Putting the front line first

December 6, 2009 by
Filed under: Uncategorized 

If the small type can be agreed in time, today (Monday) should see the launch of the Government’s latest paper on modernising the state. It is, in fact, the fourth such paper in the thirty or so months Gordon Brown has been Prime Minister.  While critics will question the credibility of strategies that seem to be superseded before the ink is dry, Number Ten argues that each paper builds on the previous one as part of a seamlessly evolving strategy.

For those interested in public service strategy I would recommend reading ‘Putting the front line first’ (the working title until last week at least).  Unusually, for a Government publication, it is both substantial and digestible. These are my main impressions:

* From what I understand there is are some good elements to the plan including enhancing rights and entitlements (which was the focus of Building Britain’s Future, the previous plan published in the summer), greater digital access to services, opening up Government data, and steps to devolve more power to individuals and communities. But it doesn’t knit quite together into a single powerful narrative.  Labour continues to find it hard to get heard so this is a problem.

* The plan will contain references to some very radical ideas, especially in relation to encouraging greater civic innovation. One such is the Social Impact Bond which provides investment for third sector organisations who commit to delivering long term reductions in public spending by achieving social outcomes.  When I worked in Number Ten I proposed the idea of ‘open door contestability’ (yes, I know, it doesn’t exactly trip off the tongue), allowing any organisation which thinks it can be more effective than the Government in tackling social problems the opportunity to do so, as long as they are wiling to be paid by results. Social Impact Bonds are an interesting way of doing just this.

* The paper will set out to shoot some Conservative foxes. Not only does it promise to reduce overall expenditure on the civil service, and commit to further cuts in central red tape, but I understand it will pledge a substantial reduction in arm’s length bodies (or ‘quangos’ as they are more usually termed).

 * Despite its radicalism in other areas I hear that the plan will continue to duck the hardest and, arguably, more important problem with Whitehall, which is simply that we have far too many ministers and quasi-ministers, all crashing around generating work and trying to get noticed. The Government admits that the number of senior civil servants has risen even as the total in Whitehall has fallen. But why?  Surely, it is in large part because each minister demands their own high level team?*

Feeding off public hostility to politicians, David Cameron has promised fewer MPs.  But while it is not obvious that the UK population is over represented, it is clearly over-governed. By failing to tackle the political overkill at the heart of Government, Number Ten has not only missed a trick but undermined the credibility of its commitment to smarter Government.

Having said which ‘Putting the Front Line First’ is more evidence that, whatever else its failings, the Brown Government is not running out of ideas. This is another way in which 2009 seems to me to be a political moment more like 1991 than 1996. (But having been told to steer clear of political musings on the RSA website, of this I will say no more.)

Share

No related posts.

Tags:

Comments

4 Comments on Putting the front line first

  1. Hadleigh Roberts on Mon, 7th Dec 2009 10:12 am

    2. In which case perhaps Gordon Brown and his government will be seen in a brighter light in the future. I think the problem about Labour finding a narrative is that the public at large don’t want to listen to Brown regardless of what he is saying. Now we’re stuck with a leader nobody likes but can’t get rid of.

    As for 1991… well, I’d very much like to hear the theory behind that. It sounds more interesting than “It’s 1979 or 1992 or 1996 all over again.”

  2. Sam Holmes on Mon, 7th Dec 2009 12:09 pm

    3. Hi Matthew

    As you say, an easily-digestible read. Good to see substance behind the rhetoric.

    I wonder if the Tories have issued anything similar?

    I’m all in favour of redressing the centre/frontline balance and proper dialogue. Just think it all should be proactively and appreciatively monitored from central government, and consistent with government policy. Definitely trust the current government to do this more than the opposition!

    Sam

  3. mike barnato on Mon, 7th Dec 2009 1:27 pm

    4. This is a very interesting post.

    Putting the front line first is a good slogan. I rather like Jack Welch’s comment: ‘In traditional structures staff have their face towards the chief and their arse towards the customers.’

    But what does it mean in practice? What is the front line, particularly if power is devolved to communities and people can access services digitally?
    And not all front line activities are effective. For example, has the big increase in the number of teaching assistants (a front line activity) been cost effective?

  4. Livy on Mon, 7th Dec 2009 9:45 pm

    5. Hadleigh, he meant ’91 in the sense that it was the year before a completely unexpected general election result. Even if Cameron wins it won’t be a landslide; the point is that British politics generally doesn’t see massive swings to the right, and even with the redrawn boundaries the Tories still have to do better than Labour in order to win. They know full well that a 7% swing is huge and will require something electorally unprecedented; only once since 1900 have they turned out a government with a working majority. Ted Heath managed it and with a swing of… if I remember rightly, something like 4.5? The scale of the task before Cameron is far greater than the mainstream media (all in the tank) will let the public understand. A hundred years of Tory dominance resulted from facing what was either a dying coalition, or a Labour government which had lost it’s majority or never held one.

    The most dangerous thing for Brown is the fact that Cameron isn’t actually playing to win. He’s content to crawl across the finish line.

    Sorry MT… completely ignoring your main point. Yet again. But lets be honest, its difficult to ignore the politics of all this.

    Some good stuff in the paper, and GB clearly has some fight left in him. He’s made the only move he can make. Wrong foot the opposition and deny all the Philip Blondes out there as much intellectual wiggle room as you can. A watered down sense of de-centralisation, get rid of some quangocracies, move the debate from the corruption in the House of Commons to the corruption in Whitehall, and sell it in abstractions. And talk about “Fairness” so Clegg looks unimaginative. Yeah, maybe.

    Unfortunately it will also depend on the media giving a damn. It was obviously timed to coincide with copenhagen.. his approval ratings are always higher when seen as an international statesman. But will it all get overshadowed?

    A year ago today that Eton punchline would have gone down a treat, despite being a cheapshot Cameron would have to have bowed his head in shame and keep quiet. It’s actually quite shocking how resilient and well received his reaction was. Even Dimbleby proudly proclaimed his own Bullingdon Club credentials on QT along to rapturous applause from the audience. In London, mind.

    Steering clear of political musings? Come off it MT, this is Westminster. Everything’s political. Apart from politics, which is personal.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!