well no, not about everything.... much of today's carnage in Iraq seems to fall into the eminently predictable. But having just read "The Black Swan" there might be rather more in the much mocked "unknown unknowns" - apparently a key part US DOD thinking rather than an example of another US politician misspeaking - than we normally give credit for.
The main message of the Black Swan is that turkeys would quite rationally vote for Christmas. After all, the average turkey day (subject to animal welfare standards) is pretty good - so a rationally forecasting turkey, basing predictions on past experience would quite reasonably think that December would be pretty much like November (assuming no turkey email with the US). But its the catastrophic last day which changes everything. So the message of the book is that unless we want to be suckers like the poor old turkey, we need to be much more aware that - to quote DR again - "stuff happens" - and that is all too often the stuff that renders all our forecasts meaningless and changes the course of history (and also may account for who you marry, and the very fact you exist at all - an occurrence with a very low probability.).
So apart from a lot of bile against social scientists and economists of all sorts, what are the useful lessons from assuming we know less about the future than we think (a case the book makes quite convincingly). The first message is to elevate preparedness over predictive capacity - predictive capacity is overdependent on normal distributions and assume that the future is like the past- and breaks down when it isn't. The second is to recognise that Black Swans can be good as well as bad -- so minimise exposure to bad Black Swans - and give yourself every opportunity to benefit from positive black swans - by for example taking chances to meet new people; hear new ideas, and put a small amount of money - money you are prepared to lose - invested in risky ventures with low downside but big upside potential.
The third recommendation is much more relevant for policy-making - that rather than overinvest in theoretical models trying to predict the world, adopt a more venture capital approach to policy-making. Don't assume you know what works in advance - better to try lots of things and then scale up the ideas that work and kill off those that don't. Substitute experience-based policy making for "evidence-based policy making". This accords with many of the prescriptions around for improving aid policy. Less Jeffrey Sachs and more Jeff Bezos.
The only problem is that a venture capital approach implies a number of failures - indeed that the majority of ideas might fail (and it also assumes we can understand and replicate the ideas that work) - and finding the Black Swan may not be enough to substitute for a bunch of dying white swans littering the street. But not clear that taxpayers or Ministers would be pleased to see that.
This is likely to be the last blog for a bit - finally back to work and to stay with a friend whose broadband doesn't work. Back to the dark ages. But latest news from the physio today is that am still on track - more, harder exercises and have just discovered I have been underutlizing the gym. I just need to make sure that Defra doesn't impede recovery - I can treat my personal "renewal" as a metaphor for the department.
Monday 31 March 2008
Saturday 29 March 2008
A small step for womankind
Not the best of weeks for progress -- was supposed to do a couple of days at work but managed to catch flu from the physio (he in turn blames some 85 year old for giving it to him) - confirmation of general thesis that seeing medical professionals is bad for health. So no swimming, only a couple of gym visits which interestingly had a six week waiting list for half-price medical referrals - I think we need a new target on that.
But, despite all that, two minor triumphs today - first, I managed to get myself into the two new suits I bought for work just before my hip gave out - had been worried that two months of custard tarts and no cycling and still bulging hip would have meant I needed the excellent Mary to let the seams out and, second, I managed to walk five steps across my bedroom and back without a "walking aid". Not quite up for the marathon in two weeks time, but on schedule for the 10k at next year's Chichester triathlon (veteran's category).
So its back to work next Tuesday - or is that just an April fool?
But, despite all that, two minor triumphs today - first, I managed to get myself into the two new suits I bought for work just before my hip gave out - had been worried that two months of custard tarts and no cycling and still bulging hip would have meant I needed the excellent Mary to let the seams out and, second, I managed to walk five steps across my bedroom and back without a "walking aid". Not quite up for the marathon in two weeks time, but on schedule for the 10k at next year's Chichester triathlon (veteran's category).
So its back to work next Tuesday - or is that just an April fool?
Thursday 27 March 2008
Expensive failures
I don't think I have admitted to date that I am one of the happy crew aka a Northern Rock shareholder. I don't think I paid anything for them, have no clue how to trade shares, but can worry myself with a nominal loss of about £18k over the past year.
So it was with a degree of personal interest that I read the reports of the FSA's internal audit on the supervisory failures around Northern Rock tinged with an added degree of personal interest as one of the former FSA employees who left with what appeared to be quite a big pay-off was a university contemporary of mine. Which all provokes a variety of thoughts.
First is that we need to get away from the culture of big-time rewards for failure in the public sector. People in senior jobs who screw up need to be held to account for that and need to expect to leave without a pay-off which would keep a hospital ward open for a year. If this means we need to pay people more to get them to do the jobs in the first place, so be it -- but I can't believe that the implicit pay-off for failure is a salient consideration in salary discussions (I may be wrong). But huge handouts for getting things spectacularly wrong fail the Dog and Duck test. We should establish a presumption of no pay out - and let an Employment Tribunal decide on the merits afterwards whether that is fair - that would prevent cosy deals within organisations against the public interest and ensure a missing degree of transparency.
Of course, one of the usual protections - not available in the FSA - is Ministerial accountability. And there is any interesting distinction to be drawn on the source of failure - the most spectacular policy failure I was ever involved in was the community charge - though looks cheap compared to the potential contingent liability on NR even at 2008 prices - but whole books have been written on who was to blame for what there - but that was more a failure of policy assumption rather than implementation. People in the FSA could I assume claim that the initial set up and split of responsibilities between the Bank and the FSA was wrong - but they joined the FSA either as those decisions were being made and if they might have thought more about whether the institutional arrangements were right if they felt they might be personally at risk if they failed. It could concentrate the mind wonderfully.
But I don't want the private sector to get away with it either. One of the most galling stories - be it Northern Rock, be it Enron (not sure when NR the movie comes out - but the Enron movie "The Smartest Guys in the Room" is highly recommended for an evening in) is of senior management selling shares at the top of the market while assuring muggins investors that all is well or encouraging staff to put more of their money into the company. So my second rule is that no senior executive should be allowed to deal in company shares until three years after they leave - so they really do have an interest in long(er) term shareholder value. And the ABI and other investors who have done so much to look at executive remuneration need to exercise their muscle over the price of failure.
So in the week that Alan Sugar has come back to our TV screens, it would be good to see more people who fail leaving with a briefcase in a taxi to the words "You're fired" - without passing go and collecting a big brown envelope.
So it was with a degree of personal interest that I read the reports of the FSA's internal audit on the supervisory failures around Northern Rock tinged with an added degree of personal interest as one of the former FSA employees who left with what appeared to be quite a big pay-off was a university contemporary of mine. Which all provokes a variety of thoughts.
First is that we need to get away from the culture of big-time rewards for failure in the public sector. People in senior jobs who screw up need to be held to account for that and need to expect to leave without a pay-off which would keep a hospital ward open for a year. If this means we need to pay people more to get them to do the jobs in the first place, so be it -- but I can't believe that the implicit pay-off for failure is a salient consideration in salary discussions (I may be wrong). But huge handouts for getting things spectacularly wrong fail the Dog and Duck test. We should establish a presumption of no pay out - and let an Employment Tribunal decide on the merits afterwards whether that is fair - that would prevent cosy deals within organisations against the public interest and ensure a missing degree of transparency.
Of course, one of the usual protections - not available in the FSA - is Ministerial accountability. And there is any interesting distinction to be drawn on the source of failure - the most spectacular policy failure I was ever involved in was the community charge - though looks cheap compared to the potential contingent liability on NR even at 2008 prices - but whole books have been written on who was to blame for what there - but that was more a failure of policy assumption rather than implementation. People in the FSA could I assume claim that the initial set up and split of responsibilities between the Bank and the FSA was wrong - but they joined the FSA either as those decisions were being made and if they might have thought more about whether the institutional arrangements were right if they felt they might be personally at risk if they failed. It could concentrate the mind wonderfully.
But I don't want the private sector to get away with it either. One of the most galling stories - be it Northern Rock, be it Enron (not sure when NR the movie comes out - but the Enron movie "The Smartest Guys in the Room" is highly recommended for an evening in) is of senior management selling shares at the top of the market while assuring muggins investors that all is well or encouraging staff to put more of their money into the company. So my second rule is that no senior executive should be allowed to deal in company shares until three years after they leave - so they really do have an interest in long(er) term shareholder value. And the ABI and other investors who have done so much to look at executive remuneration need to exercise their muscle over the price of failure.
So in the week that Alan Sugar has come back to our TV screens, it would be good to see more people who fail leaving with a briefcase in a taxi to the words "You're fired" - without passing go and collecting a big brown envelope.
Tuesday 25 March 2008
Happy of Himalayas
Doesn't quite have the ring of Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells, but news at the weekend that the good people of Bhutan are about to enjoy democracy for the first time. The ruler of Bhutan is famous and revered in many quarters for attempting to measure Gross National Happiness as opposed to simply relying on GDP. So is his imposition of democracy (itself a rather unusual development) going to make his people happier?
Not according to Professor Robert Lane if you read his book "Loss of happiness in market democracies". According to Professor Lane democratic rights are a bit of a bore and a chore and do nothing special for our happiness (though the good news for the Bhutanese is that happy people tend to have better democracies). Indeed Professor Lane's thesis is that people in advanced economies don't know what is good for them, so an effective democratic system has failure built-in. The problem is that people are seduced by the economistic fallacy (more money is what you want) when, in a developed economy, what people really really want is more companionship and to value their children more (and not just by buying them bigger and better computers for their bedroom). Or at least that is what he thinks Americans should want and what would reverse the massive rise in depression.
The Good news for economics is that he thinks economics does get it right for most of the world's population and for most of humanity's time on earth -- when people are poor the equation of being better off and happiness works. Its just when you get to that pesky bend in the curve and diminishing returns set in -- but people don't realise it.
Not that Professor Lane thinks there is much governments can do - promote job security and make it easier for people to have time for companionship - and perhaps pay more attention to moves that break up communities. And not watch TV or play on the computer.
But for a book that purports to be about happiness, Prof L has managed to produce one of the most turgid and pompous tomes I have read. A danger of thinking that something on Amazon looks interestingf..Just when I thought all American professors could be relied on to convey knowledge and insights in the style of Paul Merton or Stephen Fry comes along someone with the stylistic flair of an HMRC press release (actually they are usually livelier). So don;t bother with the book and do something companionable - with person or pet - instead.
Not according to Professor Robert Lane if you read his book "Loss of happiness in market democracies". According to Professor Lane democratic rights are a bit of a bore and a chore and do nothing special for our happiness (though the good news for the Bhutanese is that happy people tend to have better democracies). Indeed Professor Lane's thesis is that people in advanced economies don't know what is good for them, so an effective democratic system has failure built-in. The problem is that people are seduced by the economistic fallacy (more money is what you want) when, in a developed economy, what people really really want is more companionship and to value their children more (and not just by buying them bigger and better computers for their bedroom). Or at least that is what he thinks Americans should want and what would reverse the massive rise in depression.
The Good news for economics is that he thinks economics does get it right for most of the world's population and for most of humanity's time on earth -- when people are poor the equation of being better off and happiness works. Its just when you get to that pesky bend in the curve and diminishing returns set in -- but people don't realise it.
Not that Professor Lane thinks there is much governments can do - promote job security and make it easier for people to have time for companionship - and perhaps pay more attention to moves that break up communities. And not watch TV or play on the computer.
But for a book that purports to be about happiness, Prof L has managed to produce one of the most turgid and pompous tomes I have read. A danger of thinking that something on Amazon looks interestingf..Just when I thought all American professors could be relied on to convey knowledge and insights in the style of Paul Merton or Stephen Fry comes along someone with the stylistic flair of an HMRC press release (actually they are usually livelier). So don;t bother with the book and do something companionable - with person or pet - instead.
Monday 24 March 2008
Taking dictation
My vote in a general election has never counted for anything (though if today's AV proposals being floated in the press come to pass that may change) so this can all be treated as entirely hypothetical - but if my vote did count this weekend's rumpus over conscience might cause me to rethink how I vote.
In a party ridden Parliamentary democracy I have always assumed that the dominant issue in how I vote is which party I think would make the less bad government. I can't claim that is always how I vote as last time I discovered in the polling booth (one consequence in living in a one-party fiefdom is you don't get much election literature as all the parties concentrate on those voters lucky enough to live in marginals) that one of the candidates was someone I loathed at university so I had to rethink with pencil in hand... But generally I pay little attention to the personal views and still less to the religious affiliations of the candidates. And as a general thesis I want MPs who who aren't just grade A lobby fodder -- and indeed when I was out of government I was part of a Hansard Society commission that looked at ways of strengthening the capacity of MPs to hold the executive to account.
But the recent furore over embryo research causes me to rethink. If there are some MPs who on some issues simply take dictation from their church then I think I need to know that they are going to do that before I vote - or don't - for them. I don't mind voting for an MP who rebels over Post Office or local A and E closures (though would regard them as pretty hypocritical if they don't have a view on how to finance that) or maybe even on Europe if they came clean on that in advance - but those are issues where there is a party line to vote for. On "ethical" issues where there is a free vote there is no party line for me to choose - and therefore I am lumbered with being represented by the personal views of my MP however alien they are to me -- and that is even more difficult to accept if those views are not susceptible to any sort of logical reasoning - and ones informed by deeply and genuinely held religious faith are hardly likely to be.
But at the same time, I think we have benefited from depoliticising moral issues and avoiding the so-called culture wars and values voting that has poisoned US politics for so long. And making some issues subject to free votes has been part of that. It may be that this is an area where we have to accept that our elected representatives are not really fit for purpose and opt instead for farming out the issue to a more technocratic organisation informed by a more genuinely representative citizen's jury and some proper deliberation.
Until then, I will just have to pay a bit more attention to whom I am voting for - well I would if it was likely to make one jot of difference.
In a party ridden Parliamentary democracy I have always assumed that the dominant issue in how I vote is which party I think would make the less bad government. I can't claim that is always how I vote as last time I discovered in the polling booth (one consequence in living in a one-party fiefdom is you don't get much election literature as all the parties concentrate on those voters lucky enough to live in marginals) that one of the candidates was someone I loathed at university so I had to rethink with pencil in hand... But generally I pay little attention to the personal views and still less to the religious affiliations of the candidates. And as a general thesis I want MPs who who aren't just grade A lobby fodder -- and indeed when I was out of government I was part of a Hansard Society commission that looked at ways of strengthening the capacity of MPs to hold the executive to account.
But the recent furore over embryo research causes me to rethink. If there are some MPs who on some issues simply take dictation from their church then I think I need to know that they are going to do that before I vote - or don't - for them. I don't mind voting for an MP who rebels over Post Office or local A and E closures (though would regard them as pretty hypocritical if they don't have a view on how to finance that) or maybe even on Europe if they came clean on that in advance - but those are issues where there is a party line to vote for. On "ethical" issues where there is a free vote there is no party line for me to choose - and therefore I am lumbered with being represented by the personal views of my MP however alien they are to me -- and that is even more difficult to accept if those views are not susceptible to any sort of logical reasoning - and ones informed by deeply and genuinely held religious faith are hardly likely to be.
But at the same time, I think we have benefited from depoliticising moral issues and avoiding the so-called culture wars and values voting that has poisoned US politics for so long. And making some issues subject to free votes has been part of that. It may be that this is an area where we have to accept that our elected representatives are not really fit for purpose and opt instead for farming out the issue to a more technocratic organisation informed by a more genuinely representative citizen's jury and some proper deliberation.
Until then, I will just have to pay a bit more attention to whom I am voting for - well I would if it was likely to make one jot of difference.
Friday 21 March 2008
50 words for snow
One of the favourite sayings when I was at BP was that Eskimos had fifty words for snow -- I can't personally verify for Eskimos but I do know that if you ask a Canadian whether they can make snowmen with their latest snowfall they will look at you as though you are stupid and say that it was not packing snow - in BR speak the wrong kind of snow. But the more general point is if an issue matters to you a lot, you delve more deeply and see more differentiation in it. That's the theory behind our segmentation of environmental behaviour into seven key groups (yes I know I need a link here... but do a google search on Defra and Environmental behaviours and you get it) -- my mother is a waste watcher and I like to think I am a positive green. But I assume that Tesco, with their loyalty data base and targeted marketing can divide their customer base into rather more segments than that (if I used my card enough I think they would have me down as intermittent internet customer with big muesli and pasta eating friend who exploits service to substitute for lift and buys all fresh food somewhere else - otherwise my four times a year supermarket shopping habit looks a bit weird).All this is a rather long preamble to the book Microtrends by Mark Penn -- aka HC's pollster - who claims to have identified soccer moms as a key constituency for BC and now has decided that we need to look at what the blurb describes as "small forces behind today's big changes". Not the deepest book in the world -- and very US in focus... but some interesting food for thought. First the personal -- what microtrends am I a member of? Certainly not aspiring snipers, young knitters or uptown tattoed. Can claim an ancient experience as an office romancer - but hardly part of a new trend, suppose am a bit of a wordy woman (woman taking over verbal professions, have elements of snowed-under-slob and maybe with new hip should have a go at either being a cougar (woman dating much younger man) or an "internet married" - couple who find each other on the internet. Until this year I also counted as a DIY doctor (though not in quite the way he has it) - don't think recent experience quite makes me into a surgery lover....not sure getting broadband has yet converted me from a new Luddite into a tech fatale (women who love IT).So I can relate to some of these -- and know other people who fit into other categories. But that is all a bit of a parlour game (not necessarily a bad one -- may use it to liven up a rather deadly dinner party -- would you rather be an Video game grown up or an archery mom). But the more interesting policy question is do any of these trends have any relevance over here -- and are there other microtrends UK that might do and we need to start thinking about?
In some the UK already seems to be in advance of the US -- eg interracial families as a microtrend seems a rather strange one to single out as new. In others the US seems different -- one of the interesting questions is why Muslims in the US seem as MP puts it to be much more moderate than their European counterparts - which has a lot to do with the way Muslim migration has occurred into the US - more Hasnat Khan than Abu Hamza. Second home owning doesn't seem worth singling out here -- though interestingly the one UK microtrend that makes it into the international section is "Living Apart Together" -- MP reckons there are 1m committed couples in the UK who won't move in together even though they live in the same town. An interesting additional housing pressure -- and very interesting if you look at potential additional barriers that could be created by giving cohabiting couples the same "rights" post break up as married couples. Some of the stuff about sons as carers, the working retired and extreme commuting or working from home have potential interest.But are there any specifically UK microtrends we might want to pick up on? I think my recent experiences have just illustrated one microtrend - the difficulty of single people finding proper after care near their homes (or as the doctor said -- you're going to be looked after by your 85 year old mother?) - and the erosion of options for in family care can have very serious policy implications. We have already seen the end of careers for life - but am not sure yet that people like headhunters have woken up to the desire for lateral moves (or if they have they don't understand it - cue business opportunity). More generally it suggests that the move from monolithic to personalised services might be even more of a challenge than it appears -- and beyond the ability of bureaucratised service models to deliver. The second policy question seems to me to be whether there are existing microtrends that we want to use policy to support becoming macrotrends -- and create tipping point effects. The number of car ads (there are a lot on Sky Sports and Eurosport -- though the latter also has the Defra climate change filler) suggest that the minority interest of environmental performance of cars has now gone mainstream. But can we do the same for non-car ownership? Train travel (when will Trailfinders start booking rail fares to Europe?)? Changed attitudes to home ownership? Charitable giving? And how do we help people stand up to peer or community pressure - when they may not be part of anything that has yet fomented into a microtrend?Anyway, if you have spotted a UK or European microtrend, add it here....
In some the UK already seems to be in advance of the US -- eg interracial families as a microtrend seems a rather strange one to single out as new. In others the US seems different -- one of the interesting questions is why Muslims in the US seem as MP puts it to be much more moderate than their European counterparts - which has a lot to do with the way Muslim migration has occurred into the US - more Hasnat Khan than Abu Hamza. Second home owning doesn't seem worth singling out here -- though interestingly the one UK microtrend that makes it into the international section is "Living Apart Together" -- MP reckons there are 1m committed couples in the UK who won't move in together even though they live in the same town. An interesting additional housing pressure -- and very interesting if you look at potential additional barriers that could be created by giving cohabiting couples the same "rights" post break up as married couples. Some of the stuff about sons as carers, the working retired and extreme commuting or working from home have potential interest.But are there any specifically UK microtrends we might want to pick up on? I think my recent experiences have just illustrated one microtrend - the difficulty of single people finding proper after care near their homes (or as the doctor said -- you're going to be looked after by your 85 year old mother?) - and the erosion of options for in family care can have very serious policy implications. We have already seen the end of careers for life - but am not sure yet that people like headhunters have woken up to the desire for lateral moves (or if they have they don't understand it - cue business opportunity). More generally it suggests that the move from monolithic to personalised services might be even more of a challenge than it appears -- and beyond the ability of bureaucratised service models to deliver. The second policy question seems to me to be whether there are existing microtrends that we want to use policy to support becoming macrotrends -- and create tipping point effects. The number of car ads (there are a lot on Sky Sports and Eurosport -- though the latter also has the Defra climate change filler) suggest that the minority interest of environmental performance of cars has now gone mainstream. But can we do the same for non-car ownership? Train travel (when will Trailfinders start booking rail fares to Europe?)? Changed attitudes to home ownership? Charitable giving? And how do we help people stand up to peer or community pressure - when they may not be part of anything that has yet fomented into a microtrend?Anyway, if you have spotted a UK or European microtrend, add it here....
Thursday 20 March 2008
So far so good - 3
Last of the self-regarding postings...can now ditch one crutch and try to walk unaided a bit... and am just trying to sort out getting onto an exercise bike. Onwards and forwards. I might have to post the CD of new hip bone growth on YouTube. Off to try out new tougher exercises and then catch up on Spanish. Hasta pronto and happy Easter.
Wednesday 19 March 2008
So far so good - 2
Who said there was no such thing as cold fusion...? anyway, suffice to say VERY satisfactory day with the consultant (words those that know me well would have given good odds against me ever saying). Am progressing better than expected and the bone has nearly joined around the implant....
which is a long way of saying that Phase 2 starts tomorrow. I can start putting weight on my left hip and move toward ditching the crutches - and as long as I avoid public transport (this let them take taxis approach to life a bit at variance with general transport philosophy espoused in blog I realise - but there have to be exceptions to every rule), can start to go back to work part-time. Has to be said the one discovery of today is that taxis are much harder than cars to get in and out of - maybe I need to ask for a spare government Jaguar.
The only slightly off note was when aforesaid consultant said that he had just had to re-operate on another osteotomy (gross-out leg straightening) patient whose op went wrong -- and then said that I should find that reassuring because it meant my chances of it going wrong were reduced. Did this guy ever do any probability? Maybe he was right when he said in his day you could get to do medicine with three Cs....
So back in six weeks when I discover whether I can hop back on the bike... but a bit pessimistic on the chances of defending my Defra mixed doubles crown. May have to wait for next year.
But best part of the day was seeing everyone else hard at work ...
which is a long way of saying that Phase 2 starts tomorrow. I can start putting weight on my left hip and move toward ditching the crutches - and as long as I avoid public transport (this let them take taxis approach to life a bit at variance with general transport philosophy espoused in blog I realise - but there have to be exceptions to every rule), can start to go back to work part-time. Has to be said the one discovery of today is that taxis are much harder than cars to get in and out of - maybe I need to ask for a spare government Jaguar.
The only slightly off note was when aforesaid consultant said that he had just had to re-operate on another osteotomy (gross-out leg straightening) patient whose op went wrong -- and then said that I should find that reassuring because it meant my chances of it going wrong were reduced. Did this guy ever do any probability? Maybe he was right when he said in his day you could get to do medicine with three Cs....
So back in six weeks when I discover whether I can hop back on the bike... but a bit pessimistic on the chances of defending my Defra mixed doubles crown. May have to wait for next year.
But best part of the day was seeing everyone else hard at work ...
Tuesday 18 March 2008
So far so good - 1
Great policy thoughts (or even rather feeble ones) will have to wait for the weekend as this is a key week I go back to see the consultant and see whether I am en route to a million or am going to have to be satisfied with a pathetic £ 1000. Quite good so far - went to the physio today who was very pleased (he thinks I am a diligent patient which is a bit of a shock - no one has ever accused me of that before). Confessed that he had been concerned that years of duff hip meant my muscles had atrophied but turns out that they haven't and my slavish adherence to (admittedly easy) exercise regime combined with exploiting the public good that is the Arun Leisure Centre mean that he is VERY pleased with progress so far....
Next instalment tomorrow when I leave West Sussex for the first time in seven weeks and come up to London to see whether I get the go ahead from the consultant to put weight on my hip and open up a whole new array of possibilities - and I even might be allowed to go back to work.
Not sure I can stand the excitement -- Christmas on March 19th...
Next instalment tomorrow when I leave West Sussex for the first time in seven weeks and come up to London to see whether I get the go ahead from the consultant to put weight on my hip and open up a whole new array of possibilities - and I even might be allowed to go back to work.
Not sure I can stand the excitement -- Christmas on March 19th...
Saturday 15 March 2008
Positive feedback
I have just come back from my first ever experience of a community consultation. I am not sure these things exist in inner London - the only time I tried to put an issue onto the agenda for the Bayswater residents forum, Westminster CC studiously ignored my email. So I had to wait to come to Chichester to be empowered...
But this has proved a really interesting and encouraging day - not least to see the words and concepts we bandy about in green and white papers or in ping pong with CLG being used by people who are actually trying to put it all into practice. The issue is the development of a large ex-NHS site in NE Chichester -- which with another site is going to add 1100 homes -- or about a 10% increase in the existing housing stock.
At first I adopted the Star Trek principle of no interference -- after all I am just a temporary interloper down here. But that proved impossible to resist by the time we got to the post-it session -- I maintained my Trappism for a mighty twenty minutes.
But some impressions --
First a huge level of ambition. Zero carbon. Code 6 of the Code for Sustainable Homes for the new build. Eco-homes Excellent for the refurb. When I suggested the aim should be for Chichester to be the Freiburg of Britain, it turned out that the developers had already taken a party to Freiburg earlier in the week - and were arranging another trip to that other European poster city for sustainability - Copenhagen. And interesting that the people who did the sustainability presentation were all German.
Second, how much the locals involved wanted to see somewhere that enabled people to live sustainably - and how much desire there was for high quality community facilities - whether for the arts, for public promenades, for young people -- or just for allotments.
But third, how transport looked to be the Achilles heel. If the impact of all the development is not to be to make the city even more gridlocked than it is now, the Council is going to have to put some serious investment into a radical replanning of transport across the whole city. But also some options to use the development on the site to provide facilities to North east Chichester that it lacks now - which forces everyone to drive into the centre or the the south side. Clearly important to look at these schemes beyond their footprint and to work them into an overall strategy for the locality. Interesting that the degree of thought that had gone into thinking through the transport implications and how to reduce car use/ ownership. need to provide parking space lagged so far behind their thinking about the fabric of the buildings (or indeed how to minimise the impact of the construction phase).
But the developers - and some of those present - had real concerns over the keenness and capacity of the local council to think laterally and creatively enough - and at the right time to make sure things happen.
There was a remarkable degree of positive consensus from those who turned up. And that was a lot of people - 400 over two days. The process was really good - for those who turned up. And some of the people were amazingly knowledgeable. But one of the difficulties in designing for a new community is whether the people who live close - and get the leaflets asking them to come - are the people who will want to live there. If the people who showed up are the new community it will be 70% retired; predominantly male; have about 1% children - and no teenagers; hardly anyone in their twenties. It will have a lot of people who are keen on the arts - and some very keen churchgoers (the one emerging flashpoint was over future use of the chapel - a battle of secularists vs spiritualists). So a big challenge going forward is to find the people who might actually want to live - or work there -- and involve them.
But that aside, its hard to believe that this conversation would have been taking place three years ago - that people in Chichester would be flocking to spend their weekend at a table facilitated by German architects discussing the ins and outs of zero carbon, greywater recycling and sustainable design. This is the first time I have spent five hours on a Saturday in a freezing, semi-derelict theatre and come away thinking that some of the things we do at work might just be making a difference.
Now we have to see whether this really does catalyse the transformation of Chichester from car park central into the Freiburg of Britain. Lass uns hoffen.
But this has proved a really interesting and encouraging day - not least to see the words and concepts we bandy about in green and white papers or in ping pong with CLG being used by people who are actually trying to put it all into practice. The issue is the development of a large ex-NHS site in NE Chichester -- which with another site is going to add 1100 homes -- or about a 10% increase in the existing housing stock.
At first I adopted the Star Trek principle of no interference -- after all I am just a temporary interloper down here. But that proved impossible to resist by the time we got to the post-it session -- I maintained my Trappism for a mighty twenty minutes.
But some impressions --
First a huge level of ambition. Zero carbon. Code 6 of the Code for Sustainable Homes for the new build. Eco-homes Excellent for the refurb. When I suggested the aim should be for Chichester to be the Freiburg of Britain, it turned out that the developers had already taken a party to Freiburg earlier in the week - and were arranging another trip to that other European poster city for sustainability - Copenhagen. And interesting that the people who did the sustainability presentation were all German.
Second, how much the locals involved wanted to see somewhere that enabled people to live sustainably - and how much desire there was for high quality community facilities - whether for the arts, for public promenades, for young people -- or just for allotments.
But third, how transport looked to be the Achilles heel. If the impact of all the development is not to be to make the city even more gridlocked than it is now, the Council is going to have to put some serious investment into a radical replanning of transport across the whole city. But also some options to use the development on the site to provide facilities to North east Chichester that it lacks now - which forces everyone to drive into the centre or the the south side. Clearly important to look at these schemes beyond their footprint and to work them into an overall strategy for the locality. Interesting that the degree of thought that had gone into thinking through the transport implications and how to reduce car use/ ownership. need to provide parking space lagged so far behind their thinking about the fabric of the buildings (or indeed how to minimise the impact of the construction phase).
But the developers - and some of those present - had real concerns over the keenness and capacity of the local council to think laterally and creatively enough - and at the right time to make sure things happen.
There was a remarkable degree of positive consensus from those who turned up. And that was a lot of people - 400 over two days. The process was really good - for those who turned up. And some of the people were amazingly knowledgeable. But one of the difficulties in designing for a new community is whether the people who live close - and get the leaflets asking them to come - are the people who will want to live there. If the people who showed up are the new community it will be 70% retired; predominantly male; have about 1% children - and no teenagers; hardly anyone in their twenties. It will have a lot of people who are keen on the arts - and some very keen churchgoers (the one emerging flashpoint was over future use of the chapel - a battle of secularists vs spiritualists). So a big challenge going forward is to find the people who might actually want to live - or work there -- and involve them.
But that aside, its hard to believe that this conversation would have been taking place three years ago - that people in Chichester would be flocking to spend their weekend at a table facilitated by German architects discussing the ins and outs of zero carbon, greywater recycling and sustainable design. This is the first time I have spent five hours on a Saturday in a freezing, semi-derelict theatre and come away thinking that some of the things we do at work might just be making a difference.
Now we have to see whether this really does catalyse the transformation of Chichester from car park central into the Freiburg of Britain. Lass uns hoffen.
Friday 14 March 2008
Markets work shock
In a week that tends to be characterised by economic illiteracy its good to see a healthy dose of commonsense coming through in a poll in today's Times: most people think the Budget was pretty sensible, won't make much difference to them and that the government could do relatively little in the face of global economic trends. (sorry Clive - still can't do hyperlinks). Which puts into perspective the yelps of the brewing industry that 4p on a pint will finish off large numbers of pub - and the emotion on either side of the 2p on fuel debate.
The interesting thing about listening to the news apart from the budget is how much prices are now an issue -- and just how big some of those price movements are. From oil now over $ 100/ barrel - up by $80 since January 2002 to wheat prices more than doubling since the beginning of 2006 and iron ore prices sextupling since 2003. To add some degree of scale -- that price rise in oil is eight times the implicit tax on carbon through the current variant of the EU emissions trading scheme.
These massive price shifts are sending signals that governments would never manage to get together the political constituency to impose as taxes -- whether that is to drive more fuel efficient cars, recycle virgin materials or stop wasting grain on animal feed, or the need to pay more for your pork or stop eating bacon butties. The only (and not insignificant downside) is that the beneficiaries of the price hikes are those who happen to have invested in oil or mining companies or arable farmers -and overcautious governments who missed the boat on the agenda see what could have been useful additions to the national coffers instead transferred to the people who were savvy or lucky enough to be holding the parcel when prices began to soar.
Of course prices can go up as well as down. The US department of agriculture is already saying that current high grain prices are a temporary blip as more land will be planted and pig farmers might take solace in that diagram [Cobb-Douglas? or is it cobweb? if only I hadn't rashly thrown out my first year economics notes in a once in thirty year cleaning frenzy last year --i Knew they would come in handy some time]that features in first term economics to show how the Chicago hog market never came into equilibrium - but in the long-run its hard to see how 3bn more people with the majority wanting western style resource intensive living standards won't put a bit of upward pressure on finite natural resources.
So the green movement might just have to start waking up to the market as friend rather than foe -- and the smart move might be to suggest to governments - and voters - that getting ahead of the curve and grabbing a piece of the action makes sense.
The interesting thing about listening to the news apart from the budget is how much prices are now an issue -- and just how big some of those price movements are. From oil now over $ 100/ barrel - up by $80 since January 2002 to wheat prices more than doubling since the beginning of 2006 and iron ore prices sextupling since 2003. To add some degree of scale -- that price rise in oil is eight times the implicit tax on carbon through the current variant of the EU emissions trading scheme.
These massive price shifts are sending signals that governments would never manage to get together the political constituency to impose as taxes -- whether that is to drive more fuel efficient cars, recycle virgin materials or stop wasting grain on animal feed, or the need to pay more for your pork or stop eating bacon butties. The only (and not insignificant downside) is that the beneficiaries of the price hikes are those who happen to have invested in oil or mining companies or arable farmers -and overcautious governments who missed the boat on the agenda see what could have been useful additions to the national coffers instead transferred to the people who were savvy or lucky enough to be holding the parcel when prices began to soar.
Of course prices can go up as well as down. The US department of agriculture is already saying that current high grain prices are a temporary blip as more land will be planted and pig farmers might take solace in that diagram [Cobb-Douglas? or is it cobweb? if only I hadn't rashly thrown out my first year economics notes in a once in thirty year cleaning frenzy last year --i Knew they would come in handy some time]that features in first term economics to show how the Chicago hog market never came into equilibrium - but in the long-run its hard to see how 3bn more people with the majority wanting western style resource intensive living standards won't put a bit of upward pressure on finite natural resources.
So the green movement might just have to start waking up to the market as friend rather than foe -- and the smart move might be to suggest to governments - and voters - that getting ahead of the curve and grabbing a piece of the action makes sense.
Tuesday 11 March 2008
Much ado about nothing?
its Cheltenham week at the races and Budget week in the Treasury. Newspapers are working themselves into a frenzy of speculation, special pull-out supplements are being commissioned, terrestrial channels are about to clear the airwaves and the IFS is working overtime to develop a series of decreasingly typical stereotype families to tell us how much better or worse off we are likely to be next year than against an index-linked base...
Let me confess straight away that I love budgets (need to be more upfront since I failed to declare my passion for AC in earlier blog) -- or at least loved them when I was in the Treasury. They were the biggest adrenaline rush ever to hit the then antiseptic corridors of 1, Parliament Street. The culmination of weeks of long hours, weekends of work, the day when HMT and the Chancellor was the centre of the world (and when there aren't crises to deal with, there are remarkably few of those), and a great excuse for parties and for betting on the length of the speech. So its easy to see why HMT wants to maintain the budget mystique unmodernised - but also interesting to ask whether the Budget really merits the attention it gets and whether the Budget as event gets in the way of the Budget as good policy-making.
When we had more limited government it was easy to see why the Budget was a big event. But it is no longer clear that the Budget really warrants the amount of time and effort the broadcasters devote to it. There is much agonising over whether the Chancellor will go ahead with the 2p increase in fuel duty tomorrow -- I have no idea whether he will or not -- but when I ran fuel pricing in Spain for BP that was a decision that I made every week -- and the lunchtime TV schedules were not cleared for that. 95% of the Budget detail is for the partners of KPMG and PWC, 0.000001% of potential viewers and the number of people affected - or indeed able to understand - most of the Budget measures is far less than for statements by the Health Secretary or the Children Schools and Family Secretary. We no longer have the twenty minutes on the MTFS (medium term financial strategy to readers under 45) that characterised the budgets of the Howe-Lawson era -- but it is impossible for either the viewer or the studio pundits to make any real sense of the changing forecasts announced by the Chancellor at the start of the speech. In terms of viewer relevance, viewer comprehensibility and impact it is just not clear that the Budget still warrants the deference it gets.
But second, it is far from clear that the Budget as event is the best way of making economic policy, The secrecy is supposed to apply to market sensitive measures -- but the really market moving measures have to be announced before eight o'clock in the morning when the markets are closed - in the UK at least. But Budget measures - even with the advent of the PBR - are developed behind closed doors for no really good reason. They look very anachronistic in an era when government has got hugely better at consultation and co-production of policy. And this becomes more important not less as the Budget becomes a place to set government policy well beyond the narrow realms of tax policy - and as we use tax policy for wider aims than simply determining how we finance public spending.
And third, the Budget as event has the effect of creating more policy than necessary. So worried have Chancellors always been about the Budget as non-event that the Budget itself becomes overstuffed with measures to appease every group and our tax code gets ever more complicated, In the Treasury we used to dream of a Budget when the Chancellor stood up - said 5p on fags, 10p on whisky, nothing else changes and sat down. But in every Conservative budget we had an increasingly despairing search for budget lollipops -- to generate positive headlines -- most of which individually would never make it out of the policy starting gates.
So maybe, once we put the tax system onto a proper statutory index-linked basis (that 2p is just money illusion after all), we could get to a position where the Budget is reduced to a written answer of "no change" and we would - with the exception of the accountants and tax advisers and other deadweight costs on the economy - all be able to focus on more interesting things instead.
But finally -- don't worry Evan -- will still be hanging on to your every word tomorrow.
Let me confess straight away that I love budgets (need to be more upfront since I failed to declare my passion for AC in earlier blog) -- or at least loved them when I was in the Treasury. They were the biggest adrenaline rush ever to hit the then antiseptic corridors of 1, Parliament Street. The culmination of weeks of long hours, weekends of work, the day when HMT and the Chancellor was the centre of the world (and when there aren't crises to deal with, there are remarkably few of those), and a great excuse for parties and for betting on the length of the speech. So its easy to see why HMT wants to maintain the budget mystique unmodernised - but also interesting to ask whether the Budget really merits the attention it gets and whether the Budget as event gets in the way of the Budget as good policy-making.
When we had more limited government it was easy to see why the Budget was a big event. But it is no longer clear that the Budget really warrants the amount of time and effort the broadcasters devote to it. There is much agonising over whether the Chancellor will go ahead with the 2p increase in fuel duty tomorrow -- I have no idea whether he will or not -- but when I ran fuel pricing in Spain for BP that was a decision that I made every week -- and the lunchtime TV schedules were not cleared for that. 95% of the Budget detail is for the partners of KPMG and PWC, 0.000001% of potential viewers and the number of people affected - or indeed able to understand - most of the Budget measures is far less than for statements by the Health Secretary or the Children Schools and Family Secretary. We no longer have the twenty minutes on the MTFS (medium term financial strategy to readers under 45) that characterised the budgets of the Howe-Lawson era -- but it is impossible for either the viewer or the studio pundits to make any real sense of the changing forecasts announced by the Chancellor at the start of the speech. In terms of viewer relevance, viewer comprehensibility and impact it is just not clear that the Budget still warrants the deference it gets.
But second, it is far from clear that the Budget as event is the best way of making economic policy, The secrecy is supposed to apply to market sensitive measures -- but the really market moving measures have to be announced before eight o'clock in the morning when the markets are closed - in the UK at least. But Budget measures - even with the advent of the PBR - are developed behind closed doors for no really good reason. They look very anachronistic in an era when government has got hugely better at consultation and co-production of policy. And this becomes more important not less as the Budget becomes a place to set government policy well beyond the narrow realms of tax policy - and as we use tax policy for wider aims than simply determining how we finance public spending.
And third, the Budget as event has the effect of creating more policy than necessary. So worried have Chancellors always been about the Budget as non-event that the Budget itself becomes overstuffed with measures to appease every group and our tax code gets ever more complicated, In the Treasury we used to dream of a Budget when the Chancellor stood up - said 5p on fags, 10p on whisky, nothing else changes and sat down. But in every Conservative budget we had an increasingly despairing search for budget lollipops -- to generate positive headlines -- most of which individually would never make it out of the policy starting gates.
So maybe, once we put the tax system onto a proper statutory index-linked basis (that 2p is just money illusion after all), we could get to a position where the Budget is reduced to a written answer of "no change" and we would - with the exception of the accountants and tax advisers and other deadweight costs on the economy - all be able to focus on more interesting things instead.
But finally -- don't worry Evan -- will still be hanging on to your every word tomorrow.
Monday 10 March 2008
Off the record
Front page news in the Sunday Times yesterday was the hunt for a Whitehall blogger -- the so-called civil serf publishing loads of indiscreet comments behind the scenes in Whitehall. The blog has now disappeared.... so I can't comment on the substance -but it is bound to raise the questions of whether civil servants should be allowed to blog.
You won't be surprised is that my answer is yes -- but that the civil serf should probably also be disciplined if not sacked.
The first thing to say is that there is nothing really new in the sort odd pernicious background comment that CS has been going in for -- but what used to happen between a senior mandarin and a lobby correspondent over a three course meal at Quirinale washed down by a lot of rather nice chianti has now, through the internet, been democratised. People not in Sue Cameron or Philip Stephens' rolodex now get a chance to give the inside dope now. Who can forget the hunt just before Christmas for the male permanent secretary being indiscreet in an Italian restaurant.. and one of my principal tasks as Press Secretary 12 years ago was to demand mandarin diaries to see who the upper echelons of the Treasury had been lunching as stories floated about chaos inside government. Now you don't have to have a knighthood to get in on the act.
But the second point is it doesn't make it right - for either category. But I don't think the answer is to gag civil servants completely. Its just conceivable that they may have interesting things to say. The answer should be to apply some simple rules.
First: go on the record. Blog away -- as long as its got your name on it (I know I could always claim that this is the blog of the "other Jill Rutter" - now working at the IPPR - and to be played by Scarlett Johansson in the movie and having a doppelganger can be either useful or embarrassing -- a number of times when working at No, 10 I had to explain that the front page denunciation of govt asylum policy in the Indie was not me but the other one...).
Second, hold people responsible for what they put in ... the rules of blogging should be the same as the rules for what you would say on a conference platform; in a speech;
And third, if what people put in shows that they cannot continue to have the confidence of Ministers then they need to take the consequences.
But the plus side is that we do need to develop a mentality of thinking in the civil service, We overdevelop the ability to produce defensive lines to take and radically underdevelop and undervalue the capacity to think interestingly about issues. And that benefits no one. Maybe having an interesting blog should become an entry level requirement for the senior civil service.
You won't be surprised is that my answer is yes -- but that the civil serf should probably also be disciplined if not sacked.
The first thing to say is that there is nothing really new in the sort odd pernicious background comment that CS has been going in for -- but what used to happen between a senior mandarin and a lobby correspondent over a three course meal at Quirinale washed down by a lot of rather nice chianti has now, through the internet, been democratised. People not in Sue Cameron or Philip Stephens' rolodex now get a chance to give the inside dope now. Who can forget the hunt just before Christmas for the male permanent secretary being indiscreet in an Italian restaurant.. and one of my principal tasks as Press Secretary 12 years ago was to demand mandarin diaries to see who the upper echelons of the Treasury had been lunching as stories floated about chaos inside government. Now you don't have to have a knighthood to get in on the act.
But the second point is it doesn't make it right - for either category. But I don't think the answer is to gag civil servants completely. Its just conceivable that they may have interesting things to say. The answer should be to apply some simple rules.
First: go on the record. Blog away -- as long as its got your name on it (I know I could always claim that this is the blog of the "other Jill Rutter" - now working at the IPPR - and to be played by Scarlett Johansson in the movie and having a doppelganger can be either useful or embarrassing -- a number of times when working at No, 10 I had to explain that the front page denunciation of govt asylum policy in the Indie was not me but the other one...).
Second, hold people responsible for what they put in ... the rules of blogging should be the same as the rules for what you would say on a conference platform; in a speech;
And third, if what people put in shows that they cannot continue to have the confidence of Ministers then they need to take the consequences.
But the plus side is that we do need to develop a mentality of thinking in the civil service, We overdevelop the ability to produce defensive lines to take and radically underdevelop and undervalue the capacity to think interestingly about issues. And that benefits no one. Maybe having an interesting blog should become an entry level requirement for the senior civil service.
Saturday 8 March 2008
The ego has landed
As earlier readers will remember my bedtime reading has been the Alastair Campbell diaries. AC clearly displays all the feature of the Microtrend "Long Attention Span" -- abridged diaries of 750 pages, marathon runner,,, nine years working for TB. But as someone who has never managed a diary that said anything other than "French homework" "guides" "dog ill" (and as you can tell that is not exactly recent... so here are some random reflections on the world of No. 10 as told by AC..
First though the really amazing thing is that despite AC being appalled by Hutton's request for his diaries they are amazingly personal -- if I had been editing it I would have deleted much of the home life sections.. but the other thing I am amazed by is the sheer amount of time AC must have spent recording people telling him what a great job he was doing... insecure - probably; egomaniacal - absolutely. I don't for a minute deny that within his own terms AC was doing a good job - but does he really need to write it down when he is that busy... and leave it in? maybe there were more psychological flaws around in Downing Street than we thought.
the second is the bizarre Jane Austen style world our leaders seem to inhabit. Worrying about clothes - Tony seems to have had some terrible outfits. Worrying what other people think of them. Looking to friends for help and support. Calling each other. Writing to each other. Does anyone else have the time for all that. And how they all go on holiday together somewhere in the South of France... and these guys are all so emotional -- so much of the time.
the third is the bizarre friends he keeps -- apart from the obvious (and omnipresent) PM - Peter Mandelson to you and me and PG - Philip Gould - his big buddies are Alex Ferguson offering a lot of political advice (was Tony Blair managing Man Utd at the same time), Alan Clark and Nick Soames... and most recent mention Brendan Forster. But no business people. No civil servants. And I had never realised Carole Caplin was around for quite so long... and was so important to the Blairs.
the fourth is how important Bill Clinton is to him and how much BC stays involved even after he steps down as President - even though he is also surprisingly positive about Dubya. But there is a passage near the end as AC tires of life in Downing Street when BC exposits on political strategy to AC and PM and AC (compare and contrast) drops his jaw at the biggest political genius of recent times..
the fifth is not so surprising having been in No.10 -- just how much time foreign affairs - the Balkans, then Afghanistan and then Iraq and Northern Ireland take up -- but seems to have risen to new heights under TB - and is matched by the other phenomenon -- the PM (TB not PM) is clearly completely detached form anything to do with the economy. Off the radar. And climate change gets its first mention on p 632 -- on the plane to WSSD in Jo'burg in 2002.
the sixth though is how irrelevant the civil service is to the Blair operation - a few mention of a few No, 10 Private Secretaries; a couple of times when the Cabinet Secretary is wheeled in; John Scarlett and some spooks as Iraq hots up -- but otherwise the civil service may as well not exist. Any idea of the Cabinet Secretary as an important player is not part of this script.
the seventh - and not a surprise - is just how much he hates the media without acknowledging any role in having been part of the sort of media we have -- or of the way he and the other Labour spinners used it against the previous government. Interesting to see how maddening AC found Charlie Whelan to deal with.
interesting too to read his views on Cabinet Ministers -- in particular his complete loathing of Clare Short from the start; despair at Mo Mowlem but clear on why Margaret Beckett was always regarded as such a safe pair of hands. But the person who emerges really well from the whole thing is John Prescott who comes over as a really solid and sensible player keeping his head when everyone else is in swooning hysterics.
So despite the length a fascinating if overemoting view of government, When we get to the real thing with added TB-GB, please leave out all the self-praise; too much personal info -- because just as you had to read Nigel Lawson to understand 80s economic policy, the real AC diaries will be read long after any TB autobiography for what really was going on in government.
on an (AC type) personal note, another major milestone this morning -- first time I put a sock on my left foot. Sounds minor but inability to put my socks on was the outstanding barrier to independent living - but does not signify new improved bendiness but the purchase of a nifty device called a "Sockaid" at the disabled shop in Bognor - a Blue Peter style contraption of a piece of plastic and two strings -- strange but effective.
First though the really amazing thing is that despite AC being appalled by Hutton's request for his diaries they are amazingly personal -- if I had been editing it I would have deleted much of the home life sections.. but the other thing I am amazed by is the sheer amount of time AC must have spent recording people telling him what a great job he was doing... insecure - probably; egomaniacal - absolutely. I don't for a minute deny that within his own terms AC was doing a good job - but does he really need to write it down when he is that busy... and leave it in? maybe there were more psychological flaws around in Downing Street than we thought.
the second is the bizarre Jane Austen style world our leaders seem to inhabit. Worrying about clothes - Tony seems to have had some terrible outfits. Worrying what other people think of them. Looking to friends for help and support. Calling each other. Writing to each other. Does anyone else have the time for all that. And how they all go on holiday together somewhere in the South of France... and these guys are all so emotional -- so much of the time.
the third is the bizarre friends he keeps -- apart from the obvious (and omnipresent) PM - Peter Mandelson to you and me and PG - Philip Gould - his big buddies are Alex Ferguson offering a lot of political advice (was Tony Blair managing Man Utd at the same time), Alan Clark and Nick Soames... and most recent mention Brendan Forster. But no business people. No civil servants. And I had never realised Carole Caplin was around for quite so long... and was so important to the Blairs.
the fourth is how important Bill Clinton is to him and how much BC stays involved even after he steps down as President - even though he is also surprisingly positive about Dubya. But there is a passage near the end as AC tires of life in Downing Street when BC exposits on political strategy to AC and PM and AC (compare and contrast) drops his jaw at the biggest political genius of recent times..
the fifth is not so surprising having been in No.10 -- just how much time foreign affairs - the Balkans, then Afghanistan and then Iraq and Northern Ireland take up -- but seems to have risen to new heights under TB - and is matched by the other phenomenon -- the PM (TB not PM) is clearly completely detached form anything to do with the economy. Off the radar. And climate change gets its first mention on p 632 -- on the plane to WSSD in Jo'burg in 2002.
the sixth though is how irrelevant the civil service is to the Blair operation - a few mention of a few No, 10 Private Secretaries; a couple of times when the Cabinet Secretary is wheeled in; John Scarlett and some spooks as Iraq hots up -- but otherwise the civil service may as well not exist. Any idea of the Cabinet Secretary as an important player is not part of this script.
the seventh - and not a surprise - is just how much he hates the media without acknowledging any role in having been part of the sort of media we have -- or of the way he and the other Labour spinners used it against the previous government. Interesting to see how maddening AC found Charlie Whelan to deal with.
interesting too to read his views on Cabinet Ministers -- in particular his complete loathing of Clare Short from the start; despair at Mo Mowlem but clear on why Margaret Beckett was always regarded as such a safe pair of hands. But the person who emerges really well from the whole thing is John Prescott who comes over as a really solid and sensible player keeping his head when everyone else is in swooning hysterics.
So despite the length a fascinating if overemoting view of government, When we get to the real thing with added TB-GB, please leave out all the self-praise; too much personal info -- because just as you had to read Nigel Lawson to understand 80s economic policy, the real AC diaries will be read long after any TB autobiography for what really was going on in government.
on an (AC type) personal note, another major milestone this morning -- first time I put a sock on my left foot. Sounds minor but inability to put my socks on was the outstanding barrier to independent living - but does not signify new improved bendiness but the purchase of a nifty device called a "Sockaid" at the disabled shop in Bognor - a Blue Peter style contraption of a piece of plastic and two strings -- strange but effective.
Wednesday 5 March 2008
Road pricing - RIP?
So the government has finally ruled out national road pricing for the time being -- rather than rely on the convention that all Ms Kelly's predecessors have subscribed to - that road pricing is a great idea in theory - but unfortunately always ten years (or about seven Transport secretaries) away. Indeed when I did transport policy in the No 10 Policy Unit in 1994, road pricing was ten years away -- so we must have had it for the last three years...
Galling to see the people who organised the guerrilla attack via the No.10 website glowing at their victory. But the fact that this can be reported as a victory -- rather than as a defeat and a setback - shows how poorly we have framed the debate about transport in this country under successive governments. And how much we allow transport policy to be held in the thrall of motorists without realising that it profoundly affects everyone's quality of life and in a space constrained island appeasing motorists is a zero sum game - but noone else is well enough organised to get 2 million people to sign a petition. So if the motorists are victorious, who are the losers.
The news about the decision on road pricing coincided with reading "Car Sick" by Lynn Sloman, ex of Transport 2000. Not probably high on the reading list of the Downing Street petitioners. But some quite interesting stuff on the way planning and transport policy has evolved here over the decades compared to other European countries. One of the stories that most surprised me talking to my mother was about the badly behaved dog she had when she worked in London. She told me that aforesaid candidate for Dog Borstal was allowed to roam around the streets during the day -- the fences in their garden in South East London weren't high enough to keep him in. When I asked how a dog could patrol the streets of London as though it was a village in Rajasthan she simply said that there were no cars...and that was the mid 1950s.
One of the interesting wakeup calls to come out of Car Sick is how recent mass car ownership and mass car use is - why Bruno could have the run of New Cross without becoming roadkill. But the second really interesting compare and contrast is with the cycling enthusiasts of Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. They were on the same track as us in the 1960s, redesigning cities around cars not people and seeing the same declines in cycling and walking as we did. But the paths diverged some time in the mid-1970s - a function of the oil crisis, increased environmental and (maybe -- although it doesn't stop them smoking themselves stupid - health consciousness) and city planners started to invest in people as opposed to car infrastructure. So the alleged cultural differences which get the Germans and Dutch on their bikes while we sit in our cars are actually the product of different policy choices. And those choices have meant that some countries have managed to escape from having transport and planning policies dictated by motorists rather than all potential road users.
National road pricing may of course be less relevant here than lots of effective local schemes. It was never clear how you could combine a universal national scheme with widespread local schemes where local people reclaim their space and made it work for everyone - of all ages. And even for dogs. So it would be good if yesterday's announcement meant national road pricing is dead - long live lots of local road pricing. And while the person out of their car can enjoy more car-tamed environments, our petitioner friends can sit in frustrated tailbacks on the hard shoulder of the M1 wondering why no-one ever got to grips with managing demand for road space.
As a postscript, one of the other points in Car Sick is that there are huge amounts of ads for cars -- but none for cycling or walking or public transport. As a big consumer of daytime TV I can testify to the never ending diet of car ads between wickets in the cricket or at changes of end in the tennis - most of them telling me how green I would be by buying this car or another. But today they were joined by a totally bizarre and very annoying ad for public transport - funded by UNEP and the International Association of Public Transport. Enough to make me buy that Landrover Freelander 2 tomorrow.
Galling to see the people who organised the guerrilla attack via the No.10 website glowing at their victory. But the fact that this can be reported as a victory -- rather than as a defeat and a setback - shows how poorly we have framed the debate about transport in this country under successive governments. And how much we allow transport policy to be held in the thrall of motorists without realising that it profoundly affects everyone's quality of life and in a space constrained island appeasing motorists is a zero sum game - but noone else is well enough organised to get 2 million people to sign a petition. So if the motorists are victorious, who are the losers.
The news about the decision on road pricing coincided with reading "Car Sick" by Lynn Sloman, ex of Transport 2000. Not probably high on the reading list of the Downing Street petitioners. But some quite interesting stuff on the way planning and transport policy has evolved here over the decades compared to other European countries. One of the stories that most surprised me talking to my mother was about the badly behaved dog she had when she worked in London. She told me that aforesaid candidate for Dog Borstal was allowed to roam around the streets during the day -- the fences in their garden in South East London weren't high enough to keep him in. When I asked how a dog could patrol the streets of London as though it was a village in Rajasthan she simply said that there were no cars...and that was the mid 1950s.
One of the interesting wakeup calls to come out of Car Sick is how recent mass car ownership and mass car use is - why Bruno could have the run of New Cross without becoming roadkill. But the second really interesting compare and contrast is with the cycling enthusiasts of Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. They were on the same track as us in the 1960s, redesigning cities around cars not people and seeing the same declines in cycling and walking as we did. But the paths diverged some time in the mid-1970s - a function of the oil crisis, increased environmental and (maybe -- although it doesn't stop them smoking themselves stupid - health consciousness) and city planners started to invest in people as opposed to car infrastructure. So the alleged cultural differences which get the Germans and Dutch on their bikes while we sit in our cars are actually the product of different policy choices. And those choices have meant that some countries have managed to escape from having transport and planning policies dictated by motorists rather than all potential road users.
National road pricing may of course be less relevant here than lots of effective local schemes. It was never clear how you could combine a universal national scheme with widespread local schemes where local people reclaim their space and made it work for everyone - of all ages. And even for dogs. So it would be good if yesterday's announcement meant national road pricing is dead - long live lots of local road pricing. And while the person out of their car can enjoy more car-tamed environments, our petitioner friends can sit in frustrated tailbacks on the hard shoulder of the M1 wondering why no-one ever got to grips with managing demand for road space.
As a postscript, one of the other points in Car Sick is that there are huge amounts of ads for cars -- but none for cycling or walking or public transport. As a big consumer of daytime TV I can testify to the never ending diet of car ads between wickets in the cricket or at changes of end in the tennis - most of them telling me how green I would be by buying this car or another. But today they were joined by a totally bizarre and very annoying ad for public transport - funded by UNEP and the International Association of Public Transport. Enough to make me buy that Landrover Freelander 2 tomorrow.
Monday 3 March 2008
Watching paint dry
have received a few complaints at the lack of medical updates on the blog. The truth is that I am in medical limbo - waiting for my new implanted hip to fuse with the bone is the medical equivalent of watching paint dry -- except there is nothing to see.. I can't tell if its going well or badly -- that has to wait for my consultant. I may be green or I may be amber. The big thing to avoid is re dislocating my hip -- which would be a definite red and I think I have avoided that as I am sure I would have noticed.
However six weeks (ie tomorrow!!!!) is a key milestone... I can start sleeping on my side which will be the biggest improvement in my quality of life since I ended the self-injection saga... I might even be able to start driving... (as long as I remember not ti run over my crutches which we nearly did the other week); I could start coming off crutches BUT that needs an X-ray -- and I have managed to hit consultant holiday time -- so that is delayed until 19 March and trip up to big city. In the meantime I have to stick to my partial weight bearing physio regime where within limitations I seem to be gradually getting more flexible. Toughest questions are when the physio asks whether I am better than before and I have to admit I did not spend my life in awe at how much or how little I could elevate my left leg while lying on my side.
The big discovery is swimming with the pensioners. I am now pretty confident swimming on my back and I also seem to do better front crawl that ever before - which is very gratifying (the big no-no is breaststroke as the frog style leg action risks undoing all the good of the op by making my hip pop out). What is really good for me is striding around the pool -- but that still feels a bit wobbly. But for half an hour I am liberated from crutchdom. Next update post consultant visit and hopefully can start the long process of retraining my muscles to support a straight leg....
However six weeks (ie tomorrow!!!!) is a key milestone... I can start sleeping on my side which will be the biggest improvement in my quality of life since I ended the self-injection saga... I might even be able to start driving... (as long as I remember not ti run over my crutches which we nearly did the other week); I could start coming off crutches BUT that needs an X-ray -- and I have managed to hit consultant holiday time -- so that is delayed until 19 March and trip up to big city. In the meantime I have to stick to my partial weight bearing physio regime where within limitations I seem to be gradually getting more flexible. Toughest questions are when the physio asks whether I am better than before and I have to admit I did not spend my life in awe at how much or how little I could elevate my left leg while lying on my side.
The big discovery is swimming with the pensioners. I am now pretty confident swimming on my back and I also seem to do better front crawl that ever before - which is very gratifying (the big no-no is breaststroke as the frog style leg action risks undoing all the good of the op by making my hip pop out). What is really good for me is striding around the pool -- but that still feels a bit wobbly. But for half an hour I am liberated from crutchdom. Next update post consultant visit and hopefully can start the long process of retraining my muscles to support a straight leg....
Saturday 1 March 2008
Compulsory reading
I used to think that every civil servant should be made to visit the Millennium Dome - to make sure they realised that it was not enough to hope that a misconceived project would suddenly come right and that things could go horribly wrong. My latest candidate for the mandatory list is to read "The Great Deluge" by Douglas Brinkley (recommended in my appeal for reading suggestions by Tom Burke of E3G) -- about the week of Hurricane Katrina.
When I lived in California I was always a bit sceptical about the handy earthquake advice in the yellow pages suggesting that every home should have three days of supplies available in case of a major disaster. After all this was America -- a first world not a third world country and surely it was inconceivable that the USA could leave any of its citizens needing basic supplies for three whole days. Against that complacent background, GD is a stunning wake-up call showing how badly bureaucracies can screw up. Its a great antidote against the muddling through thesis.There are many villains of the piece. First of all years and years of development which eroded the Louisiana coastline -- seemingly no politician since Theodore Roosevelt understood the role of the wetlands in protecting the cities. All compounded by a rush to develop and a failure to maintain. Sustainable development anyone?
The second villain is corruption and cronyism. I had been about to blog earlier on the massive tax that corruption imposes on poor countries after reading a book on India which suggested that only 30% of any funds made it through to intended recipient after everyone in government had taken their cut. But GD shows that corruption can expose the poor and vulnerable even in the richest of countries - corruption as a reason why money voted for maintenance of the levees was not spent and they were hopelessly undermaintained at the time of Katrina hit; in the New Orleans Police department and cronyism in the appointment of the wrong person to run the Federal Emergency Management Agency (the infamous Brownie); in letting contracts to contributors not the those best qualified to meet needs. But of all these the most pernicious impact was the Mayor of New Orleans concern at the impact of requiring what might prove to be an unnecessary mandatory evacuation on his business backers when there was still time to get the old, sick and poor out of the city -- and these were overwhelmimingly Katrina's victims.
The third villain is focus. The absorption of FEMA into the department of Homeland Security meant that the big boss was only really interested in terrorism - a second 9/11 not a big storm. And FEMA could cope with hurricanes -- and recover from wind damage -- but not flooding following a hurricane. FEMA was complacent because it had done well with the last four Florida hurricanes but those were ordinary hurricanes......and in a Republican state in an election year....
The fourth villain is a failure of political leadership - compounded by the intrusion of partisan politics in the struggle between the Democrat governor of Louisiana and the Republican president. And a Mayor holed up in a hotel determined to put his own safety above any sign of caring about the plight of his citizens - a failure to be there.
But all that was made much worse by incompetence before the event - lack of preparation (buses standing in flood zones; failure to have any lists of vulnerable people; failure to have any plans to evacuate in many public facilities; a failure to think about how to contact people not tracking the eye of the storm through the internet or on TV and a failure to learn any lessons from a simulation exercise of just such a catastrophe a couple of years before - and then unconscionable bureaucracy after the event -- stopping help that was being offered getting through, compounded by a lack of imagination... about what people might need; how they might react. and one of the most bizarre lessons to come out of Katrina is how many people refused evacuation because they did not want to be separated from their pets -- misery compounded by pets not being allowed on the buses which finally arrived.
And throw into the mix the more peculiarly US factors of segregated neighbourhoods and an awful lot of weapons around which means when law and order began to break down it did so with potentially very deadly consequences.Lest this all sounds dire, it is -- but it is leavened by huge numbers of stories of amazing individual heroism, some real corporate social responsibility showing up the leaden footed Feds = Wal Mart. American Airlines and Coca Cola to name but three and some stunning acts of individual generosity which I think no other country would ever match.
So it might never happen here on this scale and in this way - but after reading this I will never treat our business continuity planning as a boring compliance chore - and we might want to send it to everyone we are asking to draw up an adaptation plan = and a good Christmas present for many of our friends in the Treasury.
When I lived in California I was always a bit sceptical about the handy earthquake advice in the yellow pages suggesting that every home should have three days of supplies available in case of a major disaster. After all this was America -- a first world not a third world country and surely it was inconceivable that the USA could leave any of its citizens needing basic supplies for three whole days. Against that complacent background, GD is a stunning wake-up call showing how badly bureaucracies can screw up. Its a great antidote against the muddling through thesis.There are many villains of the piece. First of all years and years of development which eroded the Louisiana coastline -- seemingly no politician since Theodore Roosevelt understood the role of the wetlands in protecting the cities. All compounded by a rush to develop and a failure to maintain. Sustainable development anyone?
The second villain is corruption and cronyism. I had been about to blog earlier on the massive tax that corruption imposes on poor countries after reading a book on India which suggested that only 30% of any funds made it through to intended recipient after everyone in government had taken their cut. But GD shows that corruption can expose the poor and vulnerable even in the richest of countries - corruption as a reason why money voted for maintenance of the levees was not spent and they were hopelessly undermaintained at the time of Katrina hit; in the New Orleans Police department and cronyism in the appointment of the wrong person to run the Federal Emergency Management Agency (the infamous Brownie); in letting contracts to contributors not the those best qualified to meet needs. But of all these the most pernicious impact was the Mayor of New Orleans concern at the impact of requiring what might prove to be an unnecessary mandatory evacuation on his business backers when there was still time to get the old, sick and poor out of the city -- and these were overwhelmimingly Katrina's victims.
The third villain is focus. The absorption of FEMA into the department of Homeland Security meant that the big boss was only really interested in terrorism - a second 9/11 not a big storm. And FEMA could cope with hurricanes -- and recover from wind damage -- but not flooding following a hurricane. FEMA was complacent because it had done well with the last four Florida hurricanes but those were ordinary hurricanes......and in a Republican state in an election year....
The fourth villain is a failure of political leadership - compounded by the intrusion of partisan politics in the struggle between the Democrat governor of Louisiana and the Republican president. And a Mayor holed up in a hotel determined to put his own safety above any sign of caring about the plight of his citizens - a failure to be there.
But all that was made much worse by incompetence before the event - lack of preparation (buses standing in flood zones; failure to have any lists of vulnerable people; failure to have any plans to evacuate in many public facilities; a failure to think about how to contact people not tracking the eye of the storm through the internet or on TV and a failure to learn any lessons from a simulation exercise of just such a catastrophe a couple of years before - and then unconscionable bureaucracy after the event -- stopping help that was being offered getting through, compounded by a lack of imagination... about what people might need; how they might react. and one of the most bizarre lessons to come out of Katrina is how many people refused evacuation because they did not want to be separated from their pets -- misery compounded by pets not being allowed on the buses which finally arrived.
And throw into the mix the more peculiarly US factors of segregated neighbourhoods and an awful lot of weapons around which means when law and order began to break down it did so with potentially very deadly consequences.Lest this all sounds dire, it is -- but it is leavened by huge numbers of stories of amazing individual heroism, some real corporate social responsibility showing up the leaden footed Feds = Wal Mart. American Airlines and Coca Cola to name but three and some stunning acts of individual generosity which I think no other country would ever match.
So it might never happen here on this scale and in this way - but after reading this I will never treat our business continuity planning as a boring compliance chore - and we might want to send it to everyone we are asking to draw up an adaptation plan = and a good Christmas present for many of our friends in the Treasury.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)