« David Willetts: The three ingredients of successful school choice programmes | Main | Huhne - the poseur multilateralist »


Here's something to reflect upon.

In 1997 there was something called the Dept of the Environment, handling local govmt and environmental protection. Since then it has been merged with Transport, to form DETR (1997), lost environmental protection to Defra and become DTLR (2001), and lost Transport again to become ODPM (2002). The Social Exclusion Unit started out in the Cabinet Office (1997) and then went to ODPM (2002). It sounds actually as if all this change means is that it's going back to the Cabinet Office again.

The net result of all this desk shuffling?
(a)The officials dealing with local government matters have been separated from those dealing with environmental protection.
(b) work which in 1997 required half of one cabinet minister now requires the work of three cabinet ministers (Prescott as Dep PM; Miliband as Local Govmt Minister; plus the new Social Exclusion Minister).
(c) a lot of your money has been spent on websites, printing stationery, hiring consultants etc etc.

I wonder why public sector productivity is so low?

Actually - there's something else even more worthy of consideration.

Presumably, the new Cabinet Minister for Social Exclusion will be receiving one of the new £50,000 Jaguar cars issued to all Cabinet Ministers.

Does that make him/her more or less socially excluded from the rest of us?

Never has so much bureaucracy and waffle been wasted by so many to achieve so little.

Williams comments confirm how as the SS Labgov sails on its Captain is more interested in arranging the deckchairs than which direction it's going.

Dealing with social inclusion is about imbedded principles in all departments not an oversight collective of civil servants.

The notion of their being a Social Exclusion Unit or a Cabinet Minister for it is a stupid idea, naturally all Government Departments should aim at achieving equality of opportunity as much as is practicable - evening defining what Social Exclusion is is a difficult thing to do, someone can be a Millionaire and yet find it extremley difficult to function socially, equally some people who are poor yet function quite well socially and what really can government do about social opportunities, the answer is absolutely nothing but waste money trying.

Does that make him/her more or less socially excluded from the rest of us?

If the Minister was denied access to the ministerial Jaguar, then said minister would appear to inferior to their ministerial colleagues, and would thus suffer social exclusion.

Obviouly in the interests of social inclusion, either the Deputy Prime Minister should give up one Jaguar, or allow allow the ministers to have two.

Oh yes.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker