From the letters page of the Guardian, 20.8.10, Robin Wendt wrote;
"One basic strand runs through the Con-Dems policy. It is the swift repudiation of the post-war social settlement and an unrelenting march back to the 1930s,...
The promised cuts in public services are on a scale of which Stanley Baldwin would have been proud. They will reduce the public sector to much of what it was in his time - crude basic provision for the worst off. The changes to health services means the wholesale dismantling of Bevan's 1948 comprehensive, equitable and publicly accountable NHS. In the 1940s the Conservatives tried to oppose the creation of the NHS; now they have succeeded. It will be replaced by an atomised system of private commissioning, though the GPs and private firms brought in to support them; and delivery through hospitals that are no longer publicly owned. NHS privatisation is not just a prospect. It is here now.
Likewise the introduction of free schools and academies, entailing as they do the effective abolition of LEAs and any semblance of fair admission policies, are a huge rebuttal of Butler's 1945 Education Act and its even distribution of power between government and localities. It will be replaced by a centralised system. The proposed cuts in social security benefits will undermine the "cradle to the grave" philosophy so eloquently expounded in the 1940s by Beveridge and built into postwar legislation."
Friday, 20 August 2010
Monday, 7 June 2010
Prime Minister's Speech - 7th June 2010
The PM's speech sets the scene for the measures required to cut the country's "massive deficit and growing debt." A deficit that equates to £22,000 for each of us...in 5 years time. In other words, if it, i.e. the deficit, is to double in 5 years as claimed, our personal load is therefore currently at £10,000. Clearly, a worrying figure, but less headline grabbing than one double that size.
Anyway, that's a diversion from the real issues the speech raises.
We all know of the still recent madness perpetrated by the banks, and the PM calls this, "the success of financial services was partly an illusion, conjured from years of low interest rates (sounding critical, though surely low rates are better than the Lawson/Lamont era's 15% APR?) cheap money and a bubble in the price of assets like houses."
The analysis then switches to attack the "boom in government spending", which is seen as being of a longer term and deeper nature than the episodic credit crunch (not mentioned by name), i.e. public spending is the problem, not the hundreds of billions used and borrowed to stabilise (i.e. and buy) the banks. For example, in one afternoon in 2008 the government gave a single bank, RBS, more than had been saved by all of local government in the three years of the previous CSR. And, in the following weeks gave to that and other banks, everything that the whole of the public sector had saved in the previous CSR three-year period, i.e. £60billion. So, whilst spending in the public sector had increased in the previous decade, there had been real savings also. It also worth reminding ourselves that in the Government's emergency announcement at the end of May, £6b in savings were demanded from the public sector, i.e. a tenth of that previously saved in the aforementioned CSR period. So, the public sector can do it, has done it before, and is clearly going have to do it all over again!
Even that though is not the key issue. The speech goes onto say, "boom did turn to bust" and "the problem we face today is not just the size of the debts but the nature of them" and "how recklessly they spent the money", "shining a spotlight on waste", and this is where we see the polemic alter from poor financial industry practices and government mismanagement to the developing narrative that is now firmly bonding 'public sector' with 'waste'.
So, we now have the family that gets "£93,000 in Housing Benefit every year." How many of those are there? An "almost doubled number of managers in the NHS", which per se might not be a bad thing for all I know, but certainly is seen as such, regardless of their input/output/outcomes. Ministry of Defence overruns; can't argue with the apparent ineptitude there, and "£4.5b over budget" sounds serious to me, but on a budget of what, say several tens/hundreds of billions, is that a hanging offence? Perhaps so. And so on, a "public sector whose productivity is falling", a previous government "hostile to a private sector" and "public sector continuing its inexorable expansion." It's best summarised in these paragraphs:
"While everyday life was incredibly tough for people who didn't work in the public sector with job losses, pay cuts, reduced working and falling profits for those in the public sector, life went on much as before."..."So while the people employed by the taxpayer were insulated from the harsh realities of the recession everyone else in the economy was paying the price."... "And now we're all paying the price because the public sector has got way out of step with the size of the private sector."... " We're going to have to get it back in line - and that will be more painful than if we had kept things properly in balance all along."
The analysis might indeed be correct, if skewed towards blame and scapegoating of a single sector, one in which I wonder if the PM includes the oft eulogised nurses, police and armed forces in this polemic, or just the public 'administrators'?
The PM concludes his analysis by saying the "unavoidable" cutbacks "could have been avoided if the previous government had spent wisely instead of showering the public sector with cash at a time when everyone else in the country was tightening their belts."
So, there it is, one line on the debt burden created by banking madness and the majority of the speech on the waste of the public sector. The PM promises "immediate and decisive action", "unavoidably tough", though "in a way that strengthens and unites the country" - unless you're in the public sector? Well, no, because we also read that "this government will not cut this deficit in a way that hurts those we most need to help that divides the country or that undermines the spirit and ethos of our public services".
The task of avoiding hurting "those we most need to help" must be applauded, and then held to the highest level of account and scrutiny - assuming of course we are all talking about the same people who we most need to help!
Anyway, that's a diversion from the real issues the speech raises.
We all know of the still recent madness perpetrated by the banks, and the PM calls this, "the success of financial services was partly an illusion, conjured from years of low interest rates (sounding critical, though surely low rates are better than the Lawson/Lamont era's 15% APR?) cheap money and a bubble in the price of assets like houses."
The analysis then switches to attack the "boom in government spending", which is seen as being of a longer term and deeper nature than the episodic credit crunch (not mentioned by name), i.e. public spending is the problem, not the hundreds of billions used and borrowed to stabilise (i.e. and buy) the banks. For example, in one afternoon in 2008 the government gave a single bank, RBS, more than had been saved by all of local government in the three years of the previous CSR. And, in the following weeks gave to that and other banks, everything that the whole of the public sector had saved in the previous CSR three-year period, i.e. £60billion. So, whilst spending in the public sector had increased in the previous decade, there had been real savings also. It also worth reminding ourselves that in the Government's emergency announcement at the end of May, £6b in savings were demanded from the public sector, i.e. a tenth of that previously saved in the aforementioned CSR period. So, the public sector can do it, has done it before, and is clearly going have to do it all over again!
Even that though is not the key issue. The speech goes onto say, "boom did turn to bust" and "the problem we face today is not just the size of the debts but the nature of them" and "how recklessly they spent the money", "shining a spotlight on waste", and this is where we see the polemic alter from poor financial industry practices and government mismanagement to the developing narrative that is now firmly bonding 'public sector' with 'waste'.
So, we now have the family that gets "£93,000 in Housing Benefit every year." How many of those are there? An "almost doubled number of managers in the NHS", which per se might not be a bad thing for all I know, but certainly is seen as such, regardless of their input/output/outcomes. Ministry of Defence overruns; can't argue with the apparent ineptitude there, and "£4.5b over budget" sounds serious to me, but on a budget of what, say several tens/hundreds of billions, is that a hanging offence? Perhaps so. And so on, a "public sector whose productivity is falling", a previous government "hostile to a private sector" and "public sector continuing its inexorable expansion." It's best summarised in these paragraphs:
"While everyday life was incredibly tough for people who didn't work in the public sector with job losses, pay cuts, reduced working and falling profits for those in the public sector, life went on much as before."..."So while the people employed by the taxpayer were insulated from the harsh realities of the recession everyone else in the economy was paying the price."... "And now we're all paying the price because the public sector has got way out of step with the size of the private sector."... " We're going to have to get it back in line - and that will be more painful than if we had kept things properly in balance all along."
The analysis might indeed be correct, if skewed towards blame and scapegoating of a single sector, one in which I wonder if the PM includes the oft eulogised nurses, police and armed forces in this polemic, or just the public 'administrators'?
The PM concludes his analysis by saying the "unavoidable" cutbacks "could have been avoided if the previous government had spent wisely instead of showering the public sector with cash at a time when everyone else in the country was tightening their belts."
So, there it is, one line on the debt burden created by banking madness and the majority of the speech on the waste of the public sector. The PM promises "immediate and decisive action", "unavoidably tough", though "in a way that strengthens and unites the country" - unless you're in the public sector? Well, no, because we also read that "this government will not cut this deficit in a way that hurts those we most need to help that divides the country or that undermines the spirit and ethos of our public services".
The task of avoiding hurting "those we most need to help" must be applauded, and then held to the highest level of account and scrutiny - assuming of course we are all talking about the same people who we most need to help!
Friday, 30 April 2010
This blog has moved
This blog is now located at http://steveloraine.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.
For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://steveloraine.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
What's wrong with overlap?
Almost everyday I read material that posits 'overlap' as similar if not identical to 'duplication'. Both must be eradicated, particularly if notions of 'total place' are to be achieved, we are told. But, I pose this question; what's wrong with 'overlap'? Think a little more deeply about this casual use of the terms. Without some overlap between services and agencies we get hard edges, boundaries, cracks, nay chasms - and what can fall between those cracks and hard edges? The client/consumer/citizen/customer's needs. So, duplication does need to be eradicated. It is wasteful of scarce resources. Reasonable overlap on the other hand is fine. The next time you are near a bicycle have a look at its chain - every single link overlaps. I've ridden racing bikes for over 40 years and never had a chain break...
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Sustaining Energy During Transitions
"Assume what motivates you, motivates others."
Change, the transition from one state to another, for an individual or an organisation, brings with it uncertainty and is invariably more complex and troubling than we might first expect.
As leaders and managers we can't presume we have people's trust at the start of the change. We have to earn trust and then we can mobilise people to the cause. Once moving, people will look to us for steadiness and competence - perhaps even a surefootedness in the turbulence of a changing situation.
Having character and the capacity to engage fully with the complexity of the transition helps to earn people's trust in us as the promoters of change in pursuit of improvement. But, much more is required of us in these evermore demanding roles.
To really move people we must give a voice to their own desires, to inspire them to deliver better. To do this requires the creation of a shared vision, which is a vital element in uniting people to navigate through the sometimes choppy waters of major transitions. We can really shift organisations if we give voice to people's own hopes about what their team or organisation is all about and capable of delivering. The vision pronounced from on high will never do the same job as the one co-created by and through engaged employees.
As leaders we need an authentic core; an inner steel of honesty and integrity that is evidenced by our consistent behaviour, particularly under pressure. The 'rules' apply to us just as much as they do to 'front-line' colleagues. Humility, i.e. not being arrogant or condescending, is closely allied to honesty in inspiring people to follow the lead we offer. We are not perfect, who is, and these qualities are not about perfection, they speak to a different imperative, that of excellence, doing the right thing, exhibiting sound judgement and being collaborative.
So, if we are seeking to inspire people to do the extraordinary, the different and the difficult, what are some of the ways to motivate others?
Change, the transition from one state to another, for an individual or an organisation, brings with it uncertainty and is invariably more complex and troubling than we might first expect.
As leaders and managers we can't presume we have people's trust at the start of the change. We have to earn trust and then we can mobilise people to the cause. Once moving, people will look to us for steadiness and competence - perhaps even a surefootedness in the turbulence of a changing situation.
Having character and the capacity to engage fully with the complexity of the transition helps to earn people's trust in us as the promoters of change in pursuit of improvement. But, much more is required of us in these evermore demanding roles.
To really move people we must give a voice to their own desires, to inspire them to deliver better. To do this requires the creation of a shared vision, which is a vital element in uniting people to navigate through the sometimes choppy waters of major transitions. We can really shift organisations if we give voice to people's own hopes about what their team or organisation is all about and capable of delivering. The vision pronounced from on high will never do the same job as the one co-created by and through engaged employees.
As leaders we need an authentic core; an inner steel of honesty and integrity that is evidenced by our consistent behaviour, particularly under pressure. The 'rules' apply to us just as much as they do to 'front-line' colleagues. Humility, i.e. not being arrogant or condescending, is closely allied to honesty in inspiring people to follow the lead we offer. We are not perfect, who is, and these qualities are not about perfection, they speak to a different imperative, that of excellence, doing the right thing, exhibiting sound judgement and being collaborative.
So, if we are seeking to inspire people to do the extraordinary, the different and the difficult, what are some of the ways to motivate others?
- Start with the truth. Confront reality. Set high expectations and aspirations and march pragmatically from reality towards that aspiration. Along the way, remind people how far they have come and how much closer they are to achieving their goals.
- Get excited about doing something really grand. People can work with an intensity and passion with the knowledge that they are achieving something rare and marvellous.
- Respect people and find ways for them to make a contribution.
- Adhere to simple values; honesty, fairness, generosity - and don't compromise your standards or ask others to.
- Talking to people once a quarter isn't enough. You have to repeat messages of direction, inspiration and comfort daily in a variety of forms. Constant and consistent communication helps people to feel part of the team and respected.
- Helping people to try things that are personally 'risky' is a tough motivational challenge.We can't and shouldn't want to eliminate all risks but we do want people to go into the uncomfortable space where they and their organisations can achieve extraordinary results. We do this through open and frank discussion about the likelihood of success; clear roles and accountabilities; by spreading risk across the team and organisation and by providing visible and confident support regardless of the end result.
- And finally, we need to move quickly towards a goal, particularly if it involves pain. Time is frequently not a friend. Consensus building might not work. So give people permission to move fast and make some mistakes, as long as the actions are in keeping with the organisation's values. Speed damps down resentment, turf issues and paralysis by analysis.
Good luck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)