Now that the London election is over, cabbies have something to talk about other than the need to get rid of Ken. So when I decided to nip into a cab today the subject was whether governments have a natural shelf life and why they seem to run out of steam after eight or nine years in office. After all in many other walks of life people are only just starting to get into their career stride after that sort of period.
The taxi driver and I were trying to work out why - if this is indeed true - this might happen.
First, new governments have had a lot of time in opposition to think about what they want to do - and have time to plan how to hit the ground running. In government its much harder to find the time to think new thoughts - the day-to-day grind of government gets in the way. And increasing amounts of time have to be spent defending the record rather than thinking what to do next.
Second, while the quality of Cabinets probably gets better a couple of years into government with the sieving out of those who happened to be in the right place at the change and the chance to bring on new talent, over time there is quite a high rate of talent attrition - through death, disgrace, disagreement or disillusion - and the pool does not seem to regenerate.
Third, the link between the politicians and their advisers diminishes -- as the advisers either move into formal politics or into money-making - and the people providing advice are less close to the people they are advising.
Fourth, the people at the top - or some of them - probably just get tired. Government is a seven day a week business. The pressure is relentless. News this week that the new PM of Australia is causing mayhem in the public service by expecting them to match his 5.15 am starts does not necessarily bode well for his ability to do a John Howard and last for years. One reason why Ken Clarke seemed to keep his bounciness to the end was that he refused to do the Today programme before 8.10 and still went to Ronnie Scott's, Notts Forest and Trent Bridge and birding rather then be Chancellor 24.7.
And finally, events just catch up. The length of time that you can go on blaming the legacy has some limitations. Inevitable failures start to stack up and the positives get taken for granted. And people begin to forget why they chucked out the other lot....
The Americans save themselves the problem with term limits -- which in some cases has the bizarre effect of leaving the public wanting more. Its arguable that we should have term limits for Mayor. But term limits don't work in a Parliamentary system - so we seem to have moved from a one full term electoral cycle to a more natural twelve year cycle. At least that was what the cabbie thought.
Friday 30 May 2008
Sunday 25 May 2008
The triumph of eurovision
So much is being written about the Crewe and Nantwich result that the time has come to focus on the other poll which is receiving coverage today - the outcome of Eurovision. UK last, Russia first and our song outcompeted by assorted Balkan and FSU weirdos - all down to dastardly coalition voting. Clear that we have no coalition beyond Ireland (who gave us 8 points) and San Marino (6 points). Doesn't augur well for CAP reform. Even our oldest ally, Portugal, gave 12 points to an appalling effort from Spain and nada to us - maybe as revenge over the Lisbon treaty. (lets you are concerned this means I actually watched eurovision, I will admit only to watching the voting - certainly not the songs... which are not where the action is).
So Terry Wogan is threatening to quit; serious debate on whether we should stalk off in a huff and create an alternative competition to give Western Europe a chance as we - apart from the Norwegians who seemed to get 5 points from everyone - and other Western countries no longer have the opportunity to show their best face to the world with great songs such as Congratulations, Boom-Bang-a-Bang etc.
But in the week when Moscow had to pay host to two sets of English fans, in a League where our money increasingly prices out anyone's else's ability to compete, it seems churlish to resent giving the poorer and more marginalised countries of Europe a stage on which they can have eyes on the prize - and vote for each other if they want. Much more heartening to see Croats voting for Serbs in Eurovision (I think they did at least) than taking chunks out of each other. And we can sit back smugly and note that the Russian winner was singing in at least some sort of English - as were 95% of the other entrants. So while England may not have won, English certainly has.
So Sir Terry needs to relax and embrace the new Europe. And maybe we ought to be prepared to give up our automatic right of entry - and suffer the same fate as the Irish turkey.
So Terry Wogan is threatening to quit; serious debate on whether we should stalk off in a huff and create an alternative competition to give Western Europe a chance as we - apart from the Norwegians who seemed to get 5 points from everyone - and other Western countries no longer have the opportunity to show their best face to the world with great songs such as Congratulations, Boom-Bang-a-Bang etc.
But in the week when Moscow had to pay host to two sets of English fans, in a League where our money increasingly prices out anyone's else's ability to compete, it seems churlish to resent giving the poorer and more marginalised countries of Europe a stage on which they can have eyes on the prize - and vote for each other if they want. Much more heartening to see Croats voting for Serbs in Eurovision (I think they did at least) than taking chunks out of each other. And we can sit back smugly and note that the Russian winner was singing in at least some sort of English - as were 95% of the other entrants. So while England may not have won, English certainly has.
So Sir Terry needs to relax and embrace the new Europe. And maybe we ought to be prepared to give up our automatic right of entry - and suffer the same fate as the Irish turkey.
Monday 19 May 2008
Out for a duck
Not a comment on the Saturday test washout - frustrating thought that was. Just back from last trip to physio - no need to see him again. Months ahead of schedule(well one month ahead of the schedule he thought for me, and another month ahead of where a less diligent patient would be!). Allowed back on bike and we agreed that living up ninety stairs was a GOOD THING as built exercise into daily regime. No one dare ever complain about that again - including me.
Only problem is mallard like gait. So am being sent off to a podiatrist to see if he can do a shoe insert to make me walk more like a person and less like a duck.
Meanwhile have got new regime at the gym - including some nasty exercises on those oversized beach balls. But since am down in Chichester today am going for a pensioner swim this afternoon - and hopefully will avoid the cunning speed camera that nabbed me a few weeks back and got me my first ever speeding ticket.
Only problem is mallard like gait. So am being sent off to a podiatrist to see if he can do a shoe insert to make me walk more like a person and less like a duck.
Meanwhile have got new regime at the gym - including some nasty exercises on those oversized beach balls. But since am down in Chichester today am going for a pensioner swim this afternoon - and hopefully will avoid the cunning speed camera that nabbed me a few weeks back and got me my first ever speeding ticket.
Major revision
Since even Rory Bremner has seen fit to dust off his John Major impression (good Surrey tie and undoubtedly more fun than trying to do David Cameron and George Osborne) and JM now seems to be the benchmark for all things poor in a Prime Minister, it seems a good time to try to recall those not so halcyon days of the 1990s when JM was at the helm. And for those of you who have not read my CV, I should declare an interest as JM is undoubtedly the politician I know and have known best, as his Private Secretary as Chief Secretary at HMT, and then again in the Policy Unit at No.10.
One thing everyone forgets about John Major is that he was actually Prime Minister for a very long time - six and a half years - no Paul Martin and Kim Campbell he (short-lived Canadian PMs - check them out on wikipedia). Everyone remembers that he squeaked a chancy - Labour not quite ready, not sure about the welsh bloke election - in 1992 - but before that he was really quite popular. Partly because he wasn't Thatcher, but also because he defused the political time bomb of the day - the poll tax - with the council tax, because he did genuinely change the style of government to a more collegiate basis and partly because he seemed quite nice and normal. And remember that at the time, Maastricht was seen as a major (joke - he had to suffer a lot of those) negotiating triumph.
One of JM's problems was that his meteoric rise to the top meant that he did not come to No.10 with any particular agenda - and indeed was not elected on a particular mandate other than not being Heseltine. But the seeds of destruction of his Premiership were only in one respect self-sown - the decision to join the ERM in 1990 at too high a rate - though the consensus view at the time. For the rest what wrecked his Premiership was partly the country's fatigue with the Tories vs a still only semi electable Labour party, partly the legacy of the last 1980s boom and bust, but mainly the fact that the Tories failed to recover from the divisions over the manner of Thatcher's exit, and the fact that they were really deeply and genuinely split over Europe. To manage all that with a majority of 20 was the near impossibility that provided the backdrop to Major's last five years -- and to do that when your biggest move as Chancellor had backfired spectacularly was beyond impossible.
The need to get the Maastricht Bill through at almost all costs - with all votes on eh knife edge provided the background for all the time I was at No. 10. But despite that - even though there were some mad gesture politics going on to appease the right with Back to Basics as the nadir - the Major government does deserve to be remembered for some positive things. The Good Friday agreement would never have happened so quickly without the foundations being laid by the Downing Street declaration. The post ERM regime put in place by Lamont and then Clarke laid the foundations for Bank of England independence and they managed their way out of the early 1990s recession and took some tough decisions to get the pubic finances back on track. And the council tax - whatever its faults - has stuck.
So maybe there are worse things than being compared to John Major - and maybe the time is due for a Major revision.
One thing everyone forgets about John Major is that he was actually Prime Minister for a very long time - six and a half years - no Paul Martin and Kim Campbell he (short-lived Canadian PMs - check them out on wikipedia). Everyone remembers that he squeaked a chancy - Labour not quite ready, not sure about the welsh bloke election - in 1992 - but before that he was really quite popular. Partly because he wasn't Thatcher, but also because he defused the political time bomb of the day - the poll tax - with the council tax, because he did genuinely change the style of government to a more collegiate basis and partly because he seemed quite nice and normal. And remember that at the time, Maastricht was seen as a major (joke - he had to suffer a lot of those) negotiating triumph.
One of JM's problems was that his meteoric rise to the top meant that he did not come to No.10 with any particular agenda - and indeed was not elected on a particular mandate other than not being Heseltine. But the seeds of destruction of his Premiership were only in one respect self-sown - the decision to join the ERM in 1990 at too high a rate - though the consensus view at the time. For the rest what wrecked his Premiership was partly the country's fatigue with the Tories vs a still only semi electable Labour party, partly the legacy of the last 1980s boom and bust, but mainly the fact that the Tories failed to recover from the divisions over the manner of Thatcher's exit, and the fact that they were really deeply and genuinely split over Europe. To manage all that with a majority of 20 was the near impossibility that provided the backdrop to Major's last five years -- and to do that when your biggest move as Chancellor had backfired spectacularly was beyond impossible.
The need to get the Maastricht Bill through at almost all costs - with all votes on eh knife edge provided the background for all the time I was at No. 10. But despite that - even though there were some mad gesture politics going on to appease the right with Back to Basics as the nadir - the Major government does deserve to be remembered for some positive things. The Good Friday agreement would never have happened so quickly without the foundations being laid by the Downing Street declaration. The post ERM regime put in place by Lamont and then Clarke laid the foundations for Bank of England independence and they managed their way out of the early 1990s recession and took some tough decisions to get the pubic finances back on track. And the council tax - whatever its faults - has stuck.
So maybe there are worse things than being compared to John Major - and maybe the time is due for a Major revision.
Sunday 11 May 2008
Too hot to blog
as the thermometer rises, it just doesn't seem to make sense to spend precious free time in front of the computer rather than enjoying a massive dose of Vitamin D. So no thoughts this weekend ...
It's of course not just the temperature that is rising, but the febrile political atmosphere which is curbing my scope for blogging. Almost anything worth commenting on (except maybe wondering why Surrey have no bowling whatsoever) will be seen through the lens of what is going on at Westminster, City Hall or even Edinburgh. It's not just that though. Returning to work has been good - sort of. What two months off through had made me forget was the sheer weight of the corporate overhead. Have been spending days doing interviews -- all based on competencies - with helpful guidance form HR that allowing people to spin their past is a much better way of interviewing than asking people to show you have any really interesting take on the job you are applying for, any ideas you want to put into practise and any concept of the difference between your current job and the next one. Past performance in a different job may not always be the best guide to success in a new one....
And despite Gus O'Donnell's great desire for passion in the civil service, I have someone protesting that it was unreasonable asking someone applying to run the Defra as sustainability leader programme whether they could think of a time in their past when they had successfully applied SD principles to a policy. So no room for passion (or even commonsense in interview preparation) there.
But at least the weather is great for now. Am getting bouncier and bouncier as can go for reasonable walks without the crutch and gym regime appears to be paying off (though am having to make up a lot of post hoc justification about building muscle as weight appears to be increasing). But the First test starts next week -- will probably be shivering at Lords next Saturday.
It's of course not just the temperature that is rising, but the febrile political atmosphere which is curbing my scope for blogging. Almost anything worth commenting on (except maybe wondering why Surrey have no bowling whatsoever) will be seen through the lens of what is going on at Westminster, City Hall or even Edinburgh. It's not just that though. Returning to work has been good - sort of. What two months off through had made me forget was the sheer weight of the corporate overhead. Have been spending days doing interviews -- all based on competencies - with helpful guidance form HR that allowing people to spin their past is a much better way of interviewing than asking people to show you have any really interesting take on the job you are applying for, any ideas you want to put into practise and any concept of the difference between your current job and the next one. Past performance in a different job may not always be the best guide to success in a new one....
And despite Gus O'Donnell's great desire for passion in the civil service, I have someone protesting that it was unreasonable asking someone applying to run the Defra as sustainability leader programme whether they could think of a time in their past when they had successfully applied SD principles to a policy. So no room for passion (or even commonsense in interview preparation) there.
But at least the weather is great for now. Am getting bouncier and bouncier as can go for reasonable walks without the crutch and gym regime appears to be paying off (though am having to make up a lot of post hoc justification about building muscle as weight appears to be increasing). But the First test starts next week -- will probably be shivering at Lords next Saturday.
Monday 5 May 2008
Use of evidence
Its a long time ago but there used to be a course in Law at Oxford called "use of evidence" (at least I think there was...). And in our adversarial system of law that means cleverness in selecting facts to support a predetermined thesis (usually - it wasn't me, gov...). But at least there there is a judge and jury to try to adjudicate between two competing half-truths.
But it's interesting how that approach to evidence has morphed into the public arena - again a product of adversarial government - between parties but also between competing government agencies who feel a need to "campaign" at other bits of government - or the public. I was reminded of this at the weekend by reviews of a book on the Aids epidemic ("The Wisdom of Whores" by Elisabeth Pisani) - where describing the competition for Aids funding UNAids had to beef up data to suggest that there was likely to be mass spread of Aids into the general population in the developed West in order to attract funding and political attention. Horrific numbers of deaths among marginalised communities and across marginalised continents were not enough.
There is a tendency to do the same now where evidence is selected to back a thesis - rather than allow the thesis to emerge from the evidence - a point put very nicely (as it were) by the head of Public Health at NICE in a seminar we had recently at Defra. Their comparative advantage - he claimed - was that they reviewed all the evidence - rather that find the evidence that worked. And the good news there is that - even with a very limited evidence base - most public health interventions they have looked at are incredibly cost-effective.
But if the temptations within government are to pick the evidence to back a thesis, the temptation in NGOs is near irresistible. NGOs see themselves as advocates - they are there to make a case. Bjorn Lomborg (squeals of anguish...not least at the fact that he dared to question these paragons of public virtue) has done much to expose some of the half-truths of some of the environmental movement - but my favourite example came from the case of the Canadian Cancer Society where employees were banned form mentioning the number of cancer deaths in Canada - because the top of the organisation realised that in a war to the death with the Heart Foundation they would lose if people realised that coronary disease was still the top killer. Not much chance of a rational debate on health priorities there...
If everyone treated NGO evidence with a hearty pinch of salt, none of this would matter. But people don't. Evidence suggests that most of the pubic regard NGOs as more trustworthy than government and certainly than politicians. They may be nicer people (though not sure there is any evidence of that), but it is naive not to recognise that they are less held to account even than government and have more incentives to abuse evidence to support their one-sided view of the world - and to panic the rest of us into financial support for them.
One of the interesting political developments over the past thirty years is how NGOs have changed form being regarded as "pressure groups" - the language of the 1970s where they were seen as a peculiarly US phenomenon to be studied with a degree of haughty distaste as nasty self-interested people trying to influence legislation for their own ends into being "stakeholders" - nice, fluffy people who deserve an inside track in forming government policy. Of course there is a world of difference between the tax lobbyists trying to reduce their clients tax bills - and the public interest lobbyists trying to put up other people's. But there still needs to be a sceptical approach. The latter's motives may not be selfish - but they do still have a high degree of organisational self-interest - and simply claiming you are acting in the public interest does not mean you necessarily have an - unelected - right to determine what that is.
So we need more intelligent consuming of NGOs by government and the media; better recognition of their pluses and minuses; more holding to account of them and tier trustees for what they say - and for government to make clear it has a very high standard of evidence - and that others need to meet it if they are to be taken seriously.
But it's interesting how that approach to evidence has morphed into the public arena - again a product of adversarial government - between parties but also between competing government agencies who feel a need to "campaign" at other bits of government - or the public. I was reminded of this at the weekend by reviews of a book on the Aids epidemic ("The Wisdom of Whores" by Elisabeth Pisani) - where describing the competition for Aids funding UNAids had to beef up data to suggest that there was likely to be mass spread of Aids into the general population in the developed West in order to attract funding and political attention. Horrific numbers of deaths among marginalised communities and across marginalised continents were not enough.
There is a tendency to do the same now where evidence is selected to back a thesis - rather than allow the thesis to emerge from the evidence - a point put very nicely (as it were) by the head of Public Health at NICE in a seminar we had recently at Defra. Their comparative advantage - he claimed - was that they reviewed all the evidence - rather that find the evidence that worked. And the good news there is that - even with a very limited evidence base - most public health interventions they have looked at are incredibly cost-effective.
But if the temptations within government are to pick the evidence to back a thesis, the temptation in NGOs is near irresistible. NGOs see themselves as advocates - they are there to make a case. Bjorn Lomborg (squeals of anguish...not least at the fact that he dared to question these paragons of public virtue) has done much to expose some of the half-truths of some of the environmental movement - but my favourite example came from the case of the Canadian Cancer Society where employees were banned form mentioning the number of cancer deaths in Canada - because the top of the organisation realised that in a war to the death with the Heart Foundation they would lose if people realised that coronary disease was still the top killer. Not much chance of a rational debate on health priorities there...
If everyone treated NGO evidence with a hearty pinch of salt, none of this would matter. But people don't. Evidence suggests that most of the pubic regard NGOs as more trustworthy than government and certainly than politicians. They may be nicer people (though not sure there is any evidence of that), but it is naive not to recognise that they are less held to account even than government and have more incentives to abuse evidence to support their one-sided view of the world - and to panic the rest of us into financial support for them.
One of the interesting political developments over the past thirty years is how NGOs have changed form being regarded as "pressure groups" - the language of the 1970s where they were seen as a peculiarly US phenomenon to be studied with a degree of haughty distaste as nasty self-interested people trying to influence legislation for their own ends into being "stakeholders" - nice, fluffy people who deserve an inside track in forming government policy. Of course there is a world of difference between the tax lobbyists trying to reduce their clients tax bills - and the public interest lobbyists trying to put up other people's. But there still needs to be a sceptical approach. The latter's motives may not be selfish - but they do still have a high degree of organisational self-interest - and simply claiming you are acting in the public interest does not mean you necessarily have an - unelected - right to determine what that is.
So we need more intelligent consuming of NGOs by government and the media; better recognition of their pluses and minuses; more holding to account of them and tier trustees for what they say - and for government to make clear it has a very high standard of evidence - and that others need to meet it if they are to be taken seriously.
Sunday 4 May 2008
The first casualty
So the fallout continues apace from last week's elections -- and the first casualty looks like being the environment.
First, the pathetic performance of the Greens in the London mayoral result (even with the ideal opportunity for a gesture vote on the first round) showed a measly 3.15% support. Not exactly a sign of the power of the Green movement to make more traditional parties quake in their electoral boots.
Second, the fact that Ken seemed to get no political kudos from his ambitious climate change targets in a London debate that focused on crime, corruption and bendy buses. Not a single question at the debate I went to on Monday.
Third, the promised Boris review of the congestion charge. As the drivers of gas guzzlers sleep more easily that they will be able to terrorise the rest of us off the streets, the review could be good news... skip the misguided view that some cars are OK in central London; review the absurd westward extension which has given the residents of W8 and SW3 a licence to drive at a discount into the centre while penalising all the residents of poorer neighbouring boroughs... but the risk is that this is all seen about easing the burden on motorists. And Boris seems to regard cycling as something to be confined to eccentric old Etonians and tourists -- not as something to be mainstreamed through London.
And finally, already briefings coming out that the listening and learning puts questionmarks over waste charging; the fuel duty rise (decision not needed until September... so why decide now?) and a suggestion that the PM should give up his passion for Africa and climate change. Not clear that Thursday's election results suggested that Africa was any nearer stability and prosperity, nor that climate change is any less of a threat.
We are clearly back into the stage of the political cycle where everything has to be calibrated against the backdrop of minute short-term political calculation - or at least everything except anti-terrorist measures. So the environment goes into cold storage to wait for happier times to return. Or is there anyone - outside the marginalised green movement - up for arguing that the environment is important, even when we aren't all feeling rich and bouncy?
First, the pathetic performance of the Greens in the London mayoral result (even with the ideal opportunity for a gesture vote on the first round) showed a measly 3.15% support. Not exactly a sign of the power of the Green movement to make more traditional parties quake in their electoral boots.
Second, the fact that Ken seemed to get no political kudos from his ambitious climate change targets in a London debate that focused on crime, corruption and bendy buses. Not a single question at the debate I went to on Monday.
Third, the promised Boris review of the congestion charge. As the drivers of gas guzzlers sleep more easily that they will be able to terrorise the rest of us off the streets, the review could be good news... skip the misguided view that some cars are OK in central London; review the absurd westward extension which has given the residents of W8 and SW3 a licence to drive at a discount into the centre while penalising all the residents of poorer neighbouring boroughs... but the risk is that this is all seen about easing the burden on motorists. And Boris seems to regard cycling as something to be confined to eccentric old Etonians and tourists -- not as something to be mainstreamed through London.
And finally, already briefings coming out that the listening and learning puts questionmarks over waste charging; the fuel duty rise (decision not needed until September... so why decide now?) and a suggestion that the PM should give up his passion for Africa and climate change. Not clear that Thursday's election results suggested that Africa was any nearer stability and prosperity, nor that climate change is any less of a threat.
We are clearly back into the stage of the political cycle where everything has to be calibrated against the backdrop of minute short-term political calculation - or at least everything except anti-terrorist measures. So the environment goes into cold storage to wait for happier times to return. Or is there anyone - outside the marginalised green movement - up for arguing that the environment is important, even when we aren't all feeling rich and bouncy?
Friday 2 May 2008
Victory!!!!
No - not an early glimpse of the London mayoral result -- we seem to have another three hours to wait as of now - but the verdict from my visit to the consultant on Wednesday. Not sure I would normally rejoice in spending £ 300 for a couple of photos that you can't exactly stick in an album and a brief chat about the merits of Setanta Sports (recommended by the way - not just for IPL but NHL as well -- doctor is a bit of a hockey head) - but worth paying for the verdict that everything going very well; implant now cemented in place and all I need now is to get muscles in shape.... and then the world is proverbial oyster (or mussel as I don't like oysters much).
So beginning to emerge from three months in which - well not much has changed: Democrats still don't know who their Presidential candidate is going to be; economy not looking very perky; we still don't know who will win the Premiership; we still don't have a President of Zimbabwe; polls still suggest general election two years away; we don't know who will be Sir Alan's apprentice or "Nancy". The only things that have changed are that Evan has worked out how not to "crash the pips" on the Today programme; people have started worrying about prices again - both those going up - food, petrol and those going down - houses; and some time later tonight a lot of cabbies may be celebrating the demise of Ken. One of the things that does seem to have changed is that traffic in London has got worse while I was away ... but that may be more a function of sitting watching taxi meters gobble cash instead of sailing past on the bike.
So next appointment in January.... will anything have changed by then?
So beginning to emerge from three months in which - well not much has changed: Democrats still don't know who their Presidential candidate is going to be; economy not looking very perky; we still don't know who will win the Premiership; we still don't have a President of Zimbabwe; polls still suggest general election two years away; we don't know who will be Sir Alan's apprentice or "Nancy". The only things that have changed are that Evan has worked out how not to "crash the pips" on the Today programme; people have started worrying about prices again - both those going up - food, petrol and those going down - houses; and some time later tonight a lot of cabbies may be celebrating the demise of Ken. One of the things that does seem to have changed is that traffic in London has got worse while I was away ... but that may be more a function of sitting watching taxi meters gobble cash instead of sailing past on the bike.
So next appointment in January.... will anything have changed by then?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)