The Conservatives must come up with policy initiatives that weaken the power of the state rather than entrench it. The first step is to adopt a slash-and-burn approach to bureaucracy - and that means firing bureaucrats.
If you employ hundreds of thousands of extra bureaucrats - as Gordon Brown has - do not be surprised if they come up with hundred of thousands of extra regulations. It's what bureaucrats do. The only way to stop them is to get rid of them.
The other way of reducing the power of the state is to reduce its spending power. The commitment to match Labour's spending plans for two years needs to be undone. Conservatives should believe in lower government spending. They can
hardly complain about Labour profligacy if, at the same time, they intend to spend the same amount as Labour.Conservatives have always believed in a smaller state, but have sometimes paid lip-service to the concept. They need to grab the initiative and assert that every new policy they announce should pass the "Smaller State Test": does this policy reduce the power of the state? That is the true test of modern, liberal Conservatism.
57 comments:
The title of this post is brilliant.
And I agree, of course, with every word.
(Also, disenfranchise those remaining. If you care that much about having a vote, go and work in the wealth producing sector and get your vote back. As long as you're a passenger, no vote.)
I can see they would never let you near Central Office in a million years.
Everyone agrees with what you say. That's not the point, however. It's how you say it.
Don't frighten the bleedin' horses.
Gettit?
Very good, and also very ballsy. We all know it needs to be done, but will a senior Tory dare to repeat it?
1:10 AM - I'm sure Iain is well familiar with the phrase and the thinking behind it.
He doesn't need your astute assistance in operating in a political environment.
Geddit?
Looks like the SNP have upstaged Brown again on police pay.
No doubt that will see the Mail go on about English taxpayers money paying for it.
Come out of the closet. Look in the mirror, stare yourself in the eye, clench your fist and shout, "I am an Anarcho-Capitalist and I AM PROUD".
And abolish the NHS- almost everyone can afford private insurance,right?
Iain
Your article was fantastic. I have just one quibble. In the last para you say that we need to reduce the power of the State. That is not really correct. What we need to reduce is the reach of the State. The problem with big government is not really that it is too mighty, but that it is too pusillanimous over too wide a field. it can never really live up to expectations. What good conservatives should want is smal, but strong government.
I have become increasingly dismayed with the way this country's centralised bureaucracy has gone since the 1997 General Election.
I left the DTI in 1996, specifically the DTI part of the then newly-formed Government Offices such as GOSE. Although it had its faults, the originally idea of combining the regional structures of four Gov't Depts was (among other things) to reduce bureaucracy -- whih is why my own job went, for example. It was a very good idea, and one that I supported, even though I lost my wonderful job in the process.
Since the change of Gov't in 1997, the GOs (I was in GO London) have changed hugely, and are indeed now "part of the problem".
Just as much as having too many bureaucrats, some (but only a fraction) of whom create new regulations, it is what those bureaucrats are doing that can be made of less benefit to the country and more self/centre-serving. It isn't just their number in and of itself: we must also make their functions and job descriptions genuinely useful again.
I would think nulabs "economic miracle" will shortly achieve your wish purely from lack of cash.
Pedantry on health and safety follows:
You make the correct implication but the wording does not drive it home. The problem is the subversion of a safety culture in the pursuit of bureaucracy. It is bureaucracy that is the problem, not health and safety. To quote Jerry Ravetz, we need a cultural approach to safety culture.
Isn't an incoming Chancellor in a new Govt obliged by Maastricht rules to adhere to the previous Govt's spending plans for 2 or 3 years - hence Brown's inherited straitjacket from K Clark?
I'd hope that we would start with a flourish by promising to wind up 50% of all quangos within the first 12 months and so on.
Now you are talking Iain.
This is what we want to hear from the party.
Labour have messed things up big time and the Tories need to go on the attack. The Tories still come over far to timid to me, as if they are still frighted of Labour
Courageous yes and I broadly agree but with one very important caveat - the generalities need to be ditched and the party needs to articulate exactly which 'bureaucrats' they'd cull. Not quite named individuals obviously but specific job roles and the functions they perform. There are two reasons why the Tories need to approach this in this way.
The first is simply because it's the responsible thing to do. 'Believing in smaller government' is, if we're honest, as vacuous a generality as 'fairness for all' or 'promoting excellence' etc. It actually means nothing without more detail so the Tories owe an explanation to the electorate on exactly what they will stop the state from doing. I know this was just an opinion piece Iain and not a manifesto but perhaps it's still slightly troubling that you didn't have a single specific function in here you want the state to step back from?
The second reason is tactical. Look at the reaction to Redwood's proposals earlier this year - can't recall exactly but it was something like 'Tories will make it easier to sack people'. That was a tremendous own goal and surely Cameron's team have the skills by now to understand how stories play with the apolitical or floating voters the Tories need to connect with to win? Again, I know this is just a quick opinion piece Iain but without the specifics you couldn't really moan if some left-wing blogger corrupts it into a 'Iain Dale wants cuts in Health & Safety' type post.
Unfair and misleading perhaps but exactly what the party will face unless it starts putting some hard facts & figures behind its proposals. If things are as bad as you suggest it shouldn't be hard.
Written answers
Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative) Hansard source
To ask the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills if he will make a statement on the work of the Further Education Reporting and Performance Board.
Bill Rammell (Minister of State (Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education), Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills) Hansard source
The Further Education Reform and Performance Board is part of the programme architecture established to manage the Skills PSA. It is chaired by DIUS and has representatives from the sector including DCSF and our main delivery partners the LSC, Association of Colleges, Ofsted, Association of Learning Providers, Quality Improvement Agency, Sixth Form College Forum, Local Government Association, Lifelong Learning UK and the 157 group. The board's role is assuring the readiness to respond to key priorities for the FE supply side, taking account of views from across the sector. It reports into the over arching Skills PSA board along with: HE Strategic Delivery and Financial Support, Leitch Implementation and Skills Strategy, Vocational Qualifications Reform, Apprenticeships and Communications and Customer Insight.
I rest Mr Dale's case.
Chuck in associate membership of the EU (a la Norway) and The Tories have got my vote back.
I agree with every word and sentiment.
However you are asking a lot of turkeys to vote for Christmas. Given the vast size of the public sector you will lose us a lot of votes, plus give the left the ammunition to ask us which hospital or school we will close to cut public spending.
Good economics, poor politics.
NuLab have created an accepted political baseline of a large public sector - we need to gradually wean the public from this before we can "slash n burn"
If the Conservatives plan cut public spending they will never get into power. So, I'm afraid you give bad advice in many ways.
:)
Failure to commit to reigning in government spending could leave the door open for the next Lib Dem leader to promise giving 'more power to the people' etc.
Localism is a good theme to twin with lower central government spending.
Let me give you a piddling example of bureaucratic waste:
married pensioners get £200 winter fuel payment at this time of year, involving each partner getting a separate letter notifying them that the money is on its way.
Pensioners also separately get the (utterly stupid) £10 Xmas bonus.
If the bonus nonsense is to be retained, why not incorporate it into the fuel payment, thus excising at least one layer of clerical activity?
Or you could be radical, and stop taxing pensioners so much, so that they could pay for their fuel without requiring (voting bribes) sorry handouts. Any pensioner not having enough income to be taxed would presumably be on some benefits which could simply be increased.
Iain this is why I am not a Conservative. What you suggest will involve slashing spending on public services and threaten the vulnerable. It will also give more free rein to the Arthur Daley-types in society who need to have their arms permanently twisted round their back for obvious reasons.
I think that it is very important to make a distinction between State power over the individual and state power over institutions – especially private sector businesses. In an ideal world, I agree, that it would be good if individuals were free to pursue their lives peacefully and lawfully with the minimum of intervention from authorities. This does, of course, require that there is a code of behaviour which people follow that goes beyond what the law says they should do. But it doesn’t always happen. For example, the hope that pub or restaurant customers who smoked would be sensitive to the feelings and comfort of other customers who did not smoke was shown to be a forlorn one! The banning of smoking in public places came about, at least in part, because too many smokers could not be relied upon to care about others. Some might argue that the legislation was anti-libertarian – I would argue the opposite. My freedom, and the freedom of the majority population who don’t smoke, was hugely enhanced by this legislation of which I approve wholeheartedly.
Essentially the test should be to ensure that the worth of legislation is determined by its contribution to overall utility - there has to be judgment about the point at which you curtail freedoms. You cannot, of course, conceive of an “anything goes” world without laws. Commercial organisations – especially big businesses tend to argue for self-regulation. They want to be free to police themselves – but there is no evidence that this ever works. The imperative of a company is overwhelmingly a shareholder driven imperative – indeed the law states that it must be. So for a corporation to suggest that it follows self-imposed “Corporate Social Responsibility” rules is so much poppycock. When faced with the choice between profits and principles they will choose profits 99% of the time! So government HAS to legislate to curb the powers of business and ensure that they serve more than the narrow self-interest of their shareholders. Nobody else will do it!
Judith -
Unfortunately, common sense doesn't win votes. Pensioners are bitterly opposed to the replacement of the £10 Xmasa bonus, even when it is pointed out to them that they would be better off by £14 per year if it were abolished!
Cassilis makes a very good point. I'd add more detail - how much will be saved in wages, and how much in office accommodation costs - allowing for redundancy payments and jobseeker allowance/housing benefit payments of course.
Lay it all out in the open. "we will cut bureaucracy" should be re-phrased to "we will fire bureaucrats."
After all, the election's in the bag isn't it?
Dave will not allow you to be selected for Maidstone if you espouse such Thatcherite views in the national media. Have you given up hope of getting a safe seat?
Iain,
I sincerely hope you do not consider us put-upon members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces as part of the bureaucratic burden! Indeed clear blue water is available here to George Osborne to promise increased Defence funding as an integral part of the Conservative agenda. That he has, thus far, failed to do so worries me. Why is no-one picking over the lie that Defence spending is increasing year on year? When measured against the underlying rate of inflation Defence is indeed doing ok but any fule kno that inflation in the Defence sector runs at, depending on your weapon of choice, anything between 8 and 15%. This is primarily due to the technological and financial risk exposure of cutting edge weapon development. It's a well known, undenied and undeniable fact. This government is therefore wilfully and dishonestly presiding over year on year Defence CUTS, whilst trumpeting them as "inflation busting" increases. So many people seem so blind to this fact I genuinely think you lot don't Effing care!
We accept death with alacrity, it's what we do, but I for one will not put up with indifference. For shame!
It may be that wholesale reduction of the numbers of Civil and Public Servants is admirable, but that is to ignore the recent fantastic growth of the numbers of Advisers, Consultants and so on.
Barrow-loads of our money are being shoved over the counter (and maybe under the counter, too) to these unelected and largely unaccountable bodies.
At one stage the professional Civil Service was staffed by people with real skill and ability. That has not been so for many years. The politicisiation of these public bodies has led to vast incompetence and profligacy.
It's time that the Civil service was returned to the position of political detachment and expertise. And time that such external organisations who are draining the revenues of Government departments be fired. Just as one small example, look at the introduction of disastrous computerisation and IT operations in the last ten years, and the exponential rise in costs of each and every Government 'initiative'.
The Civil Service is in dire need of being re professionalised . After 10 years of Blair - Brown it has been
1. politicised
2 . casualised - they often don't LOOK like civil servants , or act like it
3.become horribly overblown and intrusive
4. Scotland is rapidly developing its own civil service and England must do the same - with members who are specifically imbued with sense of public service to England and nowhere else .
And this is why the Conservatives winning the next GE would be terrible news for the country.
Sacking hundreds of thousands of people up and down the country on ideological grounds is not remotely good economic sense. It's not remotely good political sense. And it's not remotely good common sense.
On top of that, putting people out of work will, irrespective of whether you think their jobs are "productive" or not, necessarily lead to an increase in welfare/charity dependency, social breakdown and polarisation between the haves and have-nots.
Why on Earth does anyone think any of this would be a good idea?
Did Cameron mention a "Broken society"? It flipping well would be if Iain ever got his hands on it, that's for sure.
Wow, Iain. You werent joking when you said the Tories shouldnt be afraid to cherry-pick Lib Dem ideas. First the referendum on whether to be in Europe at all, now empowering local authorities at the expense of central government bureaucracy. Where do you stand on 16p basic rate income tax?!
Paul Burgin said...
"What you suggest will involve slashing spending on public services and threaten the vulnerable."
If you think cutting money means a poorer service, does increased funding automatically bring a better service?
Record investment in real terms in the NHS, MOD, Education, Home Office etc etc. That has been the cry from Labour. Yet the NHS has demonstrably got worse. The MOD is scandalously short on basic and appropriate equipment. Education standards are falling. The Home Office was 'not fit for purpose'. The last 10 years shows that it has not worked.
It could be argued that a bloated civil service, staffed by people with little interest, reason or incentive (either monetary or disciplinary) to do their jobs effectively and efficiently and who quickly learn how to game the system, puts more people at risk then might otherwise be the case.
it was having a smaller state that caused those discs to get lost.
So if the Tories go into the next election promising to match Labour's spending commitments on health and education then you will not support them?
And if the Tories were to be elected - what would you do then? Work with all the other Tories who support your views (the vast majority?) to undermine an election promise?
It all seems very clear to me - the Tory Boys have learned nothing and you still want to turn the clock back to Mrs Thatcher.
Re the other point about slashing bureaucracy - this is actually something that quite a lot of people on the left want to do something about - if you care to listen there are plenty of statements about public sector reform and reducing regulation. Bureaucracy however is a problem that affects many organisations in both the public and private sector - and the reality is that it is hardly ever dealt with by exhortation - what is needed is changes to culture, processes and structures - and quite frankly I hear very little on this from politicians anywhere on the spectrum. What you are saying at present is little more than a Thatcherite soundbite.
To be honest - if there is to be sensible reform of public administration it will probably come about through the involvement of people who have experience of large organisations and have no political axes to grind.
I think you may have excelled yourself on the statistics here Iain. 100s of 000s of extra civil servants? I don't think so.
More police, doctors, nurses etc yes. But less civil servants - reducing by 20%.
Iain,
When we were involved in selecting the candidate for the new Mid Norfolk seat evey one of the would be MPs wanted to role back the state. The one that wanted it roled back most won the vote and got in. So stick to you beliefs. There is far to much timidity about this.
CASSLIS
Cassilis makes an interesting point but the problem is that discussing the specific efficacy of this or that Bureaucrat is how you get so many in the first place .There is an infinite amount of justification for spending other peoples money and vital tasks are like Dragons teeth. I suspect the way you make this argument is not as important as ‘when ‘ you make it . Tax cuts and immigration were off the menu for years but now that space has been reclaimed . I think Iain is saying we have to reassert that more bureaucracy is over all a bad thing and that pressure must always be on to remove it . He cannot then go back to big government errors and imagine that which one and why can be run by mighty Whitehall levers. These decisions should be devolved where possible or arise from efficiency drives . So yes , make them easier to sack . If you cannot say that , which is the truth, you have lost the argument before you start it . Without a world wide boom to bail us out I suspect people are dimly aware that we have to trim the waste and now is the right time to reclaim the right to say so
Not all the 8,000,000 are so useless that they are convinced they will not survive and sort of reasonable employment requirement anyway. Many are now so well paid by the tax Payer they campaign about their tax and feel they need to be shot of the wasters .
PADDY BRIGGS- I broadly accept that there must be controls on the operation of companies but that is hardly the point . Those controls have multiplied and fed to the point whereby the jobs in the Guardian for FSA time wasters are for more money than the jobs in the trade press for business producers ...and the pension...and the job security ...and the effect on the economy. It’s a question of degree and this takes me back to Cassilis. Each of these appalling leeches has a function they will be brilliant at defending it as this is what they do professionally . Good lord I wish my salary depended on the report I could write about my genius .Sadly I have to produce money and I well know , how much harsher a test that is.
So I`m slightly at odds with you there PADDY but distressed to the point of bitter tears by your authoritarian nonsense about smoking . With every sort of behaviour that some people do not like the numbers engaged in it are likely to be outnumbered by those who either hate it or do not care. The fact that some people do not like something is not a reason to ban it and in this case there is a historical association between smoking and drinking that created them as social places anyway . The vast majority of pub goers smoke and the majority of the very small remainder are not overly bothered. The evidence of passive smoking related illness is not there . Only one survey of size was done a sample of 60,000 fining nothing conclusive over a life time This is the very essence of an illiberal law aimed at individuals albeit via companies . The fact that a few people think they know best and do not like this or that smell is not a reason for a law which is loathed by most of the country.
There is a the broader point that the state has walked into and started to run a sub state institution once again. No smoking pubs are a luxury that those who wish to sit in pristine minty fresh antiseptic air might pay for and noone is stopping them. I think as the number of non-smokers rose there was scope for no smoking ventilated areas as well but this is an astonishing attack on the English way of life.
As the Winter gets colder and the little gadens fill with shivering bitter drinkers whle the pubs are going out of business and an institution dies ; you will no doubt sit with your puritanical crew sipping port and lemons congratulating yourselves on your fine work.
Whats next drinking ?
More police, doctors, nurses etc yes. But less civil servants - reducing by 20%.
Presumably Iain meant those performing an administartive role who have multiplied
This is like the promise on immigration from the Conservatives. It can't be done if you are a member of the E.U.
Why waste time and effort on this, or is it just another one of those paper excercises to fool the public and keep them from voting UKIP?
How much have Labour paid "Canoeman" to turn up and take the heat off them? I think we should be told. As predicted the Police investigation means "I cannot comment" so if and when anybody is charged it will be "Sub Judice" this will take them to the next election without saying anything. However the next election will take place in a housing crash, rising unemployment, immigration out of control and bulging prisons. Iraq will be forgotten Global Warming will have been exposed as another con and Labour will have imploded. Have a nice week-end.
"Minister! There's a new invention! All the government has to do is fund it, put one in every home and it will solve world hunger, reduce unemployment, increase happiness and launch a new Golden Age!"
"Does it pass the Smaller State Test?"
"Umm... no"
"Well then. You're fired."
Right general approach, but wrong order. It's just too unpalatable for the electorate.
Promise to improve services, get elected (if necessary by agreeing that Labour's spending plans will have to remain in place at least to begin with), then cut the bureaucracy without adversely affecting the level of services
The electorate will then enthusiastically follow.
TORY BOY-and the reality is that it is hardly ever dealt with by exhortation - what is needed is changes to culture, processes and structures
Yes I rather agree with this which is why introducing the market is a good idea and making them sackable another. This will soon infect the culture of these sleeping fat behemoths but sadly Brown is going the other way .He has canned Blairite feeble reform the NHS and he thinks its a matter of a bigger computer and better and more rules.
The Labour Party will never reform the public sector because they are owned by its unions adn its votes. Brown , in particular is in no position to ignore his sponsors .
AS far as promises to match spending are concerned Thatcher promised to match Callaghans and Blair promised not to raise taxes.
There are many ways around the literal position and as the economy stagnates he will be able to argue that times have changed
Judith - Why only 50 per cent of the quangoes? They're a horrible, horrible idea. They should all go.
Wonderful for His Age and the reference to Norway's associate membership of the EUSSR, I talked to a Norwegian government official in a European capital, and she told me that they have to adopt every single Sovietesque (she didn't use that word) policy that the rest of us have imposed on us. There really is no difference at all between being a serf and being an associate serf.
Cassilis - Yes, it might be an idea to indicate the type of public sector jobs that would go. I would suggest every last "co-ordinator"in the public sector is an oxygen thief. Outreach coordinators, real nappy coordinators (what the hell do they do all day?), street football coordinators - if I may stretch the definition of "real" - jobs. All coordinators to be axed. It's just the beginning, though.
Manfarang writes: "And abolish the NHS- almost everyone can afford private insurance,right?"
Well yes, actually. You simply take their compulsory NI deduction away from the public sector and allow each individual to nominate the private health insurance provider he wants it to go to. I think it should continue to be compulsory, but people would choose their own service provider. The amount deducted for NI would more than cover a good health policy in the public sector and the service would be customer - not bureaucrat - driven.
And while we're at it, elected police chiefs and fire chiefs. These people need to be answerable to the taxpayer, not drooling politically correct agenda-driven councils. And anyone who gets voted in can get voted out if he doesn't perform. Clarity. That's what I like.
We need to be smarter in our thinking here. What we need is to, say, halve the number of bureaucrats - but pay those remaining say 25% more. That way - massive savings from the budget - and anyone who copmplains is clearly worried that they will be culled - ergo no-one complains for fear of showing themselves up as culling material. Coincidentally, the good ones (and there are many) get rewarded instead of being held down by the deadbeats who are sapping the energy and money out of the system
Offer to privatise the health service and stay out of power - if your right-wingers on this site are indicative, then that's no bad thing.
Iain, I really think that your ideas are very outdated. You could never get a seat with views like that!
it's 2007 - almost 2008. You must TRY to move forward with your thinking.
:)
Free at The Point of Need - why are you opposed to private companies running the health service? What is it about private companies that frighten you? Their devotion to profit and therefore close inspection of expenditures?
Another advantage of directing NI contributions to the salary-earner's private health insurance company of choice is, immigrants who aren't working and therefore aren't paying deductions wouldn't have health insurance. Thus, no access to health care.
Actually, I might not be opposed to the NHS continuing as one of the options for nomination for NI deductions. Of course, the vast majority would flee to the private sector and the NHS would shrink to a more manageable size and they would have to sell off a lot of their hospitals.
I cannot see how this system would not benefit everyone.
I once worked briefly for a Scottish local authority. The department was over staffed by at least a factor of two.
For a job that needed two people three plus a driver, who sat in the van all day, were sent out. On Fridays after a visit to a cafe and before a visit to the pub, the van would be used for the driver's shopping .
I love your blog and read often, but I was surprised by the tone of the telegraph article.
A bonfire? How many would go and how would you decide. 10, 20, 50% - what figure would suffice?
Obviously, you're from the "smaller state" position - and I can't say I disagree entirely - but what exactly are you proposing the Tories should do? Where would these savings be, without radical (not exactly DC) overhauls?
I honestly can't see Cameron standing at the despatch box, saying 'I'm about to make 100,000 people redundant' - particularly after committing to current spending plans, initially at least - can you?
These are people who are, for the most part, earning either much less than (or thereabouts) the national average wage. People, I guess, who genuinely believe that they go to work and do a good job. What would David Cameron say to them?
If you don't want a one-term Tory government, "bonfires" are out of the question, otherwise it would be "same old Tories" Calm, measured, justified is the order of day.
Gareth said...
"Yet the NHS has demonstrably got worse. "
Not true.
Newmania ...."The vast majority of pub goers smoke."
What you say would have been true 30 years ago but I would say that, certainly over the last 10 years (when smoking was permitted) the majority of pubgoers did not smoke in the pub.
I do speak from experience. I am a smoker and have been in literally hundreds of pubs. I used to be very much aware that I was in a minority.
Newmania said ... "Blair promised not to raise taxes."
He promised not to raise INCOME TAX.
Verity said .... "You simply take their compulsory NI deduction away from the public sector and allow each individual to nominate the private health insurance provider he wants it to go to."
And the OAPs can go to the wall because they are no longer economically useful.
10:58 - I didn't want to say it all over again and harvest giant yawns from all over the blogosphere as I have said it before - OAPs (who have paid into the system) get a pass for life because their contributions have paid for it. It could be a promise of treatment in a much scaled down (due to private competition for the same NI contribution) NRS, or it might be an arrangement with private medical care. Either way, of course these people should have access to the best quality health care because they've already paid for it. That's why it's called insurance.
Verity's "pass for life" will not be attractive to insurance companies as the number and longevity of OAPs increase exponentially.
Nor will it be pleasant to witness immigrants operating on themselves or dying because they haven't paid enough NI - unless of course, only one week's payment allows them through.
I'm certainly in favour of privatising the operation of the NHS, introducing more effective management accross the board. Why are y9u so frightened of the money being paid out of central taxation? Sure, there are problems, but they are problems that the majority of US citizens would love to exchange for their system.
Iain,
10/10
The 'state' is bloated and affects far too much of our day to day activities.
To expand the idea, you MUST offer hope for ALL frontline staff - Nurses, Doctors, Teachers, Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen etc. As for the rest, Turkeys don't vote for Christmas but Christmas ALWAYS comes!
What we really need to know is how our money is spent. Think of all the over budget, late and failed government projects. Dare we mention Nimrod?
A thought, what happened to the Gershon Review to cut Goverment jobs?
Another thought, Tory policy is currently against Unitary authorities - an excellent way of cutting a few £200k Chief Execs! Look at the problems this policy is causing in Norfolk & Suffolk amongst Conservatives.
Iain, I'd seriously consider coming out from behind tigger over this issue (for what use it would be).
Can you start a campaign, get some real thought into this? It's a real vote winner for those who hate to see their money wasted by an uncaring and out of touch bureacracy.
Good for you - keep sticking your head over that parapet!!
ST
I've added my tuppence worth Iain...
Not sure whether this is appropriate use of the post but I read with interest all the comments that people make.
Like many others I am appalled by the level of waste in the public sector, however I guess being a public servant I am part of the problem rather than the solution. For many years now I have worked in the public sector and seen waste upon waste largely around the bureaucrartic systems that are developed by government, quangos, managers and legislation. I am now reasearching a book to highlight some of this waste and outline solutions too. I intend to stay away from the politician bashing. Satisfying though this is I want to try and be apolitical and simply say things as I see them and not score any political points (well I can try). Currently I am most interested in the waste at Town Hall level and would be delighted to hear from any of you out there working in local governemnt who have examples of ridiculous bureacracy or scandolous waste. Particular that which talks about bureaucratic systems for their own sake, internal money shuffling (internal charging from department to department) etc
My e mail address is (and I'm probably breaching house rules by including this)
publicsectorresearch@hotmail.com
I would really like to also hear from any of you who can recommend other forums where like minded progressive sceptics might be found
Not sure whether this is appropriate use of the post but I read with interest all the comments that people make.
Like many others I am appalled by the level of waste in the public sector, however I guess being a public servant I am part of the problem rather than the solution. For many years now I have worked in the public sector and seen waste upon waste largely around the bureaucrartic systems that are developed by government, quangos, managers and legislation. I am now reasearching a book to highlight some of this waste and outline solutions too. I intend to stay away from the politician bashing. Satisfying though this is I want to try and be apolitical and simply say things as I see them and not score any political points (well I can try). Currently I am most interested in the waste at Town Hall level and would be delighted to hear from any of you out there working in local governemnt who have examples of ridiculous bureacracy or scandolous waste. Particular that which talks about bureaucratic systems for their own sake, internal money shuffling (internal charging from department to department) etc
My e mail address is (and I'm probably breaching house rules by including this)
publicsectorresearch@hotmail.com
I would really like to also hear from any of you who can recommend other forums where like minded progressive sceptics might be found
Post a Comment