Breakfast with Brown: What Should The Government Do?


After attending the Prime Ministers breakfast seminar in No. 10 on the future of public services my overwhelming feeling was that the government is still in thrall to the tyranny of the new. An underlying theme was that they needed something ‘new’ to offer.

I am sceptical, for several reasons.

Research evidence suggests that public sector reform and performance follows an interesting pattern. Colleagues from Manchester and Cardiff who have looked at the relationship between performance and electoral success in local government seem to have found that failure to provide reasonable services gets punished, whereas success in providing excellent services makes no difference. I think this means doing basic things right is more important than doing innovative things for political success.

Whilst the ‘sexy topics’ are things like personalisation of services, citizen engagement, etc the things that really affect voters are things like the £9bn worth errors committed by HM Revenue and Customs in tax credit payments, which affects millions of citizens. I can’t help thinking that promising to get the basics right rather than promising “world class services” might have a bit more credibility.

If Labour wants to draw a clear dividing line between themselves and the Conservatives it should not be around further radical reforms. The best that Labour can promise is to consolidate and protect the gains in public service provision in health and education, rather than fancy new gimmicks which will have little political purchase.

The Conservatives’ policy of rapidly reducing the public debt, without increasing taxation, would obviously mean much deeper restrictions on public spending than Labour are proposing. This would get down the national debt quicker, but it has clear consequences for public services. The ‘clear blue water’ would therefore be about consolidating versus cutting.

However, there is also a big issue about the dominant ideas of policy. Many speakers this morning seemed to accept the view that ‘self-interest’ or ‘vested interests’ is paramount in shaping policy, markets and state provision, etc. I disagree: people have mixed motivations that include both selfish and altruistic aspects (amongst others).

Appealing exclusively to self-interest limits public policy and restricts options. Why do some public organisations, for example, respond positively to external demands for better performance whilst others start playing games and react more dysfunctionally? One explanation is the predominance, or not, of one type of motivation – selfish vs public service – shapes how organisations respond. A more nuanced policy position would focus on both self-interested and altruistic motivations rather than just self-interest. Would it be too much to suggest that this might suit Labour rather more than the Conservatives?

PS – it is true, after meeting Gordon Brown for the first time face-to-face I can confirm that he really is a lot more personable and jolly than he comes across on the TV. Which doesn’t obviate some of the criticisms of his policies or administration I might have, but is is worth mentioning.

Advertisements

About Prof. Colin Talbot

Professor of Government (Emeritus). Universities of Cambridge and Manchester, England.
This entry was posted in Politics, Whitehall and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Breakfast with Brown: What Should The Government Do?

  1. David Clift says:

    Great posts – I like your point about selfishness v Public service too … and it links well with my observations as well – I personally believe that the ‘battle’ of the ‘future’ is a ‘battle of values’ … and what I summarise as:

    Leanomics vs Poweromics & Ignoromics

    with the terms as defined below –

    * Leanomics = People taking responsibility for adding value and continuously improving the situation for others (e.g. customers, communities, overall environment), based upon fundamental values such as trust, honor, responsibility and respect.

    * Ignoromics = People are either effectively ignorant of the situation (e.g. the overall environment) or not prepared to take responsibility to make sure it changes for the better.

    * Poweromics = People using position and power for their own personal gain, based on poor moral values, self interest and greed.

    It would be good to connect up sometime (nb I’ve put a link to your blog from the Poweromics blog already) …

    More information about the above ‘battle’ can be found at the link below, where there are also more examples of Poweromics at work …

    http://poweromics.blogspot.com/2009/06/leanomics-v-poweromics-ignoromics_01.html

    Best wishes and keep up the blogging.

    David Clift, a Future 500 leader

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s