Regarding the Cabinet Government section, there was an interesting bit re: Perm Secs not taking up initiatives from the centre. I wonder if a Scottish government style system (of Directorates and Units) could be a good move while not reinventing the wheel. From my experience working with SG it seems to work well.
Yes - The Scottish Gov't does seem to work as a more unified whole - though perhaps with less internal challenge from independent minded Ministers? It's also a smaller country, of course, where everyone seems to know everyone else!
Heh quite on all counts! Although everyone in the know seems to know everyone, I recall one private party's polling at the last election showing that the only politician most Scots knew was Nicola Sturgeon! Not looked at the polling for UK ministers but I wonder if it's really any different, just that the media actually covers UK minister's work!!
Thanks Martin. It's depressing how long we've been talking about hardy perennials like the weak centre and the problem of departmental fiefdoms - decades tick by and almost nothing happens!
On change management, though, I do wonder if the machine might get better at change if there was less of it. Ministerial tactical initiativitis is endemic but too often leads to a shiny new system element overlaid on an otherwise unchanged system, resulting in remorselessly rising complexity which, ironically, makes fundamental and strategic system change more difficult. See, for example, tax, pensions, welfare benefits and a long list of other policy areas. So, dare I say it, perhaps there's sometimes something positive to be said in favour of "status quo bias" unless we're talking important, strategically fundamental and, crucially, long-term change?
You are absolutely correct, of course. There is so much endless tinkering that officials and others never have a chance to settle down and learn how to run the current systems more smoothly.
It's a particular problem in regulation. Businesses etc. take a while to learn their way round a new regulation but the cost soon falls away as compliance becomes near automatic - until some politician dreams up a better regulation and off we go again. EU regulation is/was a large scale example of this. The costs associated with shedding EU regs and creating our own have been horrendous.
Spot on.... what would greater Parliamentary engagement in Civil Service reform look like, I wonder?
That certainly goes to the heart of things. Thanks - it gave me a good laugh!
Regarding the Cabinet Government section, there was an interesting bit re: Perm Secs not taking up initiatives from the centre. I wonder if a Scottish government style system (of Directorates and Units) could be a good move while not reinventing the wheel. From my experience working with SG it seems to work well.
Yes - The Scottish Gov't does seem to work as a more unified whole - though perhaps with less internal challenge from independent minded Ministers? It's also a smaller country, of course, where everyone seems to know everyone else!
Heh quite on all counts! Although everyone in the know seems to know everyone, I recall one private party's polling at the last election showing that the only politician most Scots knew was Nicola Sturgeon! Not looked at the polling for UK ministers but I wonder if it's really any different, just that the media actually covers UK minister's work!!
Thanks Martin. It's depressing how long we've been talking about hardy perennials like the weak centre and the problem of departmental fiefdoms - decades tick by and almost nothing happens!
On change management, though, I do wonder if the machine might get better at change if there was less of it. Ministerial tactical initiativitis is endemic but too often leads to a shiny new system element overlaid on an otherwise unchanged system, resulting in remorselessly rising complexity which, ironically, makes fundamental and strategic system change more difficult. See, for example, tax, pensions, welfare benefits and a long list of other policy areas. So, dare I say it, perhaps there's sometimes something positive to be said in favour of "status quo bias" unless we're talking important, strategically fundamental and, crucially, long-term change?
You are absolutely correct, of course. There is so much endless tinkering that officials and others never have a chance to settle down and learn how to run the current systems more smoothly.
It's a particular problem in regulation. Businesses etc. take a while to learn their way round a new regulation but the cost soon falls away as compliance becomes near automatic - until some politician dreams up a better regulation and off we go again. EU regulation is/was a large scale example of this. The costs associated with shedding EU regs and creating our own have been horrendous.