back to basics

Back to basics in recent days – scything the grass at the back of the house (but only in the early morning when it is cooler) and organising at last the covering of the wooden schitza rooftiles with motor oil to ensure its properly sealed. We popped in last week to see Gabi who built and installed our drainpiping last autumn – and was happy to come and finish off the roof. The tiles were laid last September (see blog) and have since experienced several months of snow and then of sun. So the first coat of oil was quickly absorbed. And today is cooler – better for the 2 lads up on the roof. I prepared one of my special vegetable soups for them.
Between supplying them with nails, hammer, axe, wood etc, I continue the David Marquand book.

has the public lost trust in government?

A good post in the open Democracy blog about the widespread belief of a secular decline in public trust of government. Apparently in the US, there may be some evidence of that – but, in Europe, evidence of a continuous erosion in citizens’ satisfaction with the democratic process is absent altogether. Rather than a continuous a decline, the European Commission’s Eurobarometer surveys reveal only trendless fluctuation, and, if anything, even upward tendencies, notably in the Benelux, France, and Italy (see Figure 2 of paper). As the author argues –

Interestingly, some outliers do exhibit persistently lower average levels of satisfaction relative to other countries, suggesting that national political cultures may result in some systematic differences, yet even this didn’t stop satisfaction from rising to historically high levels (see Italy). And, while big drops have occurred, to be sure, as in Denmark in 1985 and Belgium in 1996, these have been temporary and equally punctuated by big increases when satisfaction returned to its previous levels.
Certainly, there are times when politicians and political institutions lose the trust of the public - the parliamentary expense scandals in the UK have, no doubt, had a deleterious effect on public confidence, just as the Italian ‘Tengentopoli’ scandals did in the early 1990s, as well as the skullduggery surrounding Richard Nixon in the 1970s. Such marked fluctuations of public trust over the years show that citizens can become deeply critical of their governments. But there is little evidence that such periodic loses of public trust have led, cumulatively, to a long-term erosion of confidence in politicians, political institutions, or our democratic political systems. Rather than the decline, therefore, political scientists should concentrate on explaining the fluctuation of public trust, its ebb and flow - not just why it falls, but why it rises again. However imperfectly, citizens seem to recognize when institutional improvements take place, and trust can be renewed once the incumbents that violated it are thrown out, and that, in many respects, is what democracy is all about

more on UK coalition government

The tectonic plates begin to move in the UK. Three months into the new coalition government, there is apparently an announcement brewing that the very powerful Audit Commission (with some 2,000 staff) is to be phased out. New Labour’s regime of targets (criticised in this blog and website) was immediately abolished by the new government – thereby making thousands of civil servants redundant to purpose (I’m not yet sure what is actually happening to them). The Audit Commission became part of this command and control regime of Gordon Brown - although it was actually set up by Conservative (and technocratic) Minister Michael Heseltine in 1983.
And there is some horror that some ex-Labour Ministers and MPs are acceptiong jobs in the new coalition government – the awkwardly independent (and highly esteemed) Frank Field as poverty adviser; and one of the previously tipped contenders for Labour leadership (Alan Milburn) who was brought back by Brown as an advisor on social mobility is being tipped to take a similar role in the coalition government. A third Labour ex-Minister who developed some expertise in pension reform (Purnell) is also apparently being brought into the coalition fold to continue that input. Frankly I don’t know what the fuss is about. New Labour continued the neo-liberal agenda under both Blair and Brown. And noone can claim to real expertise in the fields of poverty, social mobility and pensions – so thank god those who had shown some interest and commitment are being encouraged to stay around! Of course “two jags, two shags and two bogs” Prescott is dutifully fulminating labour tribalism – but who listens any more to such crap?
I’m now well into David Marquand’s Britain since 1918 – the strange career of British Democracy which gives a superb perspective on these latest manoeuvrings.
Temperatures in Bucharest are 38 – and here in the mountains a lovely cool breeze is blowing as I salute the Bulgarian Khan Khrum’s Chardonnay!
The Inquisition Painting is Ilyas Phaizulline's

Sozopol

In the last few days, Sozopol has become a name to conjure with. We visited this charming 3,000 year old Bulgaria village clinging to a rocky prominotory on the Black Sea last month and found it more authentic than the better-known but now commercialised and tawdry Nessbur up the coast.

Last week an archeologist, Kazimir Popkonstantinov, staged in Sozopol’s museum a public opening of a box he had excavated during a dig at the ancient monastery of St. John, on the Black Sea island of St. Ivan, a kilometre off the Sozopol coast – and found relics. His career has been marked by extraordinary findings, acknowledgment outside Bulgaria, and a Herder Prize for cultural and scientific achievement. Bulgaria does have a fascinating ancient history – and considerable romantic attachments – as this article reminds us.

travelling curiously

Yesterday I mentioned Wilkinson and Picket book on Equality. It’s called The Spirit Level and has caused such a stir that, when I saw it on offer on Amazon for 5 pounds, I decided it was time to buy it. The authors have also set up an Equality Trust website to promote its ideas. From which I take the following snippet. A couple of young guys have been so inspired by the book that they have organised a bike ride to Sweden to explore at a human level what it means to be living in a more equal society. They will chat with people they meet – recording and blogging about the interviews. Their journey has just begun and their blog can be followed at exploring equality
In this idea of combining travel and talk with treatise, they follow an honourable tradition – for example, William Cobbett’s Rural Rides in the 1820s; George Orwell’s 1937 Road to Wigan Pier and, in 1996, Robert Kaplan’s The Ends of the Earth: A Journey to the Frontiers of Anarchy

I have been stuck too long in the laptop and books. The weather has been steadily improving in the last few days here in the mountains and I must now get out, exercise the muscles and breathe the marvellous air into my lungs. But one last snippet – this time a reading list which one of the UK’s new Foreign Ministers apparently has for the summer!

limits of expertise

A scrappy blog today – I was still trying to make sense of William Davies’s intriguing paper from which I quoted yesterday which has, as its title, The Limits of Expertise. I have never tried to explain (even to myself) why I chose the Saul quotation for my masthead on the right - We've spent half a century arguing over management methods. If there are solutions to our confusions over government, they lie in democratic not management processes. It is a reflection, I suppose, of the ambivalence within me about political and managerial roles. For the first 20 years of my adult life. I was a (technocratic) politician; for the last 20 years I have been an apolitical adviser
But in 1974 or so – based on my experience of working with community groups and trying to reform a small municipal bureaucracy – I wrote a pamphlet called From Corporate Management to Community action which reflected my disillusionment with the technocratic fashions of the time.
New Labour was a social engineering government with a vengeance – with Brown given the time and opportunity to invent a giant machine for minute tweaking of socio-economic processes acroess the board. His budgets (companies), tax credits (households) and PSA (public service agreements setting targets for Departments) were infamous for their detail and optimistic assumptions about the link between technical means and social outcomes. It was not just the sheer arrogance – it was downright ignorance of the literature on the perversity of social interventions – which amazes.
Davies’s The Limits of Expertise tries to look at the philosophical underpinnings of what we might call the "policy bent" – by which I mean the incredible growth in the past 20 years of Think Tanks and of interest in policy analysis. That reflects, of course, the huge expansion in universities of social science, paramount amongst which has been economics – with its weird but (until recently) unquestioned assumptions about human nature. He has an interesting argument -

Unforeseen by the policy architects who designed the New Labour platform, the defining problem of the past decade has turned out to be an ethical-political one: antisocial behaviour. Utilitarian calculations can only conceive of the world in economic terms (‘economic’ in the sense of weighing up profit and loss), and as such are entirely ill-equipped to deal with this problem. It can be bracketed as an aspect of poverty or even biology; it can be tackled through an extension of police and surveillance technologies; or it can be swept under the carpet through mystical references to ‘communities’ and the voluntary sector. All the while, it looks set to rise in the future, thwarting all our expert analyses of the psychology and economics that supposedly determine it.
For the foreseeable future, our politicians will treat it like crime or unemployment: quantitative phenomena that rise and fall as outcomes of policy and/or the economic weather. In time, however, it may have to be treated as an ethical and political issue. At an ethical level, Richard Reeves points out that there is a growing need to revive respect for 'character’. He point to three dimensions of this: a sense of personal agency or self-direction; an acceptance of personal responsibility; and effective regulation of one’s own emotions, in particular the ability to resist temptation or at least defer gratification.

That reminded me of David Cameron’s address in November which articulated his Big Society idea.
It reads very well – it is quite something for a Conservative Prime Minister to be committed to deal with poverty and inequality. He actually quotes from the recent Wilkinson and Picket book which strongly argues that healthy societies are equal ones.
Having proven (to at least his own satisfaction) that big government (spending) has not dealt with the problem of poverty, Cameron then suggests that the main reason for this is the neglect of the moral dimension, refers to various community enterprises, entrepreneurs and goes on -

Our alternative to big government is not no government - some reheated version of ideological laissez-faire. Nor is it just smarter government. Because we believe that a strong society will solve our problems more effectively than big government has or ever will, we want the state to act as an instrument for helping to create a strong society. Our alternative to big government is the big society.
But we understand that the big society is not just going to spring to life on its own: we need strong and concerted government action to make it happen. We need to use the state to remake society.
The first step is to redistribute power and control from the central state and its agencies to individuals and local communities. That way, we can create the opportunity for people to take responsibility. This is absolutely in line with the spirit of the age - the post-bureaucratic age. In commerce, the Professor of Technological Innovation at MIT, Eric von Hippel, has shown how individuals and small companies, flexible and able to take advantage of technologies and information once only available to major multinational corporations, are responding with the innovations that best suit the needs of consumers.
This year's Nobel Prize winner in Economics, Elinor Ostrom, has shown through her life's work how non- state collective action is more effective than centralised state solutions in solving community problems.
Our plans for decentralisation are based on a simple human insight: if you give people more responsibility, they behave more responsibly.
So we will take power from the central state and give it to individuals where possible - as with our school reforms that will put power directly in the hands of parents.
Where it doesn't make sense to give power directly to individuals, for example where there is a function that is collective in nature, then we will transfer power to neighbourhoods. So our new Local Housing Trusts will enable communities to come together, agree on the number and type of homes they want, and provide themselves with permission to expand and lead that development.
Where neighbourhood empowerment is not practical we will redistribute power to the lowest possible tier of government, and the removal of bureaucratic controls on councils will enable them to offer local people whatever services they want, in whatever way they want, with new mayors in our big cities acting as a focus for civic pride and responsibility.
This decentralisation of power from the central to the local will not just increase responsibility, it will lead to innovation, as people have the freedom to try new approaches to solving social problems, and the freedom to copy what works elsewhere.

It is sad that I never found Blair or Brown singing a song like this. Of course one can make various criticisms – one of the best is in a TUC blog
But the fact remains that community enterprise (pity he didn’t mention cooperatives! is worth supporting. I was very heartened to read in another blog about the continuing success of the Mondragon Cooperative in Spain which has increased its enployment in the last 20 years from 20,000 to 90,000.
I remember visiting Mondragon in 1990 in an endeavour to bring its lessons back to Scotland.

power sharing

I have now finished the 679 pages Andrew Rawnsley produced on the last 5 years of the Labour Government. It was indeed a gripping – and enlightening – read. One can just imagine Brown’s pain and frustration as he plummets from the height of a highly successful management of an historic G20 Conference about the global financial meltdown to the shame 2 days later of the publicity about one of his aide’s malicious E-mails about opposition figures. Studies of the individual topics governments wrestle with – Northern Ireland, financial crises etc – tend to miss (or add as an afterthought) this critical dimension of the interaction of politicians.
The book has been marketed as a study of what is seen as the toxic relationship between Blair and Brown – but one commentator has put a more positive slant on that -

Under Blair, Brown was insulated from all the aspects of governing that proved so uncomfortable for him – offering a story, controlling the news agenda, communicating to swing voters, asserting clear medium-term ambitions. Freed from the obligation to deal with these issues or foreign policy, Brown was privileged to focus exclusively on domestic policy formation.
Looking back, the dual leadership of Blair and Brown was, inadvertently, a political master-stroke, converting weaknesses into strengths. Compared to the number-crunching Brown, Blair was able to appear ‘Presidential’, even if that quality eventually did for him; compared to Blair, Brown was able to appear authentic and expert at policy-formation. It was the unglamorous, numbers-heavy Chancellor that was wheeled out during the 2005 election campaign to convince voters that Labour had real substance. It was this same unglamorous, numbers-heavy man that voters became so dissatisfied with.
One lesson that emerges from the Brown premiership is that there never was a contradiction between ‘spin’ and ‘substance’, but that the two are interdependent. It is precisely because naked policy does not result in a coherent political narrative that spin becomes necessary. At the same time, political positioning and story-telling is of little use inside the machinery of Whitehall bureaucracies, which makes policy-formation an indispensable part of politic (William Davies).

On the basis that we need first to understand the context before we move to prescription, I wanted to finish this book before reading the various texts which have appeared recently on how a progressive UK government might deal with the massive problems of social, political and economic breakdown which that country now faces. One of the most tantalising of these is Red Tory – how the Left and Right have broken Britain and how we can fix it which now stands on my to-read bookshelf.
According to its author, Phillip Blond, there has been "a wholesale collapse of British culture, virtue and belief". It has led to " increasing fear, lack of trust and abundance of suspicion, long-term increase in violent crime, loneliness, recession, depression, private and public debt, family break-up, divorce, infidelity, bureaucratic and unresponsive public services, dirty hospitals, powerlessness, the rise of racism, excessive paperwork, longer and longer working hours, children who have no parents... seemingly immovable poverty, the permanence of inequality, teenagers with knives, teenagers being knifed, the decline of politeness, aggressive youths, the erosion of our civil liberties and the increase of obsessive surveillance, public authoritarianism, private libertarianism, general pointlessness, political cynicism and a pervading lack of daily joy". Most of this analysis sounds right-wing – but the book does apparently contain a withering indictment of neo-liberal economic policies, a deep concern about inequality and a commitment to social enterprise. Its author was a priest, worked for a period at the left-of-centre Think Tank Demos and then moved recently to set up his own think-tank Respublica.
Thanks to the omnivore website which I have just discovered, you can get a sense of the book’s contents from the various reviews which the site collects. I would particularly recommend the Barnett and Raban reviews. Barnett puts the book in the context of the unsuccessful Third Way of Blair and Clinton.

David Marquand’s Britain since 1918 – the strange career of British democracy is, however, now tempting me.

changing the system of greed and incompetence

First a tribute to Tony Judt, the British writer, historian and professor who has just died at age 62 after a two-year struggle with motor neurone disease. Yesterday’s blog coincidentally contained a link to one of his New York Review of Books essays which he had expanded into his last, short but powerful book – Ill Fares the Land. Today's link gives the background to (and purpose of) that essay and book. Such courage and determination he showed in his last year to try to summarise the messages he felt he had learned for younger generations. What an example he sets! I will return in future blogs to the inspiring man and his works.
Before I learned the news, I had been planning to say more about the Rawnsley and Mortensen books I covered yesterday. Unlike a lot of other (abstract) books I read - both of these books focus on individuals. In the first case - the damage and disappointments politicians bring. In the second case, the tremendous good an individual can do.
Leaders are having a bad time of it at the moment - whether bankers, business or political executives. The message most of us is that they are greedy and incompetent (of course, there are exceptions, such as Richard Semler about whom I have blogged). Why is this so - and what can we do about it? Systems and procedures of democracy and corporate governance were supposed to subject leaders to scrutiny and prevent the Enron, banking and other disasters we have seen in the last decade. Patently they don't work - complacency and group think are alive and well. More than 20 years ago, Alaister Mant wrote a book Leader We Deserve which remains for me one of the best attempts to answer the first of the questions. However, his book focussed on the psychological aspects and there are 2 other levels to be considered - the organisational and societal/systemic. A book such as Clegg’s Power and organisations deals with with these 2 levels
But how does this translate into a reasonable strategy for making politicians and business executives more accountable? We know that regulatory bodies (such as the UK’s Financial Service Agency)end up as useless captives of the interests they are supposed to be controlling; and the UK reacted strongly a few years back when it was realised just how many officials and bodies there were supposed to be auditing performance (Howard Davis). Accountability is probably not the term to use – since it leads down the dreadful path of targets and counterproductive control. Business writers are feeling their way to a different model (William Davis) – but it is governments who set the legislative framework. We therefore face 2 basic questions – how do we get more open and responsive politicians and goverments – to ensure relevant actions are taken? And what should these actions be?
Unlike new Labour, the new British coalition government seems actually to be exploring these questions.