Yet again an outsider from the civil service machine has been hired to stir up the sleepy mandarins of Whitehall. Will this new appointment end up like so many before, shunted into the sidings?
For the appointment of ex-Kent CC chief executive Katherine Kerswell as the new director of civil service reform already follows a year of prevarication and foot-dragging in Whitehall about whether such a post should go ahead at all. This time a year ago the Commons Public Administration Committee was highly critical of the failure to find a candidate to lead the change programme expressing concern that 'it has not proved possible to recruit a director general to drive reform from the centre of Whitehall'. And it said this 'may suggest a lack of commitment to fundamental restructuring at senior official level.'
The Cabinet Office had apparently first advertised internally to fill the role,had no luck and then decided to downgrade the post by dividing it into two less senior positions at Senior Civil Service 2 executive director level. The PASC was not happy with this. Its report last September, Change in government: the agenda for leadership, stung Whitehall into readvertising the position, this time externally, last February 2012. A shortlist was drawn up, a very suitable candidate with a local government and Treasury background was offered the job only for this candidate to change their mind and withdraw. The process began again, this time ending in success.
Katherine Kerswell is certainly experienced and her departure from Kent reflected in no way on her abilities although her substantial pay-off has garnered unwelcome attention. More challenging will be helping to drive through a huge change programme, as outlined in the Cabinet Office Civil Service Reform Plan published in June. Katherine will remember the short-lived Office of Public Sector Reform led by Dr Wendy Thomson and set up by Tony Blair. Whitehall has form in politely but firmly sidelining outside change agents. Katherine would be well advised to spend some time over the next few weekend revisiting back DVDs of Yes Minister.
Wednesday 12 September 2012
Tuesday 4 September 2012
What does the reshuffle mean so far?
As far as the public is concerned the Cabinet reshuffle is about a bunch of nonentities replaced by another bunch of nonentities. Some might make reference to deckchairs and the Titanic. Either way it doesn't suggest any dramatic shift in policy direction mainly because there isn't much of a policy from whch to shift in the first place.
Ken Clarke's role is curious. Will he have a pass to get into the Treasury? What does this mean for Osborne's role? Is Ken Clarke there to placate the Lib Dems who are getting nervous that Osborne's Plan A is simply knackering the economy? Is Clarke going to put pressure on the Treasury to resist siren calls for tougher spending cuts, especially in local government?
It makes sense to keep Gove and Duncan Smith in their jobs. Whatever one's views of Gove he has been a one-man whirl of reform, far ahead of Cameron's own wishy-washy reform agenda. There is a real sense of direction of travel at the education department. Similarly Duncan Smith has made welfare reform his particular agenda and to move him now, just as highly complex welfare changes with the Universal Credit are being launched, would be madness.
What is much more puzzling is Lansley's replacement at health, Jeremy Hunt. He has one heck of a brief and is hardly a household name to be leading such a massive change in the NHS.
But unlike other PMs, Cameron has a very difficult task. Most governments are coalitions, of right and left. Cameron has to placate the right and left of his own party as well as those of the Liberal Democrats. Furthermore the appetite by the rank and file of both parties to carry on the Coalition is considerably less than those of its leaders. With its raison de'etre, reducing the deficit, on the rocks, the Coalition is drifting badly and it is hard to see the new line-up making much difference.
Ken Clarke's role is curious. Will he have a pass to get into the Treasury? What does this mean for Osborne's role? Is Ken Clarke there to placate the Lib Dems who are getting nervous that Osborne's Plan A is simply knackering the economy? Is Clarke going to put pressure on the Treasury to resist siren calls for tougher spending cuts, especially in local government?
It makes sense to keep Gove and Duncan Smith in their jobs. Whatever one's views of Gove he has been a one-man whirl of reform, far ahead of Cameron's own wishy-washy reform agenda. There is a real sense of direction of travel at the education department. Similarly Duncan Smith has made welfare reform his particular agenda and to move him now, just as highly complex welfare changes with the Universal Credit are being launched, would be madness.
What is much more puzzling is Lansley's replacement at health, Jeremy Hunt. He has one heck of a brief and is hardly a household name to be leading such a massive change in the NHS.
But unlike other PMs, Cameron has a very difficult task. Most governments are coalitions, of right and left. Cameron has to placate the right and left of his own party as well as those of the Liberal Democrats. Furthermore the appetite by the rank and file of both parties to carry on the Coalition is considerably less than those of its leaders. With its raison de'etre, reducing the deficit, on the rocks, the Coalition is drifting badly and it is hard to see the new line-up making much difference.
Thursday 31 May 2012
The new local government pension deal
With perfect timing considering the threatened doctors' strike over their pensions the Local Government Association and the town hall unions have announced today at midday their own agreement over pension reform after months of negotiations.
On the face of it, it's a good deal all round especially for lower paid workers. The biggest surprise is that local government employers have agreed that council staff transferees can keep their pensions not just after transferring to a private sector or non-local authority employer but after further transfers as well. At the moment the decision to keep on paying final salary pensions is a matter for the employer.This flies directly in the face of attempts by the Cabinet Office to make it easier for private companiies, mutuals and the voluntary sector to take on council staff without being saddled with large pension liabilities. The impact of this could be huge especially for smaller companies and mutuals which may find the costs make any bid for services unpalatable.
But council employers don't do badly out of the new pensions deal either. From now on pensions will be decided on career average pay rather than final salary and based on the Consumer Prices Index. They will also be paid at whatever the state retirement age is, rather than 65. Contributions for the higher paid will go up.Overall lower paid employees come out well from the new deal. As their wages tend to rise far more modestly over a career than senior managers the career average criterion should make little difference to their final pension. If they transfer to a new employer their pensions are protected. And they will not be hit by having to make higher contributions.
On the face of it, it's a good deal all round especially for lower paid workers. The biggest surprise is that local government employers have agreed that council staff transferees can keep their pensions not just after transferring to a private sector or non-local authority employer but after further transfers as well. At the moment the decision to keep on paying final salary pensions is a matter for the employer.This flies directly in the face of attempts by the Cabinet Office to make it easier for private companiies, mutuals and the voluntary sector to take on council staff without being saddled with large pension liabilities. The impact of this could be huge especially for smaller companies and mutuals which may find the costs make any bid for services unpalatable.
But council employers don't do badly out of the new pensions deal either. From now on pensions will be decided on career average pay rather than final salary and based on the Consumer Prices Index. They will also be paid at whatever the state retirement age is, rather than 65. Contributions for the higher paid will go up.Overall lower paid employees come out well from the new deal. As their wages tend to rise far more modestly over a career than senior managers the career average criterion should make little difference to their final pension. If they transfer to a new employer their pensions are protected. And they will not be hit by having to make higher contributions.
Friday 4 May 2012
What's concerning is the low turnout
So what are the headlines from these local elections? Is it that Labour has done surprisingly well in southern England and Wales. Or is it that the electorate has decisively voted against directly elected mayors? Or that the Lib Dems have been trounced? Or that the turnout is the lowest in 12 years? Or that :Labour is likely to lose what it should have expected to gain, namely the Mayor of London? Or that fringe parties and Respect have picked up votes but not the BNP?
All of these. But above all else the lack of voters' faith in politics to solve their problems anymore. After two years of cuts, rising unemployment and a squeeze on living standards, one would have confidently expected a voters' angry backlash against the government of the day, a wholesale slaughter of Tory and Lib Dem seats. It has happened to the Lib Dems but not the Tories. Labour has done well but half way through a government which has undergone a month of wobbles and bad management decisions on top of economic woes one would expect the opposition party to do well.
The electorate has expressed its discontent by abstaining. Some 70% of people did not bother to exercise their vote. The electorate appears to believe that however dire the economy it is beyond the power of politicians to make any impact. Ironically just as localism is being trumpeted as the next stage of involving people in decision-making the people have decided that decisions are being taken elsewhere globally over which they have little control.
All of these. But above all else the lack of voters' faith in politics to solve their problems anymore. After two years of cuts, rising unemployment and a squeeze on living standards, one would have confidently expected a voters' angry backlash against the government of the day, a wholesale slaughter of Tory and Lib Dem seats. It has happened to the Lib Dems but not the Tories. Labour has done well but half way through a government which has undergone a month of wobbles and bad management decisions on top of economic woes one would expect the opposition party to do well.
The electorate has expressed its discontent by abstaining. Some 70% of people did not bother to exercise their vote. The electorate appears to believe that however dire the economy it is beyond the power of politicians to make any impact. Ironically just as localism is being trumpeted as the next stage of involving people in decision-making the people have decided that decisions are being taken elsewhere globally over which they have little control.
Tuesday 24 April 2012
London will have to return to the age of the tower block estates
The furore over the London borough of Newham's request to a Stoke-on-Trent housing association to house some of its homeless families is just the tip of the iceberg. London's housing problem is of Victorian dimensions and yet scarcely figures on any political agendas and although housing is not the Mayor's responsibility has not featured in the Boris v Ken election campaign.
Just look at the facts. London's population is expanding, driven in part by people moving to it from other parts of the country or more often from other parts of the world in search of jobs and there is not enough housing to satisfy it. In many cases wages do not cover the high price of accommodation. On top of this because of sterling's weakness global millionaires are snapping up properties in central London thereby driving up prices and having a knock-on effect on rentals. London's private rental market is already a landlords' market. It is hard enough for young, wage-earning single people to find rented property. If you are relying on benefits, especially now the coalition has capped them, then forget it; you cannot live in London on benefits unless your rent is covered by the taxpayer. But that of course then becomes unfair on those who are having to pay for their own rented accommodation.
On the flipside, outside London there are areas such as Stoke where accommodation is cheap. Newham is just one borough which through no fault of its own has run out of housing and money to top up the capped benefits. It is clearly unacceptable for a borough to 'export' its poor to other already poor parts of the country but Newham doubtless argues it is 'thinking outside the box' when it comes to solving this impossible conundrum.
There is clearly a short-term problem exacerbated by the housing benefits cap and the over-heated rentals market. But it is also a macro-problem which this government, and previous ones, has simply failed to address. London is too expensive to live in, there is not enough accommodation, and yet its population, driven by immigration from within the UK and from abroad, continues to rise. We could of course return to the age of tower blocks, which were a social disaster when it came to housing poor families though worked better for the well-off (such as the Barbican estate in the City). Or governments could simply admit that London has become too big while the rest of the UK stagnates and regional policy therefore needs to be urgently kick-started again. Either way - it is time for government to act.
Just look at the facts. London's population is expanding, driven in part by people moving to it from other parts of the country or more often from other parts of the world in search of jobs and there is not enough housing to satisfy it. In many cases wages do not cover the high price of accommodation. On top of this because of sterling's weakness global millionaires are snapping up properties in central London thereby driving up prices and having a knock-on effect on rentals. London's private rental market is already a landlords' market. It is hard enough for young, wage-earning single people to find rented property. If you are relying on benefits, especially now the coalition has capped them, then forget it; you cannot live in London on benefits unless your rent is covered by the taxpayer. But that of course then becomes unfair on those who are having to pay for their own rented accommodation.
On the flipside, outside London there are areas such as Stoke where accommodation is cheap. Newham is just one borough which through no fault of its own has run out of housing and money to top up the capped benefits. It is clearly unacceptable for a borough to 'export' its poor to other already poor parts of the country but Newham doubtless argues it is 'thinking outside the box' when it comes to solving this impossible conundrum.
There is clearly a short-term problem exacerbated by the housing benefits cap and the over-heated rentals market. But it is also a macro-problem which this government, and previous ones, has simply failed to address. London is too expensive to live in, there is not enough accommodation, and yet its population, driven by immigration from within the UK and from abroad, continues to rise. We could of course return to the age of tower blocks, which were a social disaster when it came to housing poor families though worked better for the well-off (such as the Barbican estate in the City). Or governments could simply admit that London has become too big while the rest of the UK stagnates and regional policy therefore needs to be urgently kick-started again. Either way - it is time for government to act.
Wednesday 18 April 2012
Kensington and Chelsea has a better credit rating than France
Not a lot of people know this but it would be cheaper for the French government to let the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea borrow money on its behalf as the latter has a triple A credit rating while France's was downgraded to AA+ in January. The same applies to Spain and Portugal whose ratings are even worse at A and BB respectively. Woking BC has a better rating than either od those countries at AA-. The UK government, currently at triple A, is terrified it might lose iots rating which of course then affects the cost of its borrowing.
The idea that UK local authorities have a better rating than many national governments, possibly in time even their own, is entertaining but does also underline a serious point. The Localism Act in theory could mean more councils borrowing from banks or bonds rather than simply relying on the Public Works Loan Board which recently has been prone to interference from the Treasury. A recent report by ratings agency Standard and Poor's (which rates Kensington and Chelsea and Woking) says that local government will continue to have good creditworthiness despite cuts and other changes such as taking on housing debt from the Housing Revenue Account.
Yesterday I chaired a panel session at a conference on local government funding with treasurers from various major UK local authorities. All of them complained at the way the government keeps moving the goalposts on PWLB borrowing costs and at the lack of direction from the Treasury about whether it really does want to give councils more powers to go to the money markets for funding or is just keeping Eric Pickles and the DCLG sweet over localism. Judging by the current creditworthiness of councils they would have no trouble getting the cash - and maybe lending some of it back to HM Treasury!
The idea that UK local authorities have a better rating than many national governments, possibly in time even their own, is entertaining but does also underline a serious point. The Localism Act in theory could mean more councils borrowing from banks or bonds rather than simply relying on the Public Works Loan Board which recently has been prone to interference from the Treasury. A recent report by ratings agency Standard and Poor's (which rates Kensington and Chelsea and Woking) says that local government will continue to have good creditworthiness despite cuts and other changes such as taking on housing debt from the Housing Revenue Account.
Yesterday I chaired a panel session at a conference on local government funding with treasurers from various major UK local authorities. All of them complained at the way the government keeps moving the goalposts on PWLB borrowing costs and at the lack of direction from the Treasury about whether it really does want to give councils more powers to go to the money markets for funding or is just keeping Eric Pickles and the DCLG sweet over localism. Judging by the current creditworthiness of councils they would have no trouble getting the cash - and maybe lending some of it back to HM Treasury!
Wednesday 11 April 2012
We need SOLACE on Newsnight
Our regular columnist, Sir Stephen Bubb, chief executive of ACEVO, the voluntary sector chiefs association, is quite a media star. He ought to get repeat fees judging by the number of times he has appeared on Newsnight.
He was on again last night, in a discussion chaired by Jeremy Paxman on George Osborne's attack on tax-avoiding millionaires and donations to alleged spurious 'charities' which were merely front operations. Stephen quite rightly gave a robust defence of charities and how Osborne's comments were hitting donations and also demanded evidence of these charities because if they are not above board then they will be dealt with by the Charity Commission.
But my point is not about the discussion but about how the media selects its representatives. Around the table were a Tory MP, someone from the City, someone from the TUC - a pretty good cross-section in other words, for a debate and Stephen is an excellent spokesman for the voluntary sector.
But it occurs to me that if this were a discussion about local government - and there have been plenty in the past few months - would we see a representive from SOLACE on Newsnight? I suspect not. Indeed I don't believe the society has ever been on Newsnight. There are numerous occasions when local government could be represented in such debates - the recent Darra Singh report on the riots, or the welfare reform issue or council tax levels or housing come to mind just from the last few weeks. I don't blame SOLACE. It may be because of the media's lack of interest in councils. But local government needs a meddia-savvy representative like Sir Stephen Bubb to bat for it.
He was on again last night, in a discussion chaired by Jeremy Paxman on George Osborne's attack on tax-avoiding millionaires and donations to alleged spurious 'charities' which were merely front operations. Stephen quite rightly gave a robust defence of charities and how Osborne's comments were hitting donations and also demanded evidence of these charities because if they are not above board then they will be dealt with by the Charity Commission.
But my point is not about the discussion but about how the media selects its representatives. Around the table were a Tory MP, someone from the City, someone from the TUC - a pretty good cross-section in other words, for a debate and Stephen is an excellent spokesman for the voluntary sector.
But it occurs to me that if this were a discussion about local government - and there have been plenty in the past few months - would we see a representive from SOLACE on Newsnight? I suspect not. Indeed I don't believe the society has ever been on Newsnight. There are numerous occasions when local government could be represented in such debates - the recent Darra Singh report on the riots, or the welfare reform issue or council tax levels or housing come to mind just from the last few weeks. I don't blame SOLACE. It may be because of the media's lack of interest in councils. But local government needs a meddia-savvy representative like Sir Stephen Bubb to bat for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
