OneGuyFromBarlick

Where does this notion that the civil service decides policy come from? The civil service are there to advise and enact the policies of the elected Government, always have been and for time being always will be. In doing this, they analyse and approach any proposed policy from all angles testing it if you like to a metaphorical destruction. They can then offer sound advice. There's nothing odd about this. Any private company that has an idea for a new line or product would do the same. It is not undermining the democratic process to offer impartial analysis that a desired policy is impossible, unworkable as intended, perverse in consequence, actually illegal and so on and so forth. One may argue it's a decent use of public money.

[A hypothetical example on the 'impossible' option above. Suppose you want to enact 'x' in the UK. The civil servants doing what they should do, realise the issue is not reserved to Westminster but devolved. Thus you can only do 'x' in England and the Scots etc don't want to do it. So it is impossible to do 'x' in the UK, only in England. The advice says that, the Minister decides and they may decide not to do 'x' at all, as only doing in England and not the UK leads to a perverse outcome, which was also advised.

The civil servants note, have not decided the policy. Though I can see why a miffed-off Minister who never agreed with devolution might blame them for 'saying no' to the policy].


''Plus, no civil servant is reasonably going to carry out a policy which would ultimately see their role extinguished.''

I'm not sure what evidence there is for this statement as it happens all the time (I am assuming by 'role' you do not mean 'job'). If people are not comfortable with this then they should not join the service or leave as soon as their role requires this.

Just to note: in the US, only the more senior roles change with a change in administration; there is not a wholesale clear-out of the cadre. I have an open mind on this - for every 'Brownie' who brought his undoubted skills honed at the International Arabian Horse Association to the US's Fedeal Emergency Management Agency at the time of Katrina, there are many others who did and do a decent job.

Thanks for that Richard. If anyone cares to read the history.... Bullock on Bevan told the story of the Welsh Maverick coming in to sort out health and housing with no experience of dealing with the Whitehall machine. His first reaction was frustration but he was a quick learner and soon got on terms with the civil servants who had the enormous task of translating his revolution into workable policy. Well worth reading if you really want a good picture of the ideal relationship between a minister and his civil service advisers. When Bevan left the job it is notable that his civil servants had nothing but praise for him, he had recognised their role, given them respect and worked with them. His senior advisers managed the Whitehall Mafia for him and became his co-conspirators in a way. One suspects they quite enjoyed rocking the boat! It may be that some present-day ministers would do well to get a copy of Bullock....

Car crash interview for Weird Ed on Today about the EU referendum

Shame the politics is way outside the actual facts

and no, the NHS is not a shining example of good government policy

It lacks the ability to innovate and is full of self interest groups

The examples of civil servants trying to protect their jobs are many and varied, I meet many every week

Just like the private sector, except the civil service appears to have substantial inertia and no ability to actually transform itself into an organisation which is both able and cost effective to actually carry out tasks

So there you are, nothing good about the NHS and the Civil Service.

Stanley wrote:So there you are, nothing good about the NHS and the Civil Service.

That comment doesn't deserve an answer

Mighty spate going on in Whitehall about Mandarins

Just wondering why the Civil Service needs a PR spokeperson when it is supposed to be quiescent, silent & getting on with running the country.

Maybe it is an example of how the structure actually works against whomever is in government.

Cameron sounds a bit too much like Tony Blair when he is talking about intervention in N Africa.....

Well Mr Cameron delivers his speech. Be interesting to see how this pans out. Interesting YouGov polling Monday showing a 7% lead for the 'stay-inners' following and by contrast a similar poll 2 weeks earlier showing a 22% lead for the 'get-outers'. The ever interesting Mr Kellner in his analysis suggested that when each side gets an equal hearing, which in large measure they have done these past weeks, and when the issue of pushed to the forefront, the people stick with what they know. This is one-off poll of course, we would need a few to see if this was a trend, but its at face value a swing outside any sensible margin of error.

I would have a fiver now on the vote if it comes, delivering a 2/3 majority for remaining in. Campaigning will be illuminating. The Trades Union movement will line up with the likes of the CBI; the boss of BMW on the same platform as the boss of the GMB (or whatever it is these days). UKIP and the SWP singing from the same hymnsheet. Folk banging on about the Commonwealth as a trading block, as though all we have to do is polish up our knobkerries and go crack a few of the natives on the head and tell them what to do (though I do admit the Education Sectretary seems to want English schools to focus on churning out the next Viceroys of India).

Richard Broughton

What strikes me about the EU speech is the blatant lies being spoken in the political nonsense.

Unless the UK joins the Euro our relationship with Germany/France et al has to change

We have no choice, if the Eurozone want to federalise their stuff because we can't dictate to them.

Thus there has to be a separate platform for those not in the Euro. The choice therefore is around a model similar to the Nordic countries, completely out, or a slightly different one where the UK has an impact on the diktats coming out of Brussels.

Chuka on Today was totally derailed during their debate, so I have no hopes of Weird Ed coming up with anything.

If we leave the EU will the world end? Unlikely

Interesting that after PMQ's today where Weird Ed said that "My position is no – We don’t want an in out referendum"

The Labour Bod on #WATO on #R4 said that Labour's position was no to a referendum

Yet LabourList and quite a few Labour MP's are calling for the vote too, almost straight away, and the spin meisters are adding some rather large caveats to what he said live on TV

Think that he may have been caught out

From what I heard of Cameron's speech I thought it was well-written, clear and gave a very good overview of the UK's problem. Clever politics in that it gets his rebels off his back and kicks the referendum down the road, probably out of sight. One good thing is that the EU now know exactly what our collective problem is.
The unemployment figures fall again. I'd love to believe that they give a clear picture of the position but unfortunately a bald statistic like that gives no hint of the major problems embedded in it. I still question how many of these jobs pay a living wage. Experience in the Inter-War years suggests that the major problems are the long-term unemployed and particularly among the young. We saw the results of this again after the Thatcher Years. We may have another Lost Generation embedded in these figures.

Interesting comments at Davos. The consensus seems to be that UK leaving the EU would not necessarily be such a disaster for trade.
Nick Clegg shafts Osborne by questioning the depth of the public spending cuts the day before the latest GDP figures are unveiled. The expectation is that they will not be good and this reinforces the growing feeling that 'steady as she goes' isn't good enough. I heard a firewall spokesman (was it 'Two Brains'?) blustering about the billions being injected into construction but this ignores the fact that such investment, while good, is long term and not immediate enough to stimulate the general economy. In contrast, the cuts and the fall in disposable incomes has an immediate effect and there are more and more signs that the realisation that deep austerity is damaging are spreading slowly. The IMF confirmed this view only yesterday and there are speculations about what the new governor of the BofE will do when he starts in the job. Whispers in Whitehall are that George Osborne is listening to these undercurrents but interesting that any comments are coming from anonymous spokesmen and women and mention 'middle class incomes'. Could we be seeing a disguised U-Turn?
One is allowed to be wise before the event and I have said consistently that the key to improvement in domestic growth is disposable incomes. The cuts were too deep, concentrated on the most vulnerable and broke the elementary rules of Economics 101. Of course, two years have been lost to dogma and the next thing we can expect is an extension of the pain.
Interesting that the banks post good profits and the Stock Market is back at the level it was in May 2008. Ever get the feeling this 'crisis' is being managed quite well as far as the upper echelons are concerned?
Remember also that the cuts have not finished yet, they are ongoing. A bleak prospect for many and the food banks proliferate. How many bankers and politicians patronise them?

Stanley wrote:Nick Clegg shafts Osborne by questioning the depth of the public spending cuts the day before the latest GDP figures are unveiled. The expectation is that they will not be good and this reinforces the growing feeling that 'steady as she goes' isn't good enough. I heard a firewall spokesman (was it 'Two Brains'?) blustering about the billions being injected into construction but this ignores the fact that such investment, while good, is long term and not immediate enough to stimulate the general economy. In contrast, the cuts and the fall in disposable incomes has an immediate effect and there are more and more signs that the realisation that deep austerity is damaging are spreading slowly. The IMF confirmed this view only yesterday and there are speculations about what the new governor of the BofE will do when he starts in the job. Whispers in Whitehall are that George Osborne is listening to these undercurrents but interesting that any comments are coming from anonymous spokesmen and women and mention 'middle class incomes'. Could we be seeing a disguised U-Turn?

Except the Coalition has invested more into Capital spending than the previous Labour Government plans had envisioned. The differences are startling in fact. Calamity Clegg is politically posturing. At the election there was a 0.04% difference between the spending of Tory and Labour manifesto's, but that's an inconsiderate fact of course.

Stanley wrote:One is allowed to be wise before the event and I have said consistently that the key to improvement in domestic growth is disposable incomes. The cuts were too deep, concentrated on the most vulnerable and broke the elementary rules of Economics 101. Of course, two years have been lost to dogma and the next thing we can expect is an extension of the pain.

Except it's not. People in work or with extra money now keep more of their money than they did under the previous Government administration thanks to the changes in the tax rates, unless they are higher rate tax payers. HMRC numbers.
People on benefits, including pension, have seen significantly higher uprates in those payments than have the people who pay for them through their taxes.
The whole issue with politics is that the previous Labour government never actually spelled out exactly how bad the state of the country's finances were before they were booted out and then decided to 'oppose'.

So everything is OK and the economy is climbing out of recession as the deficit reduces? Have another look at the figures....

Osborne's comment at Davos about the GDP figures was revealing. He stated the obvious saying that they indicate how bad the the situation is but the employment figures tell a different story. Big problem is that the 'employment' figures are simply stating how many people 'have a job'. This is nothing to do with the quality of those jobs. Too many part-timers and low wage jobs mean that I suspect the total amount of pay is less than it was in normal times, in other words they aren't living wages. Meanwhile the deficit rises due to increased borrowing.
Most commentators agree that it's almost certain that the GDP figures will show another fall in this three month period and the anti-austerity camp becomes more vocal. What Osborne didn't acknowledge was that overall, the global economy is showing signs of slow recovery, China, US and even some EU countries are seeing improvement. It's very hard to avoid the conclusion that the cuts to disposable income in the 85% percentile is one of the main causes of the flat demand in the domestic economy and this is the major driver of GDP.
The pressure isn't going to come off the Coalition Policies, it is even coming from his own party members. Sooner or later, whether it's disguised or not, there is going to have to be further borrowing to inject some spending power into the bottom end of the economy. Question is, how long?

The reason that the economy isn't moving (mainly) is because the country has zombie banks, and no one can afford to borrow the money at the rates they are offering it for.

So let me see, who left us with zombie banks...

Now that Cameron has 'solved' his referendum problem by kicking the can down the road he is able to concentrate on essential matters. So the route of the northern section of the HS rail line will be unveiled today. The protests from the NIMBYs has started already and I am reminded of the reaction of the landed magnates during the railway boom of the 1840s. To listen to them one would thing a Berlin Wall was being proposed. My problem is that this long term investment (which will eventually happen anyway) will be cited in defence of the government's current economic policies which are getting more and more flak as it is realised that the arguments against draconian cuts that started two years ago have a basis in fact. What the economy needs is a much faster injection of capital to get confidence back in the economy and start investment programmes moving again. It's no use blaming the banks when there is no confidence in the future, many industries have large cash reserves and the reason why they are sitting on them is that they have no realistic expectation of an economic return. The largest and most immediate source of this cash injection is the spending power of the lower 85% percentile but their disposable incomes are still falling as a result of the cuts and there is more pain to come. Until this basic economic reality is realised and action taken to alleviate it there will be no significant improvement. There is another looming danger. Stagnation on the economy eventually signals the danger of the worst case scenario, flat lining GDP accompanied by inflation due to degradation of the exchange rate. There are worrying signs that this is happening now as the UK falls behind in the slow global recovery. Unfortunately there are no signs of any rethink by the Tories who are effectively running the economic policy. Expect no improvement and indeed, it won't be long before we hear reports of an extension of the pain. We're sinking into the mire.

I think the economic figures are interesting. Losing 25% of oil output from the North Sea, results in the ONS figures showing a fall of 10% in the sector which fed through into the GDP figures

I do believe that the economy is growing, albeit only organically because there is so little funding around.

It is very difficult to change from a system of 'debt' to one of cash reserves to fund expansion, especially when the working man will cheerily pocket his money and not think twice about buying a product made in another country. That is the beauty of world wide competition on an open market, but it is also the savage tail that can cause a great deal of pain.

The fact that the GDP numbers have not yet got back to the figures they were before the crash indicates that we are still not in recovery and many players in the different sectors are only hanging on but slowly being shaken out. The more it looks like previous growth was an illusion, but no one wants to pay the bill for the folly.

Good Panorama programme last night dealing with the problems being encountered in the Coalition's biggest social scheme, getting the disabled back into employment. They must have been reading Private Eye which has been hammering away at the flaws in the programme for months now. The investment analyst was getting near the truth when he said it looked like a cunning wheeze for the private sector to make money out of a social ill. The minister in charge was very evasive and refused to address the points made to him, I think they realise that it isn't working but how bad does it have to get before they admit failure? Remember that this is the same government that has decimated Remploy and ruined the lives of many previously employed disabled people for illusory savings.
Employment figures. We have the highest growth figures for youth unemployment in Europe and amongst the G* countries. A re-run of Thatcher's Children and one which will cost us dearly in years to come.

How does Cameron's statement in the house last week, "Let me make this plain, there will be no British boots on the ground", level with today's announcement that we will be deploying 350 troops to Mali in an "advisory and training role"? If these lads are put in harms way and no doubt they will be targeted they will have no option but to defend themselves and quite rightly so. Experts are querying the fact that this has been announced without any due regard to exit strategy and labelled the move "mission creep" a gentler term in my book for barefaced lying. By all means lend the resources to the French, they can train the Mali army themselves as well if they want, they had plenty of experience with the Foreign Legion, let them get on with it but keep our lads out of it. The next repatriations may well be body bags from Africa as well as Afghanistan.

Ian, every time I hear the phrase 'military advisers' I think of how Vietnam started....
Some interesting arguments in the HS line debate. One of the most frequently heard comments is that the advantages of the line are just as likely to draw even more development into London as the other way.

One of the startling figures that came out of the debate about childcare:

In France the ratio of staff to children in creche's it is 1/8

In the UK it is 1/4

So these are not EU regulations and is it any wonder that childcare is substantially cheaper over there than it is here

I wonder what the subsidy from the French Government is? And the German? The Danish too? And the rest? What are the profit margins of the private providers, or are they nearly all state run? These might affect the cost - best expressed surely as fees as a % of average wages after subsidies in each country. At almost 48% in the UK, as opposed to 15% in France (8% in Denmark, 7.5% in Sweden etc etc), and in this country goodness knows how many on the minimum wage, I would hazard a guess that ratios might not impact hugely on costs here.

As an aside, can you tell me where the ratio figure above for France come from? I thought the maximum number that can be cared for in France by a childminder was 1 in 4. It's 1 in 4 in the UK too, for 2 year olds only.

It's interesting that the Danish and the Dutch upped their ratios but have reversed this as their evaluations showed children's development being hindered.

Ratios anyway are only one metric in a complex mix that will ultimately decide on the quality of provision. And so cost.

Finally, it is worth bearing in mind that as I note above very many people in this sector, wherever they work in the country, are paid the hourly minimum wage. You will have to pay double that in many places for someone to look after and walk your dog.

Which is nice..........

Richard Broughton

You'll notice I said creche, not childminder

I did not mention cost

The numbers came from the BBC's World Tonight team