Here’s your starter for ten in our weekend slot where we throw up an idea or thought for debate…
“We must think long term” is a common cry in politics and government. Far easier said than done, but whether it is investing in early years education, making decisions over building new physical infrastructure such as railways, setting rules for pensions or a myriad of other decisions, government repeatedly makes decisions which only work well if they are stuck to for a long period of time and whose positive impact may not be directly felt for many years. For example, the failure to make decisions for the long-run and stick with them is one of the reasons infrastructure projects cost more in the UK than elsewhere.
The desire to think long term was a frequent part of Nick Clegg’s rhetoric last year, usually using the current buzzwords of choice – “horizon shifting” – as in his speech last September. However, when it comes to making changes in how government is actually conducted, there has been very little done so far other than fixed-term Parliaments – which give a degree of certainty to long-term planning, especially if it is a hung Parliament.
Moreover, Labour’s one serious attempt to get long-term planning for infrastructure work – PFI and PPP (which, by using legal contracts, made it hard for governments to change their mind over projects) – has been heavily discredited for high costs and post work in many cases, including the notorious collapse of PPP on the London Underground.
The Institute for Government’s research has found (see page 64-65) that the longer a Secretary of State is in post, the better run their department tends to be – though the longer the chief civil servant has been in post, the worse run it is (albeit that the statistical correlations are weak). So simply eschewing regular reshuffles is one thing the government can do.
What else should it do?
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Remembering Liz Truss and her dogs that barked at drones
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
William Wallace
12 Comments
In relation to the biggest issue facing the world today; global warming it is probably impossible.
If it were physically possible to implement the policies need to resolve this problem, the level of discomfort for the electorate would be of the order that that government would never be elected again.
On the other hand in not doing these things, the level of discomfort in the longer term would be much worse.
For politicians the politics of comfort overrides the politics of ling term sustainablility.
We also need to consider that businesses also do not think in the long term. The banking fiasco was caused by people going for short term profits and not considering the long term consequences.
This is a market failure and is not just confined to banking. We saw with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill that the drive for profit overrides safety considerations that cost money and give no return.
As far as governments are concerned, they to get seduced by short term profits which helps make the GNP figures look good. They prefer light touch regulation which does not cost much. The private sector lobbies government in favour of light touch regulation to keep down their costs as well.
Currently there is a rush for public spending cuts by ministers who do not know what they are doing and which may cost more money in the longer term. Public spending is seen as a cost and not an investment.
Compare the Thatcherite approach to North Sea Oil. We have passed the peak in North Sea Oil, and that oil was traded when oil prices were low. Norway did not do this, they conserved their North Sea Oil and are noe benefitting frmo the much higher prices.
Once again, the market concentrates on short term profit.
So governments should stop being obsessed about free markets. They should distinguish between different sectors of the economy, and when it omces to energy in particular they should think strategically.
Appoint ministers on grounds of competence instead of for political necessity? Gove has proven himself to be incompetent, Pickles is looking close to have done so, but eschewing reshuffles will mean they’ll stay in place long term.
Unfortunately, I think it is one of the problems with democracy. Short term popularity will always win because you can’t do anything unless you get voted in.
I have a far out suggestion – stagger the election of MPs. Maybe people would look more closely at their own MPs at election time, rather than overall party politics. We would also remove big swings in ideology.
“How do we make government think long term?”
Never enter into another PFI or PPP scheme ever again. Ever. No exceptions.
Fire everyone implicated in MOD procurement scandals and anyone implicated in the government I.T.scandals (EDL etc. still ongoing sadly as welfare ‘reform’ will prove)
When an American President asks a British PM to join him in a War, always ask a military expert “how long is this thing likely to last ?” Do NOT your spindoctor or the American President.
When the Governments gets lobbied by Bankers and the City or a Party is wooing the City for funds, if they ask you to weaken regulations or alter tax policy claiming it’s will “boost growth dramatically”, give them a swift kick up the backside and tell them tio F.T. off.
When entering into any massive sporting project remember to multiply the initial cost estimate by a factor of x20.
When entering into long term ‘reform’ of welfare or pensions, never listen to American ‘experts’ the CBI or anyone else idealogically opposed to the welfare system and pensions. They have been known to “lie” and might just have a far bigger agenda than saving money.
When attempting to reform the House of Lords, the quickest route will always be to let father time do his work in God’s Waiting Room, because the Lords will never willingly destroy themselves or their privileges, and filling the place with more Peers will only encourage them and increase sales of werthers originals and stennah stairlifts.
If you are attempting to assess the long term prospects for the economy, never put a man in charge who suffers from acute Chionophobia. (will you guess right or will you Google ? 😉 )
And finally.. always remember what the Ghost of John Maynard Keynes can be heard mournfully intoning from the sepulchral depths of the Treasury “The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.” (but watch out for the Zombie Adam Smith, he’s faster then he looks and does indeed enjoy feasting on brains)
P.S. If making any decision about Global Warming, always remember that a right wing TV pundit, journalist or politician isn’t a scientist just because he can use the internet, Scientists tend not to shout that much or start foaming at the mouth about global ‘conspiracies’.
Genetically engineer to alter human nature?
Whilst areas like education and the environment are at the sole mercy of whichever Government is in power then long term thinking will always be in danger of being sidelined.
If we however ha a cross party committee including experts who could agree, not on the policy to be implemented, but in what that policy should be aiming to achieve, then we might start to see some kind of long termism.
Education is a good case in point. Why should the curriculum be subject to the whims of whichever education minister happens to be in charge? We have many people working in the field of education research, many experts who understand child development and learning far better than any politician. These are the people who should be guiding the curriculum, and education policy in general.
There is little hope for long term planning unless constitutional law can be entrenched. If constitutional entrenchment was possible, coupled with a judiciable basic law, then it would be possible for the basic law to require budgets to be balanced over the economic cycle.
That would, naturally, be a good start to long term thinking within government.
However, constitutional conservatives within the Conservative and Labour parties will ensure that constitutional entrenchment cannot occur, as they harbour fanciful ideas regarding dramatically lowering or raising the levels of state provision of services.
Short-term thinking is perhaps just an fundmental problem that will always be a factor when politicians have to chase votes every few years. I do not think that the problem is helped by the fact that ministers now always end up retiring as millionaires thanks to high salaries, generous expenses, lucrative directorships, appointment to sinecures such being EU commissioner or “peace envoys” and (of course) the inevitable book deal. See “Blair, A.”. So my creative solution is that when minister leaves government, he has to spend the rest of his/her days living on minimum wage in a council house. It will be compulsory for his/her kids to go to the local comprehensive school and it will be illegal for him/her to use private health care. I am sure that such a scheme would ensure that Britain would have the best social housing, the best health service, the best schools and the best public services in the whole wide world.
It would be great to see evidence of thought (Steve Webb and Chris Huhne apart) short term before we seek miracles.
The problem with longtermism is that it is politically expensive to invest in any policy whose benefits will likely only be apparent in four or five years (after the next election). One approach might be for politicians to reject spin in favour of honesty and lay out what their plans are, why they have chosen them, and the outcomes they expect to affect. Another important principle is to explain that cuts are not the only way to sort out public finances. Spend to save programs can be hugely effective, and some on a fairly short timescale. The mental health spending announcements were a recent example of a long term approach. There is also drug program investment like the POP project in Glasgow recently that saved £14 for every £1 spent.
Politicians presently good policies and asking the public to trust them would be nice.