It is very rare for the House of Commons to go completely quiet. But today: no whispers, no rustles of order papers, no coughs and no shuffling of feet greeted the Prime Minister as he entered the chamber. Whilst the strain of his recent illness and the weight of Covid19 Cobra meetings were etched into his boyish face, he looked serious and yet strangely elated.
Rumours had been whisking themselves around the Palace of Westminster for several hours now resulting in a froth of confusion, speculation and even palpable fear. Everyone knew he was going to say something extraordinary and unprecedented but no one knew what. Not even the lobby correspondents who expected to be given a heads up. They were all sulking in a nook somewhere.
People had spoken of extremely secret meetings, objects being thrown and measures that you only expect to see in the Kremlin. Were there really hidden tunnels in Westminster?
The Prime Minister sat down. It wasn't long before the Speaker invited him to give a statement. He nodded, drew breath and stood up. He spent a few moments looking around the chamber and, smiling, glanced upwards to the woman carrying his child.
"As you all know, at the beginning of April I was extremely ill with the dreaded virus. I am grateful beyond words to have received life saving treatment from some of the most dedicated, professional and caring clinicians that I have ever met. And I know there are thousands and thousands of such people working hard, the length and breadth of this country, tending to all the people who are suffering with this disease. Let me put on record again: their commitment, their sacrifice, and indeed their love will never be forgotten by me or probably any of us. Thank you a million times. And a trillion times more.
"When one stares Death in the face, it changes one. And it has changed me. I have had to reevaluate much, maybe even all, that I have believed in until now. And I don't just mean superficial ideas about policies and programmes. I mean my most deeply held values and principles. And I have realised I have been wrong about most of them.
"Like many of my generation I was brought up to believe in the positive power of private enterprise. I still think that, but I have also noted that the huge corporations of the world have sought solace, help and of course money from the governments of the world. And by government money, I mean the money that people have contributed in hard earned taxes. I have noted that the world is really just one place and we humans, just one biology. Covid19 does not recognise borders. And it is with great fortune that across the world, scientists are collaborating to find medical and sociological solutions to the crisis we are in. Never say for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.
"And I have observed how some of the least valued people in our society (and by that I mean the lowest paid) have been the ones who have stepped up and shown themselves to be the most essential, the most brave and the most caring of all of us. Obviously this includes the staff, all the staff, of the NHS but also our cleaners, our refuse collectors, our social workers, our care home carers, our bus drivers, our checkout assistants, our park keepers, our police and so forth. Why has it taken until now for us to really value such people? Moreover, why has it taken me until now to really value such people. I am deeply ashamed and sorry for all the things I have done and not done, that have in so many ways not truly respected and deeply valued everyone's contributions to the smooth and healthy running of our society. And there have been many such things.
"I know I have said things where I have tried to give the impression that I cared. But I didn't, I really didn't. But I do now.
"And so as a consequence of all this thinking, I have decided that I simply cannot remain leader of the Conservative Party. Indeed, I cannot continue being a member at all. My values and principles just don't fit anymore. Many know that my hero, Sir Winston Churchill changed parties. I intend to follow in his footsteps, albeit in the opposite political direction."
And with that last statement, Boris Johnson put down his papers and crossed the House of Commons to the Opposition benches where he purposely sat next to Jeremy Corbyn. They smiled and shook hands.
The House of Commons was silent once more as everyone paused to reflect on what had just happened.
__________
This is of course, a work of fantasy. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
Monday 13 April 2020
Sunday 23 February 2020
Why evaluation is so important...
... to good governance and the husbandry of scarce resources
I have been engaged in a debate with Cllr Warren Whyte over this matter for nearly a year now and we just don't seem to be getting anywhere. This blog is my attempt to nail down why this debate is so critical to the future of Buckinghamshire and the quality of the governance under the new unitary authority happening in April (with elections in May) this year.
There is a simple question outstanding: where are the baseline measures against which success (or otherwise) of the new Early Year's Services can be assessed? Either they exist or they don't and Cllr Whyte is not giving an answer to this question. (Why he is not answering this question, I do not know.)
He seems to be claiming that since the new services are so new (they came into being in September 2019) there is not enough data yet to evaluate the impact of the new arrangements.
I agree... I have no dispute with this. He is correct, it will take some while - at least a school year for the changes made to show any results. Arguably since the Sure Start programme was always long term in its visions and strategy, it may well take years for the true impact of the changes to emerge.
But... this is all about evaluation. And to evaluate the impact of a new service or policy, there has to be a baseline measure against which progress can be assessed. For example, I might claim that the way to reduce absenteeism in schools would be to give all school students a new watch with an inbuilt vibrating alarm to remind them to get to school. After the policy is introduced, perhaps just before an election, I would claim success: "the new scheme has worked - elect me as I can get good things done!".
But it would ONLY be judged a success IF I had a measure taken BEFORE the new policy came into place - against which I could then say: "look, the rates of absenteeism have gone down!" If no such measures had been taken - success could NOT be measured. This is basic science: it is about searching for proof that policies work, as far we are able to measure them.
I would hope that this is all fairly straightforward to understand but it seems from my interactions with Cllr Whyte (on social media and face to face) that this idea of baseline measures is eluding him, or at least he is saying it is eluding him. I am unable to judge which.
And this is not personal - I have nothing against Cllr Whyte as a chap: we have engaged in banter and good conversations on many occasions. This is about science and, of course, politics. I have explained the science bit above. As for the politics, I often observe how Conservative politicians like to dress up cuts to services as variously: streamlining, making efficiency savings, redesigning new services to better meet needs, reshaping public services for the modern age... and so forth. Such statements all seek to sustain a masquerade that services can be severely cut while the social impact of those cuts is negligible or even better!
I am, of course, not disputing that there are ways of changing the way that public services can be commissioned and managed that can lead to significant improvements in value for money and productivity. Indeed I have written a book about such practices (see www.crackingquestions.com). So I know my stuff after 31 years in the business of organisational improvement.
Part of the stuff I also know is that you have to evaluate any new interventions or organisational changes to see if they are working better than the previous way of delivering a service. It seems to me, however, that Conservative politicians especially (but sadly not exclusively) don't really like evaluation because it might just show that the new arrangements for a service have made things worse than before, perhaps very very much worse... And maybe we have this here with the new Early Years Services in Bucks.
Nearly a year ago, I asked Cllr Whyte on social media
He replied:
“Critical success indicators for the new service are:
These are all very specific - and very measurable. I asked Cllr Whyte then where the baseline measures of these indicators were. He didn't answer a year ago, and he still not answering this question. Without an answer, I left to assume that there are no baseline measures. But if there are some, I would be most happy!
For me this is all about good governance and the proper husbandry of scare public resources. I would like Cllr Whyte, as the responsible Cabinet Member, to come up with a reasonable answer to my questions. If not then I will have to presume that the management of our public services here in Bucks is simply all about a political drive towards cutting the money spent rather than doing the utmost to ensure the lives of young families are nurtured and helped in the most efficient and effective ways. You cannot do the latter without proper baseline measurement and evaluation.
So come May this year: who will you vote for...? Will you be voting for the return of Conservative rule which, it seems to me based on this matter above, will deliver the same old same old ideological and unscientific approach to managing critical public services. Or do you want something different?
Is Bucks just about the bucks for you? Or do you want an administration of the County's public services that pays proper regard to science, measurement and, above all, the impact upon people's lives? It's your democratic choice.
I have been engaged in a debate with Cllr Warren Whyte over this matter for nearly a year now and we just don't seem to be getting anywhere. This blog is my attempt to nail down why this debate is so critical to the future of Buckinghamshire and the quality of the governance under the new unitary authority happening in April (with elections in May) this year.
There is a simple question outstanding: where are the baseline measures against which success (or otherwise) of the new Early Year's Services can be assessed? Either they exist or they don't and Cllr Whyte is not giving an answer to this question. (Why he is not answering this question, I do not know.)
He seems to be claiming that since the new services are so new (they came into being in September 2019) there is not enough data yet to evaluate the impact of the new arrangements.
I agree... I have no dispute with this. He is correct, it will take some while - at least a school year for the changes made to show any results. Arguably since the Sure Start programme was always long term in its visions and strategy, it may well take years for the true impact of the changes to emerge.
But... this is all about evaluation. And to evaluate the impact of a new service or policy, there has to be a baseline measure against which progress can be assessed. For example, I might claim that the way to reduce absenteeism in schools would be to give all school students a new watch with an inbuilt vibrating alarm to remind them to get to school. After the policy is introduced, perhaps just before an election, I would claim success: "the new scheme has worked - elect me as I can get good things done!".
But it would ONLY be judged a success IF I had a measure taken BEFORE the new policy came into place - against which I could then say: "look, the rates of absenteeism have gone down!" If no such measures had been taken - success could NOT be measured. This is basic science: it is about searching for proof that policies work, as far we are able to measure them.
I would hope that this is all fairly straightforward to understand but it seems from my interactions with Cllr Whyte (on social media and face to face) that this idea of baseline measures is eluding him, or at least he is saying it is eluding him. I am unable to judge which.
And this is not personal - I have nothing against Cllr Whyte as a chap: we have engaged in banter and good conversations on many occasions. This is about science and, of course, politics. I have explained the science bit above. As for the politics, I often observe how Conservative politicians like to dress up cuts to services as variously: streamlining, making efficiency savings, redesigning new services to better meet needs, reshaping public services for the modern age... and so forth. Such statements all seek to sustain a masquerade that services can be severely cut while the social impact of those cuts is negligible or even better!
I am, of course, not disputing that there are ways of changing the way that public services can be commissioned and managed that can lead to significant improvements in value for money and productivity. Indeed I have written a book about such practices (see www.crackingquestions.com). So I know my stuff after 31 years in the business of organisational improvement.
Part of the stuff I also know is that you have to evaluate any new interventions or organisational changes to see if they are working better than the previous way of delivering a service. It seems to me, however, that Conservative politicians especially (but sadly not exclusively) don't really like evaluation because it might just show that the new arrangements for a service have made things worse than before, perhaps very very much worse... And maybe we have this here with the new Early Years Services in Bucks.
Nearly a year ago, I asked Cllr Whyte on social media
- How will the success of the new arrangements be measured so that it can be seen that more children get help earlier?
- How will the effectiveness of such help be measured? (cos there's no point deploying 'help' that doesn't work)
- What outcome indicators will the County be assessing in order to judge whether these new arrangements are working (or not)
He replied:
“Critical success indicators for the new service are:
- Reduction in number of contacts into First Response (Children’s Social Care) from schools.
- Reduction in the number of cases previously closed to social care that are re- referred within 12 months from closure.
- Increased percentage share of contacts received in First Response, allocated to early help services.
- Number of early help assessments completed.
- Number of contacts signposted effectively via appropriate information, advice and guidance or to Buckinghamshire Family Information System (BFIS).
- Increased attendance for school age children engaged with family support services.
- Reduction in number of Post 16 young people who are Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET / unknown).
- Reduction in number of fixed term exclusions from school.
- Reduction in number of exclusions from school for students with SEND.
- Reduction in the number of students permanently excluded from schools.
- Reduction in the number of Education Health and Care Plan assessment"
These are all very specific - and very measurable. I asked Cllr Whyte then where the baseline measures of these indicators were. He didn't answer a year ago, and he still not answering this question. Without an answer, I left to assume that there are no baseline measures. But if there are some, I would be most happy!
For me this is all about good governance and the proper husbandry of scare public resources. I would like Cllr Whyte, as the responsible Cabinet Member, to come up with a reasonable answer to my questions. If not then I will have to presume that the management of our public services here in Bucks is simply all about a political drive towards cutting the money spent rather than doing the utmost to ensure the lives of young families are nurtured and helped in the most efficient and effective ways. You cannot do the latter without proper baseline measurement and evaluation.
So come May this year: who will you vote for...? Will you be voting for the return of Conservative rule which, it seems to me based on this matter above, will deliver the same old same old ideological and unscientific approach to managing critical public services. Or do you want something different?
Is Bucks just about the bucks for you? Or do you want an administration of the County's public services that pays proper regard to science, measurement and, above all, the impact upon people's lives? It's your democratic choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)