Jan
28
Retired mandarins more problem than solution to better government
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
A group of retired mandarins yesterday published a pamphlet ‘Good government: reforming parliament and the executive’. The media characterisation of the report was simplistic suggesting that they were blaming ministers for too many bad laws and moaning at the speed of the modern media/political nexus.
However, I suspected that there was more to the report than that so took the time to read it, half expecting to find that (as they are during the Chilcot Inquiry) civil servants blaming ministers for failings that were actually partly their own. Unfortunately, what I found was a report with too wide a focus to settle upon useful recommendations, some lazy (or dated) unsubstantiated assertions, a lack of historical analysis; from which I could only conclude that said senior (retired) mandarins were part of the problem rather than the solution.
The report was had too wide a focus to settle upon useful recommendations. Subjects such as strengthening parliament to ensure better legislative scrutiny have been comprehensively, excellently and better covered by others – such as the Wright Committee on reforming parliament. Whilst recommendations such as: “Departments should ensure, and Ministers should insist on, consistently high standards of policy formation” lack real meaning.
The lazy unsubstantiated assertions were unfortunate for a report which is largely focussed on ensuring policymaking takes place in a more evidence-based environment. Take the following, for example:
- “The new media, no longer in most circumstances able to offer constructive criticism, required an unceasing flow of media releases.”
- “”Europe has tended to become somewhat marginalised in Whitehall’s thinking in recent years” will be news to those responsible for the passage of legislation on audio-visual material or waste and recycling (to name two areas with which I’m familiar)
- “Focus groups were used heavily, often steered by the pollsters to give the answers which they thought the media or politicians wanted” is completely unsubstantiated which is unfortunate for such a startling suggestion.
Finally, there is an absence of historical analysis which means that it is difficult to identify the root of the problem. If you are going to claim that “no-one should be excluded (from consultation) on the grounds that their views may be critical” surely you need to highlight where this has been the case, whether it was always the case and why it has come to pass. And the critique of the centre producing roles overlapping with departments is important, but in the effort to be apolitical it pulls its punches on why this has happened and whether it’s just a consequence of the creation of the Number 10 Policy Unit. The lack of analysis of the root of the problems is a failing for which the report criticises current policymaking for lacking perspective.
I could only conclude that the retired mandarins were part of the problem: that ministers were right to seek advice from outside the civil service and that the failure to prepare effective legislation was as much a fault of civil servants as it was ministers. For example, the report considered that “The techniques and dynamics of consultation . . . could change dramatically over the next few years through the use of the internet”. Well, if that’s the speed at which good government moves, I’d rather have bad government.
Related posts: