The real scandal behind the Mandelson saga
- A bad appointment cannot be rescued by good process
- Britain keeps ticking boxes while trust keeps collapsing
- Our state seems to think if you follow the rules, then the outcomes are secondary
Here is an idiotic question for an England football fan this summer. Which would they prefer winning? The World Cup itself? Or the FIFA Fair Play Trophy, awarded to the side with the best disciplinary record during the tournament?
The answer: it might be nice if England plays decently, but all of us would hugely prefer winning the real thing. Rules matter. But they are meant to support good outcomes, not replace them.
This preference for good outcomes over process applies to most of life. When we are shopping for a jar of coffee, it is a bonus to know that it has been ethically sourced. But for most of us, the primary deciding factor will be the quality of the coffee. A bad coffee, however ethically sourced, will remain a bad coffee.
One place where this does not hold is Westminster. And the Mandelson saga is the perfect illustration of how bad things are.
The whole piece is well worth reading for many reasons. Topical ones are not only the Mandelson saga, but also the absurdly futile government emphasis on economic growth by ticking ideological boxes.
Survey research by Ipsos, in partnership with the Institute for Government, found that 49% of respondents rated the Government’s performance as poor, and 63% expressed disappointment with its record since the election. Only 23% believed governments could make substantial progress on key priorities over the next decade.
This matters because competence-based distrust is different from moral condemnation. A voter who thinks politicians are dishonest has lost faith in their character. A voter who thinks government cannot deliver has lost faith in the system’s capacity. Both are present in Britain today, and they reinforce each other.
6 comments:
Consider the delays in planning permissions, especially anything to do with infrastructure. Clearly the number of boxes to be ticked is the key performance indicator, while actual spades in the ground is somewhat infra dig. A poor pun perhaps, but to the ardent bureaucrat the process is the purpose.
Not my fault, i followed the rules, i ticked all the right boxes….
DJ - I thought it was a good pun, but it's an odd issue in that we are all familiar with tick box limitations yet the problem just gets worse.
Maybe there is an underlying blockage where some people seek rules and others seek answers but the rule-seekers confuse rules with answers.
djc - yes, it's essentially evasive as we know from Keir Starmer's behaviour. Maybe he has illustrated how deep-rooted the problem is.
Do I remember something said by Maggie? It was along the lines of 'I hate it when politicians make a speech and think they have done something. They haven't; all they have done is talk.' Might not be true or accurate, but sounds good to me.
Chris - I have a vague memory of something like that and it's certainly the kind of thing she could have said. If she said it she was right.
Post a Comment