Wanted: CEO for UK plc

Tags: | | | | .

As the health secretary is heckled down by nurses, and other ministers preside over a continuing ‘omnishambles’, Cameron needs to get a grip on his government

Back in April 2011, the government paused the development of its health policy and outsourced it to a group of people it brought together over a weekend. At about the same time No 10 let it be known that the prime minister had made a strategic error when he came into power eleven months earlier, by explaining how he as PM would lead the organisation of the government.

Famously he had said that when he came into office he intended to be the chair of the government and not its chief executive. He had thought that as chair you could appoint competent executive directors and let them get on with the hard work. In this case he would chair the cabinet and his cabinet ministers would get on with running the country.

Last April, it was the failure of his health secretary to explain and develop the government’s health reform policy in a coherent way, that led David Cameron to let it be known he was going to become CEO of his government. To assist him in this process he appointed a number of staff as special advisers to help him with this more arduous task.

Over the year since, those of us interested mainly in health policy have not felt that a noticeably surer hand was at the helm of government policy in this area. In June and July 2011, and later in February 2012, the prime minister became animated about his government’s NHS reforms. However, as was said to me at the time, he kept coming on the field of play as a substitute secretary of state. His aim was to help his team out, rather than to play the captain – on the pitch all the time.

By the end of March 2012 the Health and Social Care Bill became an Act, and whilst the PM knew that one of its aims was to give front line medical staff more say, one never formed the impression that he really knew what was going on in the detail of his policy.

In recent weeks, as what correspondents now seem to be calling the ‘omni-shambles’ of the Budget has layered bad news upon bad news, we have heard once more of Cameron’s intention to be the CEO of the government and not its chair.

(It’s interesting to note that this intention to work a lot harder to run the country is now used by the prime minister as a sort of annual Spring resolution. One he makes every year, only to forget about when the long evenings beckon and someone comes round asking if he will come out at five o’clock to play tennis in the sun. All the good resolutions to ‘buckle down’ and spend the evening working out which set of fighters to buy for our aircraft carriers seem to fly – unlike the fighters – right out of the window when there is something interesting to do).

Last Thursday, the Financial Times  published a leader about this phenomenon.  As the FT notes, this year’s promise to get a grip on government policy is too late for NHS reform, but it would be useful if there was some coherence about all other aspects of public service reform.

Paul Corrigan was formerly senior health policy adviser to Tony Blair when he was prime minister. A longer version of this post first appeared on Health Matters

One comment on Wanted: CEO for UK plc

  1. Warren Park says:

    The changes in the NHS are now in hand and can be judged before the next election. Some of this has not been well handled, but change in such a big and sensitive public service was never going to be easy. The professions in the NHS, nurses and doctors etc, are also militant trades unions and as a consequence difficult to rely upon and involve properly in change. NHS doctors, as well as being concerned with caring for patients, are highly protective of some of the most old fashioned, restrictive, inefficient and costly conditions of service operating in employment in the UK. They are also business people wanting to make as much money as possible through being GPs or in private work as consultants. Labour allowed these people to rack up the costs of the NHS like never before in the reforms they brought in.

    The budget and some other events have not been well handled either in media terms. However, the budget was far from an omni shambles. It was in a very strong budget taking all the right economic steps to a debt crisis including motivation of top talent and entrepreneurs by reducing the top rate of tax in due course. A measure of its true reception is the retained confidence of the financial markets and the stability of the pound.

    The country faces the most enormous difficulties in achieving growth and the Euro crisis, with the uncertainty this brings, is hindering recovery on top. However, trade and industry initiatives are being deployed reasonably well subject to overcoming the credit availability issue.

    Let’s remember that Miliband, Balls, Darling and particularly Brown are responsible for some of the sever crisis we find ourselves in. It was they that supported the idea of strategic regulation – the failed regime of supervision in the financial services and the NHS amongst other places. It was they who failed to control government finances – for example the defence budget and procurement. They contributed to what is now a structural deficit. It was they that rode the waves of politcal benefit derived from a housing boom and encouraging easy access to personal credit so that people lived beyong their means and have now stopped spending in order to recover so harming economic recovery nationally. It was Gordon Brown that introduced a tax on private pensions and failed to recognise the true weakness of these funds ultimately leading to complete collapse of the private pensions system.

    And you think Cameron has lost control. I would note one thing about Cameron – he has a first rate intellect, but even that isn’t enough in such a difficult job as he has. That is why Brown was up all night bumbling round in his office and throwing phones at his staff – not able to cope.

    I for one call for the Police to investigate the commissioning of the two aircraft carriers in Brown’s homeland region. I assert that misconduct in public office may have been involved in the decision making and that Brown primarily had in mind his own self-interest as an MP.

Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *