Why is New Labour so inefficient and incompetent?

Is inefficient and incompetent? Yes, despite all the spin and deceit, the only thing that they are able to do is to spend vast sums of money. (See “The Bumper Book of Government Waste” by Matthew Elliott and Lee Rotherham – you will be amazed at the size of the waste – they estimate £100 billion. The Tax Payers Alliance also includes regular examples on their web site.)

But it’s not just the waste of money (although Defra were spending vast sums on consultants when they cut the maintenance at Pirbright!), it is the incompetence in running departments – the Home Office was by no means the only one not fit for purpose- look wherever you will.)

Why is this?

In part it is their lack of coherent ideology. They achieved office without having thought what their policies would be. Soundbites like New Labour, the Third way, Cool Britannia, Britishness have little operational meaning. The person who said “The man who aims at nothing in particular hits exactly that every time” was surely right.

They have not stopped campaigning since 1997, or well before that, so much of their spinning, and now “pinching Tory clothes”, is to drive the Tories to destruction and irrelevant permanent opposition. This does not make for efficient government!

Business management used to have a description “management by lurch” – no medium term, let alone long term, plan, but rather attending to the most pressing problem briefly before going on to another. With New Labour we have government lurch – at the moment, because of the ill-thought-out and rushed devolution policy which suited Labour after 1997, we now have Britishness promoted by a Scottish elected prime minister and cabinet. We have seen new “wheezes” in education to overcome the failure of teaching and examinations, gimmicks in crime policy, and the endless response to problems one of “We’re talking about that” as if talking is guaranteed to solve everything.

We now have a presidential system grafted on to and corrupting a cabinet parliamentary tradition, and a former prime minister who was one of the worst attenders at the House of Commons. His deeds and pronouncements were largely calculated to improve his own image and international standing. The presidential system works only if there are checks and balances, and if he is willing to listen to a wide dispersion of opinion, rather than his small circle of acolytes. While Blair was on the throne, we had an over-powerful chancellor next door, who not only decided how much funding each department should get but also interfered with directions of spending within the department. Perhaps I should have described the Blair years as a duumvirate presidency?

Peter Oborne in his recent book makes a strong case for the arrival of a professional political class. Even if you don’t accept his full thesis, the facts are very clear – many of the present cabinet have reached their powerful position without ever having worked outside the Westminster village. They generally know nothing about how business functions, or many other things in the real world. Their preoccupation is pulling political levers in the simplistic belief that they can predict the consequence of their actions. It may be a reflection on their lack of knowledge and a distrust of the traditional civil service that they have expended vast sums on consultants and have created ever more powerful quangos which they seek to control.

(I make no mention of the influence of Trade Unions, who increasingly fund New Labour since the honours fiasco. They have had significant successes, such as withstanding the Government’s wish to make new occupational pensions available only at 65, as in the private sector and as for old age pensions. While they continue to fund New Labour we may expect policy concessions in their direction, and the battles of the 1980s may have to be fought again before we sink into un-competitiveness.)