Home » About Us » March 2008 » 'The centre cannot hold'?

'The centre cannot hold'?

25 March 2008

I know, I know, everyone tells me to write shorter blogs†maybe next time

Looking forward to Jack Straw’s speech here tomorrow. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (as is his title) will be officially launching our Prison Learning Network. I understand that Jack plans to say some very interesting things about how to embed the criminal justice system more concretely in local communities.

I’m sure there will be a couple of new announcements in Jack’s speech. These will add to the seemingly unstoppable tide of policy ideas, proposals and commitments emerging every day from Government. Although I find myself agreeing with a lot of what I hear, I can’t help wondering about the sheer scale of the Government’s objectives.

The scope of central Government is subject to continuous and sometimes substantial change. In the 1980s the privatisation of utilities meant Government went from running industries to providing a framework of regulation. More recently, Labour’s alleged ‘control freak’ tendencies have been somewhat belied by two massive transfers of power away from Whitehall: the independence of the Bank of England and devolution to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

But the extra items coming onto the Cabinet agenda dwarf even these shifts away from the centre. As well as all the responsibilities Labour inherited in 1997 has been added the whole slew of law and order, security and identity management issues, responding to climate change, and a growing set of complex ‘behaviour change’ challenges like obesity, poor parenting and binge drinking. Gordon Brown is also seen to be prioritising international development and national values and identity. Yesterday it was briefed that the Government plans major reforms on Party funding, the House of Lords, a Bill of Rights and the voting system.

I am all for constitutional modernisation and – recalling how difficult it was to get senior Cabinet ministers to sign up to this kind of thing when I worked for Tony Blair – I envy the political authority Number Ten has to drive radical change. The question is whether any corporate centre, even one as full of clever people as Downing Street and the Cabinet Office, can manage this scale of external challenge and internally generated initiatives.

There are libraries of research and recommendation about modernising public services and the civil service but in a brief internet search ahead of writing this piece I couldn’t find anything that spoke directly to the sheer scale of central Government’s task. Among some of the more thoughtful newspaper columnists there is a growing critique of Labour’s competence in governing, but while some ministers may be overactive, terrorism, climate change and binge drinking weren’t problems made up by Whitehall.

The obvious strategy to deal with central overload is devolution, and as I have said before, the Government really does seem to be trying to hand more power to local authorities. But is this enough, especially when central Government will still be held accountable for overall public service performance and if things go badly wrong? I have spoken about the need to move from a ‘government centric’ to a ’citizen centric’ way of thinking about social change but can Government itself facilitate this?

This is a very broad brush attempt to open a debate. Another way of kick starting it is a proposal of my own. How about Government transferring responsibility for major areas of constitutional and democratic reform (like voting system, Lords and party funding) to Parliament? Parties would still have their own policies to which they would be accountable at election time, but the task of policy development, consensus building, as well as the detailed drafting of legislation would move from Downing Street, the Cabinet and Whitehall to MPs backed by a beefed up Parliamentary secretariat. This would arguably be in line with Gordon Brown’s commitment to enhance the status and powers of Parliament. It would certainly take some tricky items off the Cabinet table.

Posted by Matthew Taylor on 25 March 2008

Duncan Lawie - 05 Jun 2008 1:51pm

"Blindsight" by Peter Watts is a fiercely intelligent SF novel on these themes - is consciousness an evolutionary blind alley? are we still human if we lose empathy? While I think the whole novel is worth anyone's time, the appendix, which focuses on current research, may be closer to what you are looking for at the moment, with the sections headed "Sleight of Mind" and "Sentience/Intelligence" being of most immediate relevance. It's available under a Creative Commons licence as well as in paper forms ( http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm ).
Steve Nimmons - 05 Jun 2008 1:48pm

I attended the “Question Time on Sustainable Design and Development” on Wednesday evening and found the discussions very interesting. Griff Rhys Jones made an excellent chairman, combining effervescence, levity and intellectualism with enviable ease. There seemed to be ‘scant’ agreement about the impact of personal ‘pro-social’ activity in relation to carbon off-setting and although we might all have a little chuckle at personal wind turbines or solar panels as the latest self-righteous housing adornments, it is as little too easy to just reject social responsibility in relation to the environment as something of a fashion statement of the liberal middle class. I was subsequently very encouraged to hear that Atos Origin (my employer) has announced a project with the RSA “the first ever trial to enable real-time calculations of personal carbon emissions” and how this relates to the RSA’s CarbonDaq trading platform. I wonder if you could provide some additional insight into this and the overarching work of the RSA’s CarbonLimited project?
John Guttridge - 05 Jun 2008 1:45pm

If only the Games could be left to the athletes. There's no need for Gordon Brown or any other politicians (Britsh or otherwise) to go to the Opening or Closing ceremonies as the games are supposed to be non political. If they really want to go then let them go as private individuals and pay their own way.
Matt Cain - 05 Jun 2008 1:45pm

I think your comments on R4 were largely fair. It's not that any part of the speech was objectionable, just that together they don't throw any light on what the government is for. Its continued use of unintelligible language to explain its actions doesn't help and leads many to assume it's being dishonest. Together, this suggests that in the longer term that it will struggle to build an electoral coalition.
Matthew Taylor - 05 Jun 2008 1:38pm

Thanks Fenton, really interesting. I won't respond in detail to the content as I find myself broadly in agreeemnt. But please accept that I am not a reductionist. I am not advocating anything merely suggesting that we are moving into a time when how we think is given as much weight as what we think. This future contains possibilities but also perils. Neurological reductionism is one of the perils
Andrew Brown - 05 Jun 2008 1:36pm

What are these powers that whips hold, I'm not naive but really? Just take a look at www.revolts.co.uk and you'll see that a number of MPs seem quite blithely ignoring the advice of their whips on what seems like a fairly frequent basis.