From Kudos to Opprobrium

The papers this last few weeks have been full of depressing news about the scale of the cuts presaged by the coalition and attributed by many commentators to the Liberal Democrats who have been deemed to have sold out their principles. Pensions, Jobs, Schools, Personal Care, Culture and even Defence are all threatened but so is the well-being of most groups in society. The cartoonists are sharpening their pencils on the short-leeted villains in the government; Michael Gove is definitely the Joker. However, there is something not quite right about the indignation of many observers who seem to relish the damage that would be done to the coalition more than the devastation to jobs and lives. Some reduction in public expenditure is necessary and this reflects badly on the previous government which revelled in making announcements about more money going to popular causes like Health, Education, Police and International Aid. The money usually came with an instruction book on how to spend it which as we all know is contrary to human nature, deciding what is best should be based upon local knowledge of needs.

But the government wanted the kudos from the largesse and it was not going to allow those responsible for implementing and running the services any share in the feelgood factor. The outcomes were not particularly well monitored or measured and it is now apparent that productivity in the public sector has fallen significantly over the past decade.  This followed good progress in improving services between 1997 and 2000 when funds were tighter but largely managed by the organisations who ran the services.

The last few years have seen huge growth in public expenditure but it has been bluntly directed by central government at its key priorities. The money spent has seemed more important than what it is achieving. Recent evidence shows that the biggest gainers - Education, Health, Higher Education and Police have seen a big drop in productivity or, put another way, a steep spike in the unit cost of services over this period. One of the reasons is that there has not been the engagement of the organisations or the workforce in designing and implementing many of the new initiatives. Spending has been ring-fenced with less concern about outcomes than allocating the money.

Conversely, at a time of cuts, it is disingenuous of the coalition to claim that it is decentralising and letting local organisations and public agencies determine how to take more responsibility for the services they provide with 'less interference from government'. There is after all no kudos and considerable pain in withdrawing services for both consumers and those whose jobs will disappear. The equations being worked out at Whitehall as part of the spending review are a smokescreen to show how tough the government is being but the reality is that almost all the savings will be delegated to others be it NHS, local government, and the myriad of agencies that support everything from sport and culture to homelessness in a civilised society. This is where the government hopes the opprobrium will stick because these are the agencies that will determine and announce who loses services, grants and jobs. So the latest ruse of devolved accountability by the new government is at face value the opposite of the last government but it displays exactly the same selfish gene of our politicians.  Centralise the kudos and decentralise the opprobrium.