It's all terribly confusing for someone like me who's most comfortable discussing the merits of different generations of Star Trek, or whether Windy Miller was so called because of his love of home-brew.
(The Prosecution rests. Your witness.)
However, I will make so bold as to suggest a couple of useful strategies that might help guide us through the process of reducing our economic reliance on State borrowing.
Firstly, let's try and avoid publicly-funded social engineering. My example here is from my old friends Barking and Dagenham, who are now looking for a Group Manager, Community Cohesion, but sadly can only offer a rather stingy £47,907-£51,741. Times are indeed hard. The appointee will "head up a dedicated team of Community Development and Equalities and Diversity Officers" and the role will be "more than just policy and commissioning, it's about influencing key stakeholders and developing innovative solutions to a unique set of challenges."
Now, I freely admit I've been blogging too much on this cheap-shot gig of quoting Guardian public-sector jobs, and as soon as I've quit smoking and drinking too much, I will desist, I promise. But since I've already cut and pasted the above in, we might as well poke some fun at it, don't you think?
But seriously, folks, the last sentence in this job advert seemed a little spooky to me: "What's certain is that you have a practical understanding of the importance of bringing people closer together; no matter who they are, or what they might believe."
Even if, let's say, they're quite happy being quiet peaceful recluses who believe that they're quite happy being peacefully reclusive? Or, let's say again, if they're middle-aged Moslems who'd prefer to spend their leisure time with middle-aged Moslems rather than teenage African-Caribbeans?
We all have our own notion of a perfect society; but I very much doubt that we can afford to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money (in this one London borough alone) on trying to force one version of it into existence. Social engineering is littered with catastrophe, and depending on your political stance you could think about Le Corbusier's high-rise towers, comprehensive schools, Thatcher selling off council housing or the rampant crime and poverty in the collapsed former Communist states. What inevitably happens is those who can afford to escape the imposed system do so, and those who can't are left to suffer in the wreckage, worse off than they were before. This is stupid at any time, and even more so when we will struggle to keep meals arriving with the house-bound elderly and disabled.
Secondly, let's not have the public sector do what the private sector should be doing. This isn't all about the PFI debate, it goes right down to tiny things. I used to be in the print industry. It was well known that January to March was the time to really sniff round the local authorities for print jobs, as about that time of year they would be desperate to use up any unspent budget lest they 'lose' it come the next funding round. One job I saw going through was a rather nicely produced booklet of walks using the county's rights of way, published by the county's rights of way department, oddly enough. All very worthy, and I am myself a great enthusiast for rambling the county's rights of way, some of which are very ancient and beautiful. But a quick peek at the shelves of WH Smith or Waterstones will show that such guidebooks are already out there - and will be losing business because of the freebie version being distributed from County Hall.
Now, from the private sector printer's point of view, it doesn't really matter who places the order and pays for it, but from the wider view, it would be better for the entrepreneurial publisher to do it and make enough money to employ a couple of ex-rights of way officers from the county council (which would still leave them plenty) to generate more books. A tiny example, as I said, but a transfer of the generation of economic activity from the public sector to the private sector.
To sum up. This post has been way too long and rambling (heh! see what I did there?) but can be boiled down to:
Oy! Public sector: don't attempt the bleeding impossible, and don't try and do what the private sector can do perfectly well.
Having gone for a top-up of home-brew and re-read my masterly change management analysis, I'm very tempted to apply to the London Borough of Havering, who are seeking four 'transformation programme managers', each on up to £77,000. They need me, I feel sure, and having avidly watched the entire Buffy the Vampire Slayer cycle, I think "evidence of strong stakeholder management skills" will be no problem. But would £77,000 compensate me for living in Romford?
Uh... no. I've been there.
No comments:
Post a Comment