Fine words butter the conversation
The family catchphrase is a stock in trade for folksy radio and TV shows. And even though these items tend to irritate me, I can’t help being delighted when the opportunity comes to claim my own bit of verbal heritage. Something my clever, kind and unfeasibly young-looking mother said the other day is – if I have anything to do with it – set to join the idiomatic lexicon. In part, because it reminded me of an idea I have been itching to progress.
I first surfaced the idea in my 2009 annual lecture in the context of calling for a more grown up deliberative form of political discourse. I argued that most political and policy debate involves people misrepresenting each other’s position and then knocking down the straw man they have built. I suggested political debate should involve the pursuit of the transcendent moment when the opposing sides in a debate agree on what exactly it is they disagree about. Rather than this being a moment of distilled antagonism, it turns out to lead to an outbreak of mutual respect and a recognition of the validity and inevitability of differences in systems of belief. It is the starting point for conflict resolution and authentic compromise.
Because so little public debate aims to agree about disagreeing (in fact quite the reverse), I have recently been trying to persuade various media people to think about a radio or TV format which involves working with the protagonists to distil this essence from a variety of disputes: from the obvious and highly charged (the Middle East) to public policy (progressive versus traditional teaching) to culture (Prince Charles versus modern architecture).
This is the idea, but what did my mum say to remind me of it?
I’m not sure whether it’s an affectation, or just me getting older, but I have started to enjoy deploying phrases taught to me by my dear old grandmother. ‘Fine words butter no parsnips’ is a well established maxim but not – I have found out to my chagrin – in common use among those under forty. While the answer she gave to whether to take a scarf or raincoat on a journey, ‘if you take it with you, you can always take it off, but if you don’t take it with you, you can never put it on’, may have been her own invention.
It has been wrongly alleged that my own catchphrase should be ‘enough of me, what do you think about me?’ But if the cap fits, I’m afraid dear mum may have knitted it. She too can talk fascinatingly, and seemingly without end, about herself. And it was in this context, on Sunday night in the pub, that she burst out in frustration:
‘ Matthew, for goodness sake, I’m trying to have a conversation but you keep interrupting me’
I think you’ll agree, it’s an instant classic.
The night watchman state?
I had a visit last week from Government advisors exploring how best to describe the Coalition’s approach to public services. This was, I guess, partly because I was credited with helping to provide a narrative for the Blair reform programme.
The latter comprised four elements: first, strategy, accountability and funding from the top; second, choice and voice from the bottom up; third, diversity and contestability providing dynamism among providers; and, fourth, a general attempt to build capacity and confidence through the system (for example through the proliferation of public service leadership institutes – many of which are already, or soon to be, toast).
The fascinating starting point for last week’s conversation was the statement by one of the advisors that Whitehall civil servants have been cast adrift as a result of the effective abolition of outcome targets. The public service agreements which provided the core rationale for thousands of Whitehall jobs have been swept away, and many other regimes focussed on achieving measurable results – such as the local authority comprehensive performance assessment – have also gone. In time we are likely to see a major downsizing of Whitehall itself but in the meantime, the advisors asked, what are the officials to do?
Their answer was an elegant diagram exploring the different dimensions of Big Society public services. The problem with this, I thought, was it assumed central Government has a major constructive role in society. So, for example, the advisors identified increasing civic capacity as a task. The implication is that civil servants can shift from trying to deliver public service outcomes to trying to build the Big Society. But this misses the point. Labour believed the centre could make good things happen, the Coalition is much more sceptical.
Instead, I suggested the Coalition’s approach might be better captured as a set of radical principles. Here, for discussion with readers, are what seem to me to be the key assumptions/principles:
• Markets are in almost all circumstances better than planning as a way of allocating resources
• Any collaboration between public service institutions and agencies should be voluntary. It is counterproductive to enforce or incentivise collaboration (see, for example, the lack of enthusiasm for Total Place)
• In most cases third and private sector providers are better than public sector providers
• Outcomes should be a function of bottom up deliberation, implementation and scrutiny not top down
• There is a substantial underused resource in civil society, including in deprived communities
• The primary way in which this resource can be accessed is if third sector and community groups take responsibility for delivering services previously provided by the state
• Differences in local service levels and outcomes is the inevitable and justifiable price for innovation, local accountability and civic engagement.
The new, much more circumscribed, task of civil servants is to enact these principles while trying at minimal cost and with minimal regulation to ensure that other public policy imperatives (such as Parliamentary accountability, basic equity, and financial probity) are observed. This is not an easy thing to do, especially in the context of severe austerity. So the task of civil servants is much changed, and much more limited in scale, but in some ways even more important.
What I have called the ‘civic market state’ will need a smaller, tougher, more strategic Whitehall. Who’s to say that isn’t a good thing?
Putting the redundant consultants to work …
In response to my asking yesterday whether the new army of redundant consultants might be willing to do good works, Sarah Grant poses the very reasonable question:
‘What kind of incentives might be used to encourage you to offer your skills freely or very cheaply?’
I also got an e-mail from a friend who is a part time academic and consultant and who has, as it happens, done some work for the soon to be defunct Sustainable Development Commission. It’s not, he tells me, that there isn’t lots to be done – he has a constant flow of pro bono work requests, it’s just that the work doesn’t add up to an adequate income. This is from someone whose green values lead him to live frugally and aspire only to earn the average wage.
‘Perhaps’ he says ‘it is time to revisit Charlie Leadbeater’s Demos booklet of 1997 or so, The Employee Mutual - a mutual network organisation acting as an all-in trainer, retrainer, placement agency, mutual support network, LET scheme and supplier of project staff on contract?’.
Going back to Sarah’s question, I imagine that for many in the older group of professionals the big finance issue is reducing costs. If they are homeowners they will typically have some capital, especially if kids have left home and they no longer need a family house. They may not be extravagant in their consumption desires (this does seem to be something we do get over as we age) but they may worry about meeting bills. On this basis they might be tempted by a local authority or community organisation that made this offer: move out of London/South East into a nice house in an mixed area with lower prices. We will help with relocation costs and – if you agree to do twenty hours a week pro bono consultancy – we will pay your council tax bills. We will also connect you to a variety of networks so that you are over time more able to find paid work alongside the unpaid.
This is a big change of lifestyle and people may be more willing to do it if they feel part of a group. So the host organisation might set up a mutual structure (of the kind it sounds like Charlie was advocating) for people to join when they arrive in their new location.
There are, of course, lots of objections to this idea. Perhaps none of the people I am describing would be attracted to the idea of ‘social down-sizing’ As there are cuts everywhere, won’t there be a national glut of under-employed public service professionals – why would anywhere want to import more? Also, would these people really have the skills necessary to increase capacity and develop initiatives to improve run down areas? I’ll rely on my readers to tell me whether the objections kill the idea.
But if anyone thinks there is something to this I will see if we can explore the idea a bit more. I know I am getting carried away, but imagine a whole network of RSA Social Consultancies working in disadvantaged areas, drawing on the wider RSA Fellowship, swapping skills and insights, applying some of the Society’s own research into civic innovation and social networks. What a brilliant symbol that would be of twenty first century enlightenment.
Inequality, Big Society, professional unemployment and other ‘lite bites’
Yesterday’s full English breakfast of a post on public service reform hasn’t elicited too many responses. I had promised to elaborate on some of its themes but I feel now like an over keen dinner party host trilling from the kitchen that ‘there’s plenty more if anyone wants seconds’ – impervious to the sound of the dog munching away at the firsts it has been surreptitiously fed by desperate guests.
So here instead are a few tasty titbits:
What shall we do with the redundant consultants?
First, a call for ideas: the news that the Sustainable Development Commission is to join the growing list of doomed quangos means that there will be even more intelligent people with skills in the general area of research, evaluation, communication and co-ordination coming into what is already a massively overcrowded market. There are thousands more people wanting to be consultants at just the time when public sector demand for consultants is likely to dive. So what is to become of these people? Is there some kind of link to the problem of who is going to organise the Big Society in disadvantaged communities. What kind of incentives might be used to encourage some of these talented, public spirited, professionals to offer their skills freely or very cheaply?
Can the Big Society get out of the Moral Maze?
Those who are interested in the Big Society debate – and the splendid Tessy Britton has about thirty people involved in an on-line conversation – may want to tune into the Moral Maze tonight (Radio 4 eight o’clock), which is exploring the Prime Minister’s big idea. Given the politics of the other panellists I suspect that for the purposes of the programme I may be press ganged into being a Big Society sceptic. But, however I perform, there are some great witnesses, including the ubiquitous Phillip Blond and Nick Pearce, the deeply wise former head of the Number Ten policy unit.
Agreeing to differ
Tomorrow we are hosting a debate between, on the one hand, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett authors of ‘The Spirit Level’ with its argument that inequality screws up the whole of society and, on the other, researchers commissioned by the right of centre think tank, Policy Exchange, who say the whole thesis is deeply flawed.
In my role as chair I will be attempting to achieve what I described in last year’s annual lecture as a ‘transcendent’ moment in debate; when it is possible to identity what it is people actually disagree about. This in my experience is very rare as most political and policy debate comprises people making erroneous allegations about what the other side thinks. So I am hoping for more light than heat tomorrow. But given that supporters of both sides have apparently been rallying their troops it’s not going to be easy.
Civic markets – a revolutionary new public service model?
I have just spoken at an event hosted by the Public Management and Policy Association. As the topic was public service reform I had to wrestle with a way of describing the Coalition’s strategy. So what you are about to read is at least new even if it isn’t original or well-developed.
I decided to label the Coalition’s emerging model for public services as ‘civic markets’. This describes the attempt to bind together a strategy for civic renewal (the Big Society) with a more traditional right of centre (accelerated New Labour) faith in market mechanisms.
In essence this means that more of the public sector will be opened up to competition among purchasers and providers but a variety of mechanisms will be used to try to ensure a stronger civic element to these markets. The mechanisms include:
- Offering communities the chance to be purchasers and providers of public services – for example free schools
- Expanding the scope for individuals to be in charge of purchasing services – for example through the expansion of personal budgets into health care
- Outsourcing more public sector work and encouraging more third sector organisations to bid for public service contracts
- Encouraging the emergence of hybrid services which combine public subsidy with volunteer effort, for example libraries which are largely staffed by volunteers
- Seeking to turn parts of the public sector into semi-autonomous social enterprises, for example GP purchasing consortia
- Giving the public a stronger voice in direct accountability and decision making, for example election of police chiefs, community veto on public service closures and an enhanced role for localities in developing their own local housing schemes
- Encouraging civil servants to get out to the front line and work with community groups so that they become, in David Cameron’s phrase, ’civic servants’.
There are a number of issues which a model of civic markets needs to address:
- Coherence – these examples describe a wide varieties of models of ‘civicness’- from new forms of accountability to shifting services from the public to the community sphere. How do these fit together and could they conflict?
- Efficiency – are civic markets the best way to achieve efficiencies?
- Capacity – does society overall have the capacity to be the partner Government wants it to be?
- Equity – as capacity is very unevenly distributed will privileged communities simply be much better placed to reap the benefits of civic markets?
- Co-ordination – with elected police chiefs, GP social enterprises, free schools, community vetoes, where does overall place shaping and strategic planning fit (if at all)? Given the patchy nature of existing local collaboration and leadership, does this matter?
- Accountability – where does accountability sit in this system, and what will happen when things go wrong?
The speech went down OK with questions which sought to develop the ideas rather than contradict them. So relying as usual on the intelligent comments of my readers I might elaborate on some of this later in the week.
Civic markets have a lot in common with vision for public services developed by the 2020 Public Services Trust here at the RSA but there are also important differences. So these are bewildering times for public service commentators and advisers, our thinking needs quickly to catch up with the scale and pace of change in Government policy.
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
- Twitter @RSAMatthew
- RSAMatthew: Matthew's blog: Developing development http://t.co/hhhUGYX1
- RSAMatthew: RSA Xmas Party was huge - my whole life I have been a snobbish git about ceilidh type fun - now I want to dance every night
- RSAMatthew: On my way to RSA Xmas party - I won't stay too long as it spoils the fun to have the boss around
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.