As I said in my ever so brief blog last Friday I was on last week’s Any Questions from Kingston University. It was a good night with a conversation that was probably enhanced by none of the panellists being an official Party spokesperson.

It was a nice start to the evening to find out (of course I should have known already) that both Bonnie Greer and Lord Ramsbotham are Fellows (and I am going to try now to recruit the final panellist Tim Montgomery!)

I guess I am on the programme as much because of my past as my present role, so it is a challenge to get the right balance between my personal views and the need to protect the RSA’s vital political independence.

I’m sure I’ll hear soon enough if Fellows think I got it wrong.

There were a couple of moments in the programme which connected with the work here at John Adam Street.

One was the chance for me to vent, again, my concerns about the divide between state and independent schools. As I said in the programme, I don’t condemn those who provide or send their children to private schools (I wouldn’t have many friends if I did). But I do worry about the most privileged pupils being educated in schools where it is hard to fail and the least privileged in schools where it is hard to succeed.

In the past I have suggested that the RSA might try to convene local discussions to explore how well-off parents might be encouraged to keep their children in the state sector. My thoughts haven’t got much further but any views would be welcome.

The discussion also reminded me of the gap between what we say about the kind of society in which we want to live in and how we respond to questions about our own lives.

When I argued that the abolition of inheritance tax could not be a priority if we want a fairer society and a more productive economy, I got a good hand of applause. But when Jonathan Dimbleby then asked the audience if they thought the tax should be abolished they voted overwhelmingly in favour.

It shows how important the framing of an issue is.

If we are asked what we want for ourselves without any reference to our wider idea of a better future, and without being asked to think about the trade-offs involved in any choice, our answers will tend to be narrowly self-interested.

But when a policy is placed in a fuller context – including the wider good – we may reach different conclusions.

Which goes to underline two things:

First, that most opinion polls about policy options are a waste of time and tend by their superficial nature simply to reflect our most unthinking responses.

Second, the need to move from government-centric political discourse (“what I want the politicians to do for me”) to a citizen centric approach (“what kind of future we want and what we need to do to create it”).

Apologies again for the holiday blog break I will make up for it in the weeks to come.

Damon – I really enjoyed your comment. I think individual empowerment is only achieved alongside strategies of collective empowerment – including bringing alive the policy dilemmas and trade offs. Many people who think hard about public service reform have come to the conclusion that this issue of reconciling individual and collective choice and empowerment is one of the big future policy challenges.

Bob, given the importance of our competency based Opening Minds curriculum to the Willingsworth Academy and our recognition that rising expectations is a crucial aim for the new school I hope you can rest assured.

Thanks, Tony, I agree with the sentiment. Getting the practice right is the challenge.

Today’s Select Committee report on local authority refuse collection took me back three decades to my
first full time job as a street sweeper for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

Clocking-on time was 5.30 and even as a teenager with a mind on girls, punk rock and soft drugs, I couldn’t help being impressed by the view from Chelsea Bridge in the early morning summer sun.

The only other people I remember seeing were Brighton-bound bikers stopping for a strong tea and cigarette at the tiny snack hut on the south side of the river.

On my first day I was allocated to Pat, a short wiry Irishman of few words. We walked down to the Kings Road, pointing down the side of a posh residential square and he gave me my broom and set me to work.

Half an hour later I was wondering what I had let myself in for; dripping in sweat, eyes and nose full of dust and with a hatred of irresponsible dog owners that was fast becoming pathological.

At this point Pat strolled up to me. Gently removing the broom from my red hands and glancing back at the couple of hundred yards I had covered, he uttered possibly the ten most influential words I’ve ever heard: ‘Listen son,’ he said, ‘this is a job not a bleeding vocation.’

Two hours later we clocked off for an elevenses which ended at the conventional time despite beginning just after eight. When I asked another fellow sweeper – a drug addict who used to hide stolen car radios in his dust trolley – whether we might ever be caught out for our five hours off in every eight hour shift, he reassured me that the council inspector made it a matter of pride that the timing of the weekly round on his motor scooter never varied.

As long as I was hard at work behind John Lewis on Friday at 10.00 the rest of my time was my own. We used to give him a friendly wave as his Vespa turned the corner and we looked for somewhere to hide our trolley.

I have to admit this experience of the public sector ethos did leave a mark. But over the years my main argument for reform has not focussed on efficiency, I have instead majored on the need for ‘empowering’
services.

By this I mean services designed around the idea of the user as the joint producer of the intended outcome. Thus, health services are better if patients have greater choice and control, results improve when pupils and parents feel engaged with the school, the police have a chance of success if the community accepts a role in delivering the crime prevention strategy.

This idea is now very popular with pundits, politicians and progressively-minded managers. But not everyone is so convinced. For many hard pressed public employees the task is keeping the public at bay rather than inviting them to get more involved. While for critics of the state the idea of empowerment is just a cover for a continued failure of basic service delivery.

More than once I have heard members of the latter camp respond to my idealistic vision of state-citizen collaboration with the stark assertion: ‘People don’t want to be engaged or empowered they just want their bins emptied on time.’

Preparing for a speech the other day to Kent County Council managers I was wondering whether I would face this line at attack again. When it struck me – in my house we have a bag for recycling, a bag for the compost heap I recently established in the garden, and we try to keep the remainder down to no more than one black bin liner a week – I am a co-producer of waste services in Lambeth.

Indeed, the amount of time my family spends separating, rinsing and bagging the rubbish is probably as great as that spent on my household by the council’s refuse collection service.

What was once cited as the classic example of a ‘delivery’ service of which the public would be mere passive recipients, wanting little more than reliability, has turned into a partnership.

Instead of council officers needing only to think about when the cart turns up and whether the collectors tidy up after themselves, they must now carefully work out how best to cajole residents to be
responsible waste managers.

The thrust of today’s Select Committee report was that councils are using insufficiently strong incentives to encourage residents to recycle.

Imagine how revolutionary it would be if responsibility for service outcomes in schooling, primary health care and policing were shared as equally with the public as is increasingly the case with refuse collection.

So, the next time I am waxing lyrical on the need for the empowering state and someone shouts out ‘rubbish’ I’ll know they are agreeing with me.

All of which gives me the excuse to recall a favourite TV comedy moment, one which uses rubbish to raise the most profound of philosophical questions. For surely no amount of innovation or empowerment will match the efficiency of Trigger’s broom?

As you will recall he won Southwark public employee of the year for having had the same trusty sweeper throughout his career. As he boasted to Del Boy and Rodney: ‘Maintained it for 20 years. This old broom has
had 17 new heads and 14 new handles in its time.’