Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Quite funny that government for some reason decided to offer a free photo portrait of King Charles to various institutions - some you kind of expect like courts and otherwise it's a bit of a grab-bag.

Anyway the union for university academics have called it "culture war nonsense", while the association representing imams has said that they're frustrated that mosques are not entitled to a free portrait (but CofE churches are) as they would quite like one

[Sheilbh]

Yes, GDS used to be brilliant. Not just for government brilliant, but actually brilliant-brilliant. It set a lot of standards which became the norm across the field.
And yup...they decided penny pinching was the way forward and now bring on consultants for thrice the price on isolated projects, not continuously building and being engaged in something.

Yeah but it's not just penny pinching and basically this government.

I think there's too separate trends that are kind of coalescing in this.

One is the way the civil service works - as I say, since at least Harold Wilson's government 60 years ago there have been numerous independent reports highlighting the problem of the civil service preference for generalists and disdain for deep, specialist expertise. That everything is really understood through their own career ladder and structure - so the idea of someone staying in the same area of policy (like energy market regulation) or practice (like procurement, digital services) is just absolutely alien to the civil service and they cannot accommodate it - I think it's striking that the one area I think that does happen is for lawyers, who basically have their own guild privileges. To that I'd add that basically every minister in all parties who either knows their area very well or tries to do something quite big, has found the civil service is a bit of an obstacle (Tony Blair's "scars on my back" speech). I think those two things are possibly linked.

The other big trend that I think has happened around consultancy is similar but a little different which is that the civil service focus is policy not delivery. It's not doing things and I think part of that is also simply because of the peace dividend. I think lots of people would point to neo-liberalism/Thatcher but I'm not so sure - I think the shift was the 90s and in the 80s the British state still did things (and had to), if only because of the Cold War. I think it's in the 90s when it's the other layer of peace dividend that you get more efficiency from outsourcing, from external expertise etc - which is all true (but as all systems contain the seeds of their own end) also means that the internal capacity was diminished over time.

I can't help but wonder about this in Ukraine. Broadly speaking in Europe there is overwhelming public support for Ukraine, strong statements of support from political leaders and I think intent - but we are failing in a war of production. And I can't help but wonder if part of that is fundamentally that we have, in Europe, basically diminished our state capacity from that maximalist version of the mid-20th century with expansive welfare states/social systems and Cold War responsibilities? And that we're now at the stage where it is very difficult to do things if it hasn't already been set up? The industries that existed to support that state, but was subordinate to it (like Europe's multi-billion dollar arms industry) now are primarily export sectors.

I wonder if the combination of the peace dividend, the impact of China and Eastern Europe helping cut inflation in the 90s and 00s (despite energy challenges) but also generally available energy means there's a generation of leaders but also civil servants who simply have no experience of really thinking about the world, the state and their job in material terms of production, supply etc. I think of Rory Stewart's (as a former civil servant and then politician) line about the shock of being back in a "19th century style world" where ownership of raw materials, production capacity etc is really important and politicised - and I just think that it always was, it's just that on the end of benign impacts of that for most of the last 30 years European states (with the partial exceptions of France and Italy) kind of forgot about it/pretended it wasn't and inadvertently hollowed themselves.

[Josquius]

Quite funny that government for some reason decided to offer a free photo portrait of King Charles to various institutions - some you kind of expect like courts and otherwise it's a bit of a grab-bag.

Anyway the union for university academics have called it "culture war nonsense", while the association representing imams has said that they're frustrated that mosques are not entitled to a free portrait (but CofE churches are) as they would quite like one

Sounds like a perfect setup for a Daily Mail writer to whinge about the anti-British muslamics refusing to put up a portrait of the king whilst all the churches they've checked (3) have done.

One is the way the civil service works - as I say, since at least Harold Wilson's government 60 years ago there have been numerous independent reports highlighting the problem of the civil service preference for generalists and disdain for deep, specialist expertise. That everything is really understood through their own career ladder and structure - so the idea of someone staying in the same area of policy (like energy market regulation) or practice (like procurement, digital services) is just absolutely alien to the civil service and they cannot accommodate it -

I do think GDS used to have this kind of thing too. I'm sure I even remember hearing the word guild at some point- tech nerds of course loving that word.
I don't think they're employing random generalists at the moment outside of project management and the like. They're still employing specialists... just as said either on crap wages or as contractors. Quite a lot of my professional contacts are on GDS work.

I think it's striking that the one area I think that does happen is for lawyers, who basically have their own guild privileges. To that I'd add that basically every minister in all parties who either knows their area very well or tries to do something quite big, has found the civil service is a bit of an obstacle (Tony Blair's "scars on my back" speech). I think those two things are possibly linked.

It makes the culture war nonsense the Tories are throwing at the civil service all the weirder. I recently had an exchange online where some randomer told me the BBC was left wing because its the civil service and the civil service is super left wing (layers upon layers....), just wouldn't believe how conservative and change resistant it is.

The other big trend that I think has happened around consultancy is similar but a little different which is that the civil service focus is policy not delivery. It's not doing things and I think part of that is also simply because of the peace dividend. I think lots of people would point to neo-liberalism/Thatcher but I'm not so sure - I think the shift was the 90s and in the 80s the British state still did things (and had to), if only because of the Cold War. I think it's in the 90s when it's the other layer of peace dividend that you get more efficiency from outsourcing, from external expertise etc - which is all true (but as all systems contain the seeds of their own end) also means that the internal capacity was diminished over time.

I'm not so sure the peace dividend could be so neatly blamed here- other countries similarly benefit from this yet they do stuff. Germany is a huge one, they benefitted far more than us and they've managed to integrate a whole extra country.

I really wouldn't agree on the efficiency of outsourcing, but certainly that there's a deep ideological dogma that this is always the case...It does seem to make for a natural hostility to stuff like GDS and the idea of committed specialists on staff.

I can't help but wonder about this in Ukraine. Broadly speaking in Europe there is overwhelming public support for Ukraine, strong statements of support from political leaders and I think intent - but we are failing in a war of production. And I can't help but wonder if part of that is fundamentally that we have, in Europe, basically diminished our state capacity from that maximalist version of the mid-20th century with expansive welfare states/social systems and Cold War responsibilities? And that we're now at the stage where it is very difficult to do things if it hasn't already been set up? The industries that existed to support that state, but was subordinate to it (like Europe's multi-billion dollar arms industry) now are primarily export sectors.

I wonder if the combination of the peace dividend, the impact of China and Eastern Europe helping cut inflation in the 90s and 00s (despite energy challenges) but also generally available energy means there's a generation of leaders but also civil servants who simply have no experience of really thinking about the world, the state and their job in material terms of production, supply etc. I think of Rory Stewart's (as a former civil servant and then politician) line about the shock of being back in a "19th century style world" where ownership of raw materials, production capacity etc is really important and politicised - and I just think that it always was, it's just that on the end of benign impacts of that for most of the last 30 years European states (with the partial exceptions of France and Italy) kind of forgot about it/pretended it wasn't and inadvertently hollowed themselves.

Definitely issues that we've gone too far into a free market, states do nothing sort of direction.
Its interesting to me that not only is the UK failing to deliver for Ukraine but also states that you'd have thought would be more on top of the state doing things.

But not sure I'd link this to the civil service hostility to change and having people on staff- even back in Yes Minster the civil service had this reputation of it being their job to avoid doing any actual work.

[Sheilbh]

I do think GDS used to have this kind of thing too. I'm sure I even remember hearing the word guild at some point- tech nerds of course loving that word.
I don't think they're employing random generalists at the moment outside of project management and the like. They're still employing specialists... just as said either on crap wages or as contractors. Quite a lot of my professional contacts are on GDS work.

Yeah my point is more that the career structure the civil service rewards and understands is the generalist working up the ladder - and the ultimate career peak is Permanent Secretary somewhere, working with cabinet ministers on a daily basis on the most difficult stuff on policy. And in that context I can see the advantage of generalists with experience across government, I can see why the valuable skills will be things like adaptibility and a bit of creativity.

But I think it means they don't really get a separate, specialist career path were actually that's not the career goal. You're working in the sort of area that has no involvement in policy, will never really engage with the political side of the civil service but actually allows the civil service to do its work. I think they really struggle with that. I think it's a bit like, in business, the bits of the business that generate revenue v the cost centres.

Also on that career path - the other problem is that I think the skill of exceptional civil servants is not necessarily the same as the skills of a great manager able to run that department (again you think of partners in law firms). Sir Jeremy Heywood the late Cabinet Secretary for Cameron and May and key Downing Street (and before that Treasury) figure for Brown is by all accounts an exceptional civil servant. Everyone pays tribute to him - his wife did a book on this just called "What Does Jeremy Think?" particularly about things like helping Brown respond on financial crisis etc. From everything I've read he was genuinely brilliant - very smart, very creative, very good at his job. I've also read several things saying that he was a pretty dreadful manager and as the head of the civil service not anywhere near as good - because that's a different skillset, that's possibly the boring bit for someone like him etc.

It makes the culture war nonsense the Tories are throwing at the civil service all the weirder. I recently had an exchange online where some randomer told me the BBC was left wing because its the civil service and the civil service is super left wing (layers upon layers....), just wouldn't believe how conservative and change resistant it is.

I've got some sympathy with the Tories on that - I wouldn't use the language they do or frame it as they do. But as I say every minister who actually knows their area or wants to do reform talks about the civil service as an obstacle in that.

I wouldn't say they're right-wing or left-wing - I think they're very institutional. Which is to be expected but that is and that is a sort of conservatism (not one the Tories have flirted with since Douglas-Home was in charge). And I think ultimately all institutions that accrue power will instinctively fight to defend that and their privileges.

I'm not so sure the peace dividend could be so neatly blamed here- other countries similarly benefit from this yet they do stuff. Germany is a huge one, they benefitted far more than us and they've managed to integrate a whole extra country.

Yeah but I mean we did have an entire Army of the Rhine in Germany in 1990 with whole tank divisions. Currently we don't have enough to help Ukraine.

As a percentage of spending defence basically halves, there's a fall in education too; pensions, Home Office, tranport, overseas aid and debt costs are basically the same; spending on the NHS doubles (and long term social care is an entirely new category of spending).
In 1990 spending on health was about 4% of GDP and spending on defence was about 3.5% of GDP. Now health is about 8.5% and defence is about 2% (and that now includes pensions etc).

But you're right. I meant the peace dividend across Europe - I think it is fair to say that France and the UK took less of that, but it was a thing across Europe and also the US. In part, I think, it allowed us to support the healthcare of an older population in a relatively politically easy way - and I think that age is coming to an end  and the trade-offs of spending are going to be sharper.

Definitely issues that we've gone too far into a free market, states do nothing sort of direction.
Its interesting to me that not only is the UK failing to deliver for Ukraine but also states that you'd have thought would be more on top of the state doing things.

I don't think Britain is very special, positively or negatively. I think the same forces that have shaped our politics and government and society for the last 35 years (and the 45 before then) are also shaping the rest of Europe and most of the West. There may be local variations - I generally think because of our system the UK goes further (I think we became a little bit more neo-liberal than the rest, I also think post-war Britain is possibly the closest to a genuine socialist democracy the world's ever seen) - but the fundamental story is the same.

But not sure I'd link this to the civil service hostility to change and having people on staff- even back in Yes Minster the civil service had this reputation of it being their job to avoid doing any actual work.

So I'm not linking them in that I don't think there's cause and effect necessarily - but I think they are coinciding.

I think there are the old complaints about the civil service which goes back at least to the 60s - in Yes, Minister, but also around specialisation, bad management etc. I think there's a lot of truth to that and it gets worse as time goes on. I also think there's been a period of a settled "world order", there was a period (to use Mervyn King's phrase) of non-inflationary continuous economic expansion - that basically meant that the trade offs and risks in policy were a lot lower. I think that periods over and choices are sharp again. I also think there's been a period of hollowing state capacity. And that those three issues have coincided and in a way I think reinforced (but didn't cause) each other - and now with crises they're now vulnerabilities that are reinforcing each other.