One thing I would like to see on a training curriculum is something akin to quality / lean assessment and implementation. The general issue of bureaucracies is the that of over engineering and increasing layers of bureaucracy mistaking it for appropriate due diligence. As such the value proposition to the public it aims to serve. There is obviously a place for appropriate levels of scrutiny and monitoring but civil servants should understand the difference and be able to look for an opportunities to bring about a service that works for the public it aims to serve and not be self perpetuating entity.
My issue with setting up a civil service training establishment is the example of the College of Policing. That was set up under the pretext of a police training facility and yet it went far beyond that to become a law enforcement and police operational policy unit; going well beyond the law to enforce what it saw as priorities and often defying governments and the law courts. It was they who invented the concept of "non-crime hate incident": Something that was neither voted on by parliament nor is upheld by most courts. When something like a training establishment for government departments is set up, the radical Left's eyes light up as they see yet another mechanism to capture and subvert.
"Much of the poor decision making within Whitehall (and the broader apparatus of government) stems from the culture therein"
Then it must be moved away from Whitehall. How about having parliament in Burnley and the "National School of Public Administration" in Bolton or vice versa? These people have lived and worked in the artificial atmosphere of the South East, much worse, in Whitehall. There is the rest of the country but Whitehall warriors know little of it. Is central England inferior? Of course not.
Ofcom do a ton of work under the radar. For example, they calculate BTs cost base to set wholesale call termination charges. This requires a deep understanding of network technology and economics. It is not suitable to be handled by politicians.
I think you are referring to media regulation, not telecom.
Ofcom needs a total rethink. As part of the amorphous DCMS it is a muddle of confused agendas with wide ranging remits. A most notable recent example of DCMS incompetence was the "Festival UK 2022", renamed as "unboxed" although unhinged would be closer to the mark. This was Theresa May's attempt at a modern Festival of Britain to explore the potential of brexit. Given the tepid enthusiasm for brexit by the Blob, it was mismanaged spectacularly from the start, and the Minister in charge, Caroline Dineage oversaw the £120 million budget being dissipated across a range of looney projects that was a national disgrace - but hastily buried before any politician or civil servant was required to carry the can. The other politicians that got involved included Oliver Dowden, Julian Knight and Nadine Dorries - some of the cannier politicians seemed to realise it was a disaster in the making, and they generally got out of the way.
Unboxed is a textbook example of what goes wrong when the blob runs riot with public money and appoints its blob chums to do worthy wokeness.
Perhaps the most bonkers of the various projects commissioned the festival was when a scrapped north sea gas production platform was towed to the seafront at Western Super Mare and covered with a shrubbery. The subsequent cover up by the blob has tried very hard to pretend it was all a roaring success, but it ought to be the subject of a documentary as an example of Whitehall at it's worst.
This is a thread about quangos like Ofcom, not gov't depts like DCMS.
Agree Ofcom needs a rethink, but that's different from Petes suggestion it be deleted. The more nuanced approach is to unbundle the jobs to be done by quangos like Ofcom. What needs to stay:
- intra industry wholesale disputes
- cost regulation (if appropriate)
- escalation point for consumer complaints
- promote customer transparency and information to become informed buyers
You can’t talk about fixing things without talking about the need for party members to pick candidates vs unelected bureaucrats doing it for you.
UK needs a US style primary system so that candidates for major parties aren’t hand picked by donors.
Most of these MPs only won because they had C or L by their name. Make it fair and let anyone run in any party in a primary and let constituents choose who they’d prefer!
1. A review and evaluation of all government departments and public institutions in terms of appointment processes, funding , statutory requirements and performance levels with a view to mergers, savings and ensuring essential functions are maintained and non essential functions are removed.
2. For the most important institutions, public hearings and questioning of key appointments.
3. Updating all employee contracts with new and specific requirements for political independence and impartiality with this being a fundamental requirement I. Performance monitoring.
4. New revamped training and induction with impartiality an essential requirement and all training courses for senior staff reviewed by ministers.
5. A recognition of unions and their right to negotiate collectively for employees in key area - eg pay, health and safety but abolition and non recognition of all identity based forums outside of key areas. Clear emphasis thst all employees are to comply with primacy of UK law not international laws
What about exams and testing between certain grades as well. The police still have exams for sargeants and inspector maybe other but they are the two I know off the top of my head.
One thing I would like to see on a training curriculum is something akin to quality / lean assessment and implementation. The general issue of bureaucracies is the that of over engineering and increasing layers of bureaucracy mistaking it for appropriate due diligence. As such the value proposition to the public it aims to serve. There is obviously a place for appropriate levels of scrutiny and monitoring but civil servants should understand the difference and be able to look for an opportunities to bring about a service that works for the public it aims to serve and not be self perpetuating entity.
My issue with setting up a civil service training establishment is the example of the College of Policing. That was set up under the pretext of a police training facility and yet it went far beyond that to become a law enforcement and police operational policy unit; going well beyond the law to enforce what it saw as priorities and often defying governments and the law courts. It was they who invented the concept of "non-crime hate incident": Something that was neither voted on by parliament nor is upheld by most courts. When something like a training establishment for government departments is set up, the radical Left's eyes light up as they see yet another mechanism to capture and subvert.
This is because police associations have input over the syllabus and there is no inspectorate with teeth.
"Much of the poor decision making within Whitehall (and the broader apparatus of government) stems from the culture therein"
Then it must be moved away from Whitehall. How about having parliament in Burnley and the "National School of Public Administration" in Bolton or vice versa? These people have lived and worked in the artificial atmosphere of the South East, much worse, in Whitehall. There is the rest of the country but Whitehall warriors know little of it. Is central England inferior? Of course not.
Ofcom do a ton of work under the radar. For example, they calculate BTs cost base to set wholesale call termination charges. This requires a deep understanding of network technology and economics. It is not suitable to be handled by politicians.
I think you are referring to media regulation, not telecom.
Ofcom needs a total rethink. As part of the amorphous DCMS it is a muddle of confused agendas with wide ranging remits. A most notable recent example of DCMS incompetence was the "Festival UK 2022", renamed as "unboxed" although unhinged would be closer to the mark. This was Theresa May's attempt at a modern Festival of Britain to explore the potential of brexit. Given the tepid enthusiasm for brexit by the Blob, it was mismanaged spectacularly from the start, and the Minister in charge, Caroline Dineage oversaw the £120 million budget being dissipated across a range of looney projects that was a national disgrace - but hastily buried before any politician or civil servant was required to carry the can. The other politicians that got involved included Oliver Dowden, Julian Knight and Nadine Dorries - some of the cannier politicians seemed to realise it was a disaster in the making, and they generally got out of the way.
Unboxed is a textbook example of what goes wrong when the blob runs riot with public money and appoints its blob chums to do worthy wokeness.
Perhaps the most bonkers of the various projects commissioned the festival was when a scrapped north sea gas production platform was towed to the seafront at Western Super Mare and covered with a shrubbery. The subsequent cover up by the blob has tried very hard to pretend it was all a roaring success, but it ought to be the subject of a documentary as an example of Whitehall at it's worst.
This is a thread about quangos like Ofcom, not gov't depts like DCMS.
Agree Ofcom needs a rethink, but that's different from Petes suggestion it be deleted. The more nuanced approach is to unbundle the jobs to be done by quangos like Ofcom. What needs to stay:
- intra industry wholesale disputes
- cost regulation (if appropriate)
- escalation point for consumer complaints
- promote customer transparency and information to become informed buyers
- enable new entrants to the industry
- Anything else expressly described in law
This therefore excludes most of the bullshit.
Oh and compliance with international standards eg call interconnection standards. That needs to stay.
You can’t talk about fixing things without talking about the need for party members to pick candidates vs unelected bureaucrats doing it for you.
UK needs a US style primary system so that candidates for major parties aren’t hand picked by donors.
Most of these MPs only won because they had C or L by their name. Make it fair and let anyone run in any party in a primary and let constituents choose who they’d prefer!
1. A review and evaluation of all government departments and public institutions in terms of appointment processes, funding , statutory requirements and performance levels with a view to mergers, savings and ensuring essential functions are maintained and non essential functions are removed.
2. For the most important institutions, public hearings and questioning of key appointments.
3. Updating all employee contracts with new and specific requirements for political independence and impartiality with this being a fundamental requirement I. Performance monitoring.
4. New revamped training and induction with impartiality an essential requirement and all training courses for senior staff reviewed by ministers.
5. A recognition of unions and their right to negotiate collectively for employees in key area - eg pay, health and safety but abolition and non recognition of all identity based forums outside of key areas. Clear emphasis thst all employees are to comply with primacy of UK law not international laws
What about exams and testing between certain grades as well. The police still have exams for sargeants and inspector maybe other but they are the two I know off the top of my head.
The key issue is how MPs get elected, the Conservative Party refuse to let anti mass immigration candidates be on the ballot. That is the key issue.