The current storm in a teacup strikes me both as petty and the focus of undue attention.  Scientific advice is just that.  It is advice about the science of an issue – no more and no less.  It is only one sort of evidence to set alongside other sorts, which might include perceptions, political practicalities, administrative realities etc.  For any scientist to get upset that their advice was not swallowed whole is naive.  To expect to be able to offer advice as chair of a QUANGO while publicly criticising the government is even more so.

This morning, the story seems to have developed into a crisis - the scientific research community, so called, is going to withdraw its advice from government.  If ministers won’t listen to their advice, why give it?  If they are going to sack people they disagree with, why go for the job?  I wonder how this ‘threat’ (which amounts to very little since there is no such community) stacks up against recent calls for the cutting of public service waste and, specifically, the many QUANGOs in this country.  Suddenly, the very same opposition politicians and journalists seem all in favour of a QUANGO.  Suddenly, they see the value of independent expert advice!  Surely this is an opportunity to dismiss one such QUANGO?

How quickly the debate spins itself into knots.

Not unlike the stories earlier this year from Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust, we have news of prisoners being moved at short notice in advance of HM Inspector of Prisons arriving on a visit.  The consequences, from a narrow personal and/or organisational perspective, make sense – raise the performance, improve rankings etc.  But again, we have the sight of an organisation doing something which defeats its own very purpsoe.  There is significant evidence that a settled routine and a structured life in prison helps vulnerable young offenders who may have had no epxerience of structure in their life before (see earlier blog about Holloway Women’s Prison).  So in order to meet a short-term target, long-term damage is casually done.  Had the Demos report, discussed in a recent blog, focused upon the details of these sorts of consequences of organisational performance incentives and regimes, a more inteligent discussion might have emerged.

Law in Action on Radio 4 had a very intersting, even balanced, piece about the Freedom of Information Act.  There is a brief article at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/law_in_action/8316657.stm and you can listen again at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00n88cz.

But there is tendency to see the positive impacts (MPs expenses revealed etc) and overemphasise the progress.  Earlier this summer, a report was finally released after a long period of obstruction and resistance.  The report describes Nottingham City Council as dysfunctional.  The following articles tell the tale: http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/City-council-don-t-dysfunctional/article-1042797-detail/article.html and http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Battle-information-secret-draft-report/article-698875-detail/article.html.  The use of the FOI is often limited and easily frustrated.  It requires some real determination to pursue.  And the government is too ready to dismiss it as costly because of what it determines are ‘frivolous’ requests.  In the case of Nottingahm, the refusakl to release the report for so long reflected the dysfunctional culture.  A an authority willing to be criticised in public would not need the FOI to force it to reveal its ’secrets’.

The full report is available on request – it is a sizeable file.

Finally got around to reading this Demos report (http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/leading-from-the-front).  It received a little publicity at the time for its suggestion that all central inspection agencies should be abolished and that front line public service workers should be liberated to use their initiative etc.  In some ways, I have sympathy for the idea and hoped to read a cogent analysis that pointed out the problems of performance, of organisational forms and of the whole systems of incentives as they currently operate.  Alas, the work is superficial and, while it briefly mentions the possible downsides of removing all oversight, absolutely fails to address such concerns.

Perhaps worse, though, I suspect the pamphlet has tried to practice what it preached.  It appears to have dispensed with any proof-reading or other form of quality oversight and is riddled with errors.  How do we ensure that a removal of oversight in our public services does not lead to errors but to improvements in the responsiveness of public services?

Much more interesting than the al-Megrahi news story, today the BBC’s Today programme reports that the military top brass have known about weaknesses in the processes for investigating air accidents.  A report identified these problems in 1986 – junior staff undertook investigations and senior officers interfered with the findings.  This lack of independence remains a problem, it is suggested.  It is described as ‘introverted, parochial and lacking objectivity’.  But senior RAF officers ignored the recommendations and the report was filed away.

In recent years, over 30 lives have been lost in accidents in Iraq and Afghanistan, some of which might have been prevented if proper air accident investigations had taken place, it is suggested.  So what are we to make of the senior military figures who have claimed to be so concerned about the quality of military equipment and the lives of serving officers and men?  They can’t always blame politicians and, in this case, appear to have questions to answer themselves.

Why all the excitement in the news about the release of al-Megrahi?  He was only tried because of a political deal.  He was handed over by Libya in order to begin the process of normalising its relations with the UK and US.  The Libyan government was overt about its motives and always said al-Megrahi was innocent.  His trial was conducted under Scottish law but in the Netherlands (and EU observers criticised the conviction as unsafe).  So why should we be surprised if politics has intervened again?

Again, sorry to be so slow on the blog.  A busy period.  In the meantime, the political crisis seems to have passed, though Gordon Brown’s leadership is still in doubt and the public perception of Parliament is little improved.  These twin dynamics are not improved by rows over military strategy and equipment in Afghanistan or the handling of swine flu.

Beneath these rows, there lies a larger issue.  Public service cuts, whatever is said by politicians, are on every agenda in local government, the NHS and beyond.  Indeed, it is pretty much the only item on the agenda.  The discussions, though, seem to be stuck in the traditional form – of agencies, departments, authorities and so forth addressing the challenges in isolation.  Even after ten or more years of joining-up government, the response to the current challenges is not being led by Local Strategic Partnerships or other coordinating bodies.  Not unlike some of the debates about a national response to economic crisis, arguing for protectionism rather than globalisation/internationalism, local agencies appear to be even more possesive of their limited resources.  But might not some of the answers be in a collective response, sertainly in some of our conurbations and sub-regions?  This further failure to join-up is part of a bigger pattern of institutional barriers to delivering public services.  Too often, managers see their institution as having almost a life and legitimacy of its own, its needs being paramount.  Getting past this parochialism in the current crisis of funding will not be easy – it proved hard to do in times of relative plenty.  But developing managers and managerial responses that look beyond simple cuts to think of broader efficiencies must be part of the agenda for the coming period.

The expenses scandal has, some would say at last, been knocked off the headlines.  But it feels to me like a pause in the onslaught.  It is certainly not as a result of the response of politicians.  Last week, we were treated to the reform proposals of the three main party leaders.  But what did they actually say that addressed the issue at hand?  Not a great deal.  So what was going on?

It seems to me that they have used and reinterpreted recent scandals as an opportunity to represent policies as if they were a response to the current sense of crisis.  In doing so and in missing the mark so badly, it appears to me they may even have made things worse.

The elections on Thursday will, I suggest, stir things up once again.  A poor showing from the major parties will start the usual post-election recriminations.  But this time, there will be some serious rethinking.  We have already heard stories of 52 Labour MPs, those who suspect they will lose their seats at the next general election, asking for peerages so they can continue their subsidised lifestyles in the House of Lords.  How many other rats will notice that the ship of state is badly holed below the waterline and think about jumping (or pushing the skipper overboard)?

Sorry for the overworked imagery!

Some of the recent scenes in Westminster do look a little odd.  Suddenly, MPs seem to have turned on the Speaker rather than their colleagues.  Is this justified?

He has been an obstacle to change – actively trying to stop the disclosure of information; delaying tactics once ordered to release the information under freedom of information; and the haranguing of MPs who argued for disclosure.

However, the guilty are all around the chamber.  And, for me, this is the interesting problem.  It is evident that MPs operated in a world that felt entitled to use resources in ways that, on closer scrutiny in public, were illegitimate if not illegal.  They believed they would not be found out and now appear, in many cases, almost outraged that their conduct should be open to question.  They are lost and confused in the current climate.  Some of the blustering is that of the indignant innocent.  Only slowly is it dawning for some that they are not so innocent.  And the Fees Office needs to answer some questions about what it has allowed and, it appears, encouraged.  Only rarely do they appear to have suggested that some claims were excessive.

However, are we expected to believe that nobody knew this was happening?  Some MPs didn’t profit from the system to the same extent as others.  Some actively refused to use the allowances.  But what did they make of their fellow MPs?  Did they just stay silence while knowing it was wrong or did they not want to know?  Is their silence that of the complicit?

The high profile public pillorying of the Speaker, Michael Martin, must be just the start.

I really don’t like commenting on the behaviour of MPs.  To me, it is nothing to do with any politics in which I am interested.  But recent antics, revelations etc. around expenses and allowances do warm the heart of all good anarchists.  Aside from the sheer brass neck of some of the MPs, in claiming for what they did and now defending it as allowed by the rules, I am struck by the shock with which the story has been greeted.  Why are we surprised?  In the past, all available evidence has suggested that a grasping and self-interested crew occupy parliament.  Are we just shocked by the proof?

And the solution to the mess?  So far, a lot of bluster, some ideas about contracting the work so that an external body administers it – and conveniently might not be covered by freedom of information legislation.  More radically, disolving parliament has been suggested.  But are we sure there is anyone better out there wanting to stand and challenge the sitting members?  To my mind, anyone who wants to enter parliaament should probably be disqualified from doing so.