Recent posts

[Especially if the briefing papers were out of date by the time they were published. It was in the finest civil service traditions not to issue any document that could be construed as helpful. The sole purpose of the civil service was the perpetuation of the civil service.On and on this went, until Keith eventually gave up in despair. It was 50-50 whether he'd end up killing himself or Wormald. Imagine what it would be like working with Chris. A lifetime in the hell of a bureaucratic cul-de-sac. Where process trumps outcome every time. But he will get his reward. People pay good money for that kind of futility. Which is why he's tipped to be the next cabinet secretary when Simon Case steps down. Make that Lord Wormald.]

#1

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Sheilbh - Today at 05:41:53 AM

I had the misfortune to work in the civil service for a few years and was not impressed. It is a major centre of group think, partially understandable given its role, but not a place to look for innovative changemakers.

I posted it at the time he was appointed but John Crace's sketch of Wormald at the Covid Inquiry was pretty withering. I think it was also so bad that people thought he'd lost his chance to become Cabinet Secretary - clearly Keir Starmer was watching and recognised exactly the drive and spirit of change he needed

It turned out that Stevens was just the warmup act. The hors d'oeuvre. The real masterclass in time-wasting came from Christopher Wormald. The permanent secretary of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). The king of the time wasters. Pen pusher extraordinaire. The man who had never come across a form that he didn't want to fill out in triplicate. The Sir Humphrey for whom silence was the Pavlovian response to any question. Quickly followed by a stream of unconsciousness. Time and again, the lead counsel Hugo Keith KC had to beg him to listen to what he was saying.

We started with Door Matt. Cummings and MacNamara had referred to him as a pathological liar. What did he think? Definitely not. In every invention there had been a kernel of truth. Something to believe in if you were extremely gullible. Or stupid. And he was both. If Matty was guilty of anything it was that he was sometimes over-optimistic. Mmm. Like imagining he wouldn't get caught bullshitting and breaking the rules.

Moving on. The former cabinet secretary Mark Sedwill had suggested the health department had not been prepared for the pandemic. Wormald spluttered. Incredulous. Indeed it was. He had ordered in extra boxes of paperclips to keep the additional briefing papers together. He had also made sure the toner had been replaced in the photocopier. So yes, it might have seemed that the DHSC had been preparing for a flu pandemic while the rest of the world was preparing for a coronavirus pandemic. And it might have looked like the department had shrugged its shoulders and was ready to let more than a million die before considering preventive test-and-trace measures.

But appearances could be deceptive. He – the Great Chris, the Comptroller of Office Supplies – had made sure every document had been printed with the correct font. Comic relief. Even if all the briefing papers were out of date by the time they were published. Especially if the briefing papers were out of date by the time they were published. It was in the finest civil service traditions not to issue any document that could be construed as helpful. The sole purpose of the civil service was the perpetuation of the civil service.

On and on this went, until Keith eventually gave up in despair. It was 50-50 whether he'd end up killing himself or Wormald. Imagine what it would be like working with Chris. A lifetime in the hell of a bureaucratic cul-de-sac. Where process trumps outcome every time. But he will get his reward. People pay good money for that kind of futility. Which is why he's tipped to be the next cabinet secretary when Simon Case steps down. Make that Lord Wormald.

FWIW I think this is also part of your view on Starmer. Tom McTague in the last year or two has done two huge profiles of Starmer and Burnham (which hurt Burnham's leadership chance - although I think that might just be the party conference cycle). I think there is a fundamental difference in their analysis. I think Starmer's is wrong but helps explain why he goes for someone like Wormald. In that I think Starmer doesn't think Britain needs fundamental change, it just needs more competence. While I think Burnham and some other critics thinks there are fundamental problems that basically need a new political economy. I think that analysis is key in explaining the why and how of Starmer - I think in a way it is also reflected in how you view "populism" whether it is the problem because it causes or chaos, or whether it is a symptom.

So Starmer who briefly had "the stability is the change" as a (meaningless) slogan:

Once again, the answers Starmer turns to are, in effect, apolitical. Investors tell him "we need to see a more stable environment", he explains. "Which is why we're so focused on stability, fiscal rules and making sure that even if they're difficult decisions, that is the foundational stone of what we're doing." Stability, not change: the core of the Starmer government.

"You don't think that the country is fundamentally broken," I put it to him, stating his position. "[You think] it can be fixed... with intelligent and stable leadership... [that] it doesn't need to fundamentally change in a kind of Thatcherite way."

"No," Starmer replies.

Burnham:

To his critics, Burnham's real agenda is less ideological than political, focused on his own advancement. Burnham rejects this characterisation and explains his leftist turn as one forged through experience, particularly his decision to bring Manchester's bus network under public control. Suddenly, fares could be cut, costs controlled, routes expanded. "Public control is everything," he tells me. And now he wants more: control of housing, energy, water, rail - "the basics of life" as he calls them. "I've described what we've been doing here as rolling back the 1980s." This, then, is today's Andy Burnham, the anti-Thatcher - the north's revenge.

I'd add, incidentally, that on that stability point - I think even on that Starmer's failed as it seems to me like everyone's happy we've moved on from Tory psychodrama. But we seem to be having a fair amount of Labour psychodrama - I was astonished how personal the attacks on Burnham were as well as some of the stuff around who is in and out the cabinet etc.

It has been a regular feature in the magazine. I have not yet read the full expose which runs to several thousand words.

They should make a TV series about it. Then people could say "why did nobody say anything about it?" when Private Eye has been going on about it at length for many years 

So I've said before but I'm convinced the most corrupt layer of government in Britain is local government - mainly because the local press has died. So there's no-one covering this unless you can get it picked up by a national or Private Eye. But also it's generally local government that makes most planning decisions. You have revolving doors of councillors to developers or contractors, family members etc.

Whether it's this or the Liverpool New Chinatown Project (which literally sounds like the name you'd invent for a corrupt property scheme in a TV series ) which had the Mayor's son running a health and safety in construction company that was appointed by literally all the contractors working on the project, and had a director who was very closely linked to local organised crime (been inside for coke dealing and GBH from a gangland fight). I think the lack of local press and resource in it to do investigations is a really big problem.

It's something I'm always a bit torn on. I think devolution is my "one cool trick" to fix everything in Britain - but I also think the quality of local government isn't great and I do think there's a lot of unexamined corruption and issues there. Similarly even with this I kind of get the point of NAO or inquiries - but the outcome would be more focus on "Value for money" which I think is often a Treasury trap to destroy basically any capital expenditure scheme (because there will be waste) and probably end up recommending twenty more stakeholder consultations and veto powers that make it more difficult to do anything.

#2

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Richard Hakluyt - Today at 04:49:33 AM

It has been a regular feature in the magazine. I have not yet read the full expose which runs to several thousand words.

They should make a TV series about it. Then people could say "why did nobody say anything about it?" when Private Eye has been going on about it at length for many years 

#3

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Josquius - Today at 04:25:18 AM

No access to the original Private Eye piece sadly but glad to see the obvious stench of Tees Port really getting attention. Middlesbrough's MP wrote this:

Private Eye's comprehensively detailed and fully evidenced exposé last week of the Teesworks saga ["Stripped Tees" in No 1660], makes for shocking reading. The story it tells reads like the screenplay for a dark political drama, one in which public money and public assets have been shockingly exploited and public trust has been completely eroded. The scale and gravity of what has been exposed demands a full and independent investigation.

The investigative journalist Richard Brooks of Private Eye is to be congratulated for his public service in his determined unearthing of evidence, despite the best efforts of some to frustrate him in his quest for the facts. His findings reveal a disturbing pattern: flawed and determined decision-making, channelling vast sums of public money in particular directions, resulting in colossal financial benefit for the private developer partners, whilst leaving taxpayers carrying the risk.

Across Teesside and beyond, wholly justified concerns have been expressed for many years. The previous Conservative government was wholly supportive and content for huge amounts of public funding to be spent to assemble, decontaminate and remediate vast tracts of industrial land at the taxpayer's expense. Yet outrageously, that land has subsequently been transferred to a small group of businessmen for nominal sums and for them to then enjoy eye watering profits through further transactions. Through a web of contracts and corporate structures, they were able to profit handsomely while local communities have seen little return.

Instead of using these precious monies for an industrial renaissance and the creation of a wealth fund for the Tees Valley, as originally envisaged by the original members of the South Tees Development Board, the Conservative Mayor and his friends established structures that meant the wealth generated flowed and continued to flow, into the private partners' coffers.

Investigation is needed
What is now needed is a formal authoritative inquiry and investigation.

The Tees Valley Review, commissioned by then Minister Michael Gove, as a result of my parliamentary intervention on the matter, provided an important but limited account of the governance and decision making. Its findings were nevertheless damning, and it made an unprecedented 28 highly significant, far reaching and significant recommendations. But it had no power to compel evidence, to demand all the documents held beyond the public authorities, or to fully test the veracity of key decisions. It was a review and not an investigation – which, whilst damning, did not fully get to the bottom of the key issues.

The government's Best Value process, to which the Tees Valley Combines Authority is now subject, and which monitors whether local authorities deliver value for money, is valid and useful. But it is not – and was never meant to be – the kind of forensic inquiry that is truly needed. Only a full investigation can get to the bottom of how public resources were handled and fully answer the questions as to whether those responsible acted properly.

There has been much talk of a National Audit Office inquiry and clearly that hasn't happened, but I am today calling for the need for an inquiry to be revisited.

There needs to be a formal, independent inquiry with the ability to compel disclosure, to take evidence under oath and follow the money wherever it leads.

If that means inquiring into individuals and private sector entities, then any such inquiry will have to have that power.

The Labour Party previously committed to seeking a National Audit Office investigation but whilst a NAO inquiry would be a positive step, consideration will have to be given as to whether the NAO has the reach to  fully investigate into all the dark recesses of the various corporate entities or whether a full statutory judge-led public inquiry would be the right vehicle to properly investigate all these matters.

The problems run deeper than Teesworks alone. Accountability, scrutiny and transparency around devolution funding are far too weak, particularly for Combined Authority Mayors. Once monies are devolved, the systems of scrutiny are simply insufficient, inadequate and not fit for purpose. There has to be something deeply flawed if the government does not have the means to enforce accountability when such massive funds are devolved. This debacle risks undermining the government's entire devolution agenda if these issues are not confronted.

The fact that the Tees Valley Combined Authority's accounts have been "disclaimed" without proper audit for two years in a row, should alarm anyone who believes in good governance. And given that the South Tees Development Corporation is now struggling to pay back the debts it has racked up, and is looking to the TVCA for payment holidays, it has to set alarm bells ringing in Whitehall. As Richard Brooks point out in his lengthy article, "There would have been no such trouble if STDC hadn't handed over the income from its land ( and much else) to Messrs Corney and Musgrave".

This lack of accountability leaves our region at a disadvantage when seeking further funding and undermines public confidence in devolution itself.

The Mayor of Tees Valley was previously welcoming of an independent inquiry by the National Audit Office. Whether by way of the NOA or a Judge, only a truly independent and uninhibited public inquiry will restore trust, improve financial management and rebuild confidence in the region's leadership.

If the government concludes that the NAO is the appropriate body for such an investigation, then three parties must play their part. The Government must propose and support it. The Mayor of Tees Valley must consent and the National Audit Office must agree there is a case to proceed and agree to investigate. Whatever the route to a fully independent inquiry, the time for doing so is way overdue.

After the 2015 closure of Teesside's proud steelmaking industry, we had a once-in-a-generation chance to transform our Tees Valley economy. The vision was for a new hub and cluster of net-zero industries, creating thousands of skilled jobs and in doing so establishing a community wealth fund that would deliver lasting social good. Instead, opaque governance and highly questionable decisions have squandered that opportunity and eroded public trust.

This entire saga has a smell hanging over it. The people of Teesside, Hartlepool and Darlington are no fools. That smell will not go away until there is a full, transparent and independent inquiry. Only by confronting what went on can we begin to restore integrity, accountability and hope for the better future our region deserves.

https://northeastbylines.co.uk/region/teesside/teesworks-scandal-a-dark-tale-of-public-wealth-lost-and-private-gain/


Ironically its exactly this kind of proto-Reform shit happening which has really led to the decline in trust and rise of Reform.
For a good decade or two local social media groups have been full of angry shouting about brown envelopes. Mostly exaggerated and mis-aimed. The British hard right operate on the same principles of  "if you want to know what Russia is doing see what Russia is accusing others of"

#4

Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread

Last post by Admiral Yi - Today at 03:18:33 AM

Interesting read Jake.

I think it's more likely AI slop replaces human generated slop. 

#5

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Josquius - Today at 03:07:05 AM

I had the misfortune to work in the civil service for a few years and was not impressed. It is a major centre of group think, partially understandable given its role, but not a place to look for innovative changemakers.

#6

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Richard Hakluyt - Today at 02:56:43 AM

I had the misfortune to work in the civil service for a few years and was not impressed. It is a major centre of group think, partially understandable given its role, but not a place to look for innovative changemakers.

#7

Off the Record / Re: Vote in the Dutch election...

Last post by Josquius - Today at 02:56:18 AM

I am curious how a party that seems pretty clear on its policies to dramatically reduce freedoms for people calls itself the Party for Freedom. But maybe it makes more sense in Dutch.

I mean, America has the Republicans who are installing a King.

#8

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Tamas - Today at 02:42:10 AM

Ok that IS pretty stupid wtf

#9

Gaming HQ / Re: Victoria 3

Last post by Richard Hakluyt - Today at 02:19:40 AM

Very odd. V3 used to crash on my old intel machine and is now very stable on my win11 AMD X3D machine 

#10

Off the Record / Re: Vote in the Dutch election...

Last post by Richard Hakluyt - Today at 01:29:47 AM

Its an abbreviation for Party for Freedom Reduction and eventual Elimination. Plus you will now be free to use racial  slurs down the pub and on social media. You some sort of commie Valmy?