions are centralised, and implementation isn’t, there are a whole host of rules that are drawn up to “help” implementation – they’re either supremely vague – so hopeless – or extremely detailed – so fail large proportions of people who fall just outside the strict guidelines.
The UK government is a mess because it is a UK government trying, and failing, to govern whole aspects of public administration that it has no business being involved with.
I regret Paul Reynold’s list of “what’s wrong” books does not include Ian Dunt’s “How Westminster Works, (and why it doesn’t.” The analysis is brilliant, tough the list of suggested remedies is, in my view, rather tame. Essentially the way we are governed is “not fit for purpose.” At heart, we need a parliament that controls the executive ,and not vice versa, as at present. Such a reform will not be easy given Labour’s diehard tendency. All the Saintly72 should take time to read Dunt’s book, mark it, learn it, inwardly digest it. It will tell them why they are where the y are and encourage them do something about it.
Further to my remarks about Education, a couple of years ago I watched a recording of a meeting in the USA in which a former government minister of education from Finland was answering questions about Finland’s outstanding performance in that. One thing he said was that a practice of equality within Finnish Society was a major contributing factor to the success of their Education system. The rigorous and long training period for teachers was also a factor. The culture of equality permeates the teaching profession but in addition the support for families outside school helped the teachers get all children to achieve.
I was at Greenbelt Christian Festival this August when a young man who spoke about youngsters who commit crime said that helping such youngsters cannot be left to the schools alone and we need a revamped youth service which is more than just providing “a place where they can play table tennis etc”.
Two books I’ve read in the past year which I think provide more in the way of forward direction as well as hard hitting analysis are ‘Five Times Faster’ by Simon Sharpe, and Free and Equal?’ by Daniel Chandler. The former provides an assessment of how we can tackle the biggest issue of our time, climate, while in the process demolishing conventional ‘equilibrium’ (or zero sum) economics and more positively highlighting a lot of the less publicised initiatives that came out of COP26. Free and Equal brings Rawls’ Theory of Justice up to date and provides a lot that LibDems should be adopting as our core philosophy as well as ideas in the fields of guaranteed incomes, workplace democracy and addressing inequality that should be read more widely within the party. I’d also highlight Doughnut Economics by Kate Raworth – a concept LibDems should be all over and finding ways to make it a reality.
The challenge at hand is to deploy the unparalled range of expertise and skills among the 72 MPs, to good effect in addressing the ‘broken Britain’ issues, identified in the books named, and in the experiences of the public. For those with long experience with the Party, it is axiomatic that in order to meet this challenge, improvements in Party and parliamentary policymaking … and problem-solving on behalf of the public … would be highly beneficial. The article above is a gentle appeal for reform, with some pointers as to how initially go about that, especially viewing policymaking as a problem-solving service to the public, and avoiding any tendency to base policymaking on imprecise assumptions and terms. Further, it means moving away from unproductive and devisive notions of ‘movng to the right’, or ‘moving to the left’, or being more/less ‘progressive’, ending austerity versus promoting fiscal prudence and so on. Such concepts are very unwise start points, and tend to generate confirmation bias. People enter politics because they are not happy with the status quo, and thus because they want to change things. Getting better at ‘changing things’ beneficially, is thus an essential pursuit.
I am supportive of your comments, and would like to add that Ministers and Government departments seem incapable of providing a clear definition of the problem that needs to be fixed. Successful corporate organisations work with their supplier base through RFIs, RFPs and negotiation to nuance a successful solution outcome. A good example is HS2 and the lack of a clear problem definition. Any competently run private sector organisation would deconstruct and separate the issues, and prioritise based on need, time and cost to fix, and how quickly the outcome will be achieved.
An excellent post and good comments. I will pick up on two of the mega issues in government.
Firstly, “astonishing dysfunction [across many departments” and “turbid executive function etc.”. Exactly! I suggest these are symptoms of administrative bloat; too many people involved means decisions are necessarily made by triangulating multiple POVs, promotion is based on ability to play the system and suck up to the boss. No-one is identifiably for any bad decision, however catastrophic.
Secondly, “the breathtaking neglect of value-for-money…” Spot on! The system, such as it is, for controlling strategic initiatives/projects has failed. Hence, HS2, WW2-tech aircraft carriers, PFI’s and more. It’s what the Americans call ‘boondoggles’ – ways of enriching your friends/political benefactors.
Sort these two issues (surprisingly easy, but word limits!) and government spending would be cut by amounts you won’t believe – a view based on experience.
I also second Peter Wrigley’s recommendation of experienced Westminster journalist Ian Dunt’s book ‘How Westminster works… and why it doesn’t”. It’s a must read. Inter alia, he says that just about the only bit of Westminster that works is the House of Lords – which of course many LibDems want to abolish. DOH!
Also agree with Paul’s hint about policymaking. The approach is superficially appealing but is actually fundamentally flawed and in Coalition broke down completely. It doesn’t work, never has and never will.
From the comments so far, we seem to be pulling in two different (and possibly, incompatible) directions. On the one hand there’s the recognition of too much turpidity and bureaucracy slowing decisions down and making Government unresponsive and inefficient. But on the other hand calls for more holistic policies and more cooperation between departments – which sounds great in principle but unfortunately implies even more people involved with each decision and therefore likely even more bureaucracy. So which way do we go?
With such a plethora of failings the solution lies in addressing the fundamentals. We must restore trust, credibility and transparency in our politics. This is no less than the culture of how the UK does governing. The ethos of public service needs to return with little reward apart from the self satisfaction from a job well done.