Showing posts with label Gus O'Donnell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gus O'Donnell. Show all posts

Monday, 31 December 2012

OBITUARY: Whitehall 1947-2012

Some emperors driven mad by absolute power appoint their horse a senator.
While others create ERG.

This time last year Sir-Gus-now-Lord O'Donnell was still Cabinet Secretary, permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office and head of the home civil service. He stood down on 31 December 2011.

The month before, Sir Richard Mottram had published an article in Public Servant magazine, Whitehall shake-up – not all good news.

Sir Richard mentioned a number of the abiding problems faced by Whitehall, problems which existed when Sir Gus took over and which had still not been solved six years later. Among others, how do you govern Whitehall? The big central government departments look like independent satrapies. Silo government. Who, if anyone, is in charge? According to Sir Richard:
... the coalition government has given increasing priority to improving the efficiency of the civil service and the wider public service under a Cabinet Office group ...
The "Cabinet Office group" in question is the Efficiency and Reform Group (ERG):
Efficiency, Reform and Growth (ERG), established in 2010 as the Efficiency and Reform Group, is part of the Cabinet Office, which works in partnership with HM Treasury to form the corporate centre for UK Government. Its objectives are to reform the way government works and to support the transformation of government services by both driving cost savings and focusing on growth to build a platform to enhance public services.
Take a step back.

Professor GW Keeton was Dean of the Faculty of Laws at University College, London. In 1952 he published his book The Passing of Parliament, in which he expressed his amazement that the UK had an army of a million public servants. 60 years later the army has swollen to nearer six million. Power has been wrested by Whitehall from parliament. That was easy. Whitehall exists in a state of "administrative lawlessness" as Keeton called it. And money has been wrested from the people – Whitehall now commands a budget of about £700 billion p.a. It is a mercy that Prof Keeton didn't live to see that statistic. And that he never saw the craven media who today regard that as the minimum ante you have to put up to get into the government game.

Whitehall's success – six million staff and an annual income of £700 billion – bespeaks a ruthlessly rapacious cuckoo in the nest of the State. We are used to hearing about property bubbles and stock market bubbles and credit bubbles. But look at public expenditure. In 2000-01 total managed expenditure stood at £443.7 billion. By 2009-10 it had risen to £705.6 billion. Up 59% in real terms in 10 years with no commensurate improvement in outcomes. We're living in the midst of a public administration bubble along with all the other bubbles and like all the other bubbles it's got to burst.

How will it end?

No need to guess. Just open your eyes and look. Circumspice, as the Romans would say.

Some emperors driven mad by absolute power appoint their horse a senator. While others create ERG.

It's a very modern organisation, ERG, boasting the advantages of the very latest in management theory. ERG doesn't have departments or offices or desks or even units. It has clusters. Five of them. It comprises Corporate, Efficiency, Transformation, Growth and Projects clusters.

The Transformation cluster is headed by ex-Guardian man Mike Bracken, the Executive Director of Digital, and ex-Rothschild man Ed Welsh, the Executive Director of Commercial Models. You couldn't make it up, you might think. But someone did.

In the decadent and degenerate hands of the Transformation cluster, "government" means making all public services digital by default. Which means making them all available on the web, and only on the web. The fact that about 10 million members of the public have never used the web and will become excluded by default doesn't deter the Transformation cluster. Those members of the public are just people. Whereas transformational government deals only with neatly governable electronic IDs. Neither is the Transformation cluster deterred by the fact that the web is a very dangerous place to be – it's the web which is important, not the people. The UK is, incidentally, according to the police, losing the war on cyber crime.

Judging by his published thoughts, ex-Guardian man Mike Bracken, regardless of the facts, in defiance of the facts, is impelled by a peculiar cluster of objectives: a weakness for whizzy graphics applications; admiration for NSTIC, the US National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace; devotion to Google; an obsession with making the UK more like Estonia; and a mystical belief in the redemptive properties of the web – "GOV.UK is not Government on the Internet", he says inscrutably, "but of the Internet".

Martha 'digital by default' Lane Fox CBE, 14 October 2010:


Make Directgov [= the Transformation cluster/GOV.UK] the government front end for all departments' transactional online services to citizens and businesses, with the teeth to mandate cross government solutions, set standards and force departments to improve citizens' experience of key transactions.

Change the model of government online publishing, by putting a new central team in Cabinet Office in absolute control of the overall user experience across all digital channels ...

Appoint a new CEO for Digital in the Cabinet Office with absolute authority over the user experience across all government online services (websites and APls) and the power to direct all government online spending.

I strongly suggest that the core Directgov team concentrates on service quality and that it should be the "citizens' champion with sharp teeth" for transactional service delivery.

Directgov should own the citizen experience of digital public services and be tasked with driving a 'service culture' across government which could, for example, challenge any policy and practice that undermines good service design.

It seems to me that the time is now to use the Internet to shift the lead in the design of services from the policy and legal teams to the end users.

Directgov SWAT teams ... should be given a remit to support and challenge departments and agencies ... We must give these SWAT teams the necessary support to challenge any policy and legal barriers which stop services being designed around user needs.

A new central commissioning team should take responsibility for the overall user experience on the government web estate, and should commission content from departmental experts. This content should then be published to a single Government website with a consistently excellent user experience.

Ultimately, departments should stop publishing to their own websites, and instead produce only content commissioned by this central commissioning team.

Ultimately it makes sense to the user for all Government digital services to reside under a single brand ...

... leadership on the digital communications and services agenda in the centre is too fragmented. I recommend that all digital teams in the Cabinet Office - including Digital Delivery, Digital Engagement and Directgov - are brought together under a new CEO for Digital.

This person should have the controls and powers to gain absolute authority over the user experience across all government online services ... and the power to direct all government online spend.

The CEO for Digital should also have the controls and powers to direct set and enforce standards across government departments ...
In order to make public services digital by default ERG must equip everyone with an electronic ID. Their Identity Assurance Programme is doomed to failure. That failure guarantees the failure of digital-by-default in general and it guarantees the failure of DWP's Universal Credit in particular.

DWP is one of our most powerful satrapies. The Department for Work and Pensions is the biggest-spending department in Whitehall.

Nevertheless, in the enervated sickness of the public administration bubble, the mighty DWP has ceded power to ERG.

DWP aren't alone. Ex-Guardian man Mike Bracken's GOV.UK (of which, more later) is sometimes criticised as a mere re-branding of Whitehall. Every central government department of state is supposed to give up its own website. Each departmental website is to be subsumed by a single government domain, https://www.gov.uk. This process of enfeeblement is endorsed by Sir Gus's successors, Sir Jeremy Heywood and Sir Bob Kerslake, of whom you may have heard, and Richard Heaton, of whom you won't (apart, perhaps, from his re-Tweeting mistake).

The criticism couldn't be wronger. This is de-branding or dis-branding or un-branding. The identities of the separate satrapies are being erased and replaced by a single, amorphous, anonymous, Whitehall cloud without personality or attachment or allegiance or mission – no corp for there to be an esprit de.

Our very own Pravda Izvestia, the Transformation cluster will be the only publisher of all government news.

It is also to have the right of veto over policy – no policy which impairs the "user experience" of GOV.UK will be countenanced.

"Our design and creative teams will ensure a simple, consistent and beautiful experience for all users", trills ex-Guardian man Mike Bracken. But what is a "user experience"? It's not clear. The term is undefined – a serious omission given that the user experience whatever it is, is the touchstone of the Transformation cluster's work. But whatever it is, if the Executive Director of Digital (see above) determines by whatever means that the user experience is in danger, then he is duty-bound to ignore any fuddy-duddy old policy-makers who get in his way.

Similarly, if any dusty old laws, e.g. the laws governing data-sharing between departments, prove obstructive, they are to be ignored or changed. Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, considers these laws to be muddled myths that need to be "busted".

These powers and others are all granted to the Transformation cluster by Martha Lane Fox CBE who designed the new Constitution and who remains chairman of the advisory board.

GOV.UK. Is it a bubble? Is it a cloud?

Never mind which. It is insubstantial and will burst or blow away leaving nothing behind it. It is bursting and blowing away before your very eyes. Now. With not even a body left behind to rest in peace.

Not all good news, Sir Richard?

Look again at his article. The governance of Whitehall is only one of the issues he raises.

Sir Richard is also concerned to ensure that we have cabinet government as opposed to Tony Blair's sofa government. And he asks how the home civil service can have any influence over the Prime Minister if its head is not also the Cabinet Secretary. Most central government departments (HMRC, the UK's tax farmer, is a big exception) are headed by a secretary of state who is in turn a member of the Cabinet. The influence of the departments on their secretaries of state and, through them, on the Cabinet and the Prime Minister is presumably, in Sir Richard's eyes, insufficient.

One might equally ask how the Prime Minister can have any influence on Whitehall. That seems to be a question which exercises him, witness his description of Whitehall officials as the "enemies of enterprise".

The other major issue Sir Richard raises is effective career planning for senior civil servants.

That looks like one of those problems which will not be solved but will simply go away.

Why would anyone join the civil service now if policy is to be determined by the website designers in the Transformation cluster? Why would anyone join the civil service now if ERG encourages the service to ignore the law by stigmatising it as no more than a collection of muddled myths? They won't, and the career development of senior civil servants in that case is the least of our worries.

Undignified and irremediably inane, ERG spells the end of Whitehall. What happens next?

OBITUARY: Whitehall 1947-2012

Some emperors driven mad by absolute power appoint their horse a senator.
While others create ERG.

This time last year Sir-Gus-now-Lord O'Donnell was still Cabinet Secretary, permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office and head of the home civil service. He stood down on 31 December 2011.

The month before, Sir Richard Mottram had published an article in Public Servant magazine, Whitehall shake-up – not all good news.

Sir Richard mentioned a number of the abiding problems faced by Whitehall, problems which existed when Sir Gus took over and which had still not been solved six years later. Among others, how do you govern Whitehall? The big central government departments look like independent satrapies. Silo government. Who, if anyone, is in charge? According to Sir Richard:
... the coalition government has given increasing priority to improving the efficiency of the civil service and the wider public service under a Cabinet Office group ...

Thursday, 22 November 2012

midata – nudging you into an interactive flashbased graph

There's so much wrong with midata, the Department for Business Innovation and Skills initiative to "empower" all us consumers, that you may forget the delightful loopiness of its proposed benefits:
If organisations try to share customer data with each other they invade individuals’ privacy and risk breaching the Data Protection Act. The result is duplication, waste and missed opportunities ...

Tallyzoo, a service dedicated to self monitoring, allows users to measure anything from their caffeine intake to the number of times they cut their grass. Users collect data using a mobile device or website program which creates interactive flashbased graphs enabling them to spot trends and patterns in their consumption habits, work, health and fitness goals. Data is manipulated so that users can share statistics and compare the end results ...

Access to such data represents a ‘holy grail’ data to companies because it explains why people do what they do and predicts what they are going to do next.
Silly old privacy laws. They just get in the way. They're synonymous with waste and duplication. They stand in the way of interactive flashbased  graphs of our coffee consumption and lawn-mowing. With midata choice engines we'll be able to predict the future and control it.

Which mooncalf would fall for this unlikely sales pitch? Cui bono?

There are many answers but one obvious one is Whitehall's Behavioural Insights Team.

They're not having much luck. Most people ridicule the team's nudging job. Their behavioural insight is limited. Tasked with getting UK retailers to sign up to midata, they failed and have now resorted to legislation – the very tool they're meant to abjure.

How could their performance be improved? What would help the Behavioural Insights Team to do its job?

These questions must have haunted Sir-Gus-now-Lord O'Donnell, head of the team's advisory board. And then along came midata. midata and its attendant app-writers, churning out choice engines to help people make life-style decisions, vehicles which could be tuned, perhaps, by Whitehall – who are footing the bill, after all, let's face it – tuned to influence, or nudge people's decisions in a chosen direction, an officially preferred direction ...

----------

Just after writing the word "pitch", just before "Cui bono", an email appeared from Alan Mitchell, the man who thinks midata will allow us to tell the future more accurately than horoscopes:
Please forward this newsletter to colleagues if you think they will find the content useful. Anyone can sign up to receive the newsletter by joining our registered [sheltered?] community here. We only send the newsletter to people who request to receive it.
Would you like to join this registered community? Perhaps this sample will help to nudge you:
We have published a short, informative paper, ‘midata: where next?’ ... It summarises the new focus areas of the programme and showcases a prize winning example straight from the recent inaugural, ground-breaking midata Hackathon of what innovation and value can be achieved in a new midata-enabled world ...

In a series of blog posts we’ve ... discussed how, by opening up a new private sector market of Identity Providers which can act on an individual’s behalf, the Government is kick starting an ecosystem of enriched, trusted data sharing, stimulating innovation and cost saving opportunities ...

There is further investment in the quantified self space as Canadian company Retrofit announces $8 million in new funding ...
----------

Added 1.4.13: Nike+ FuelBand and Google Glass: what next for the 'quantified self'?

midata – nudging you into an interactive flashbased graph

There's so much wrong with midata, the Department for Business Innovation and Skills initiative to "empower" all us consumers, that you may forget the delightful loopiness of its proposed benefits:
If organisations try to share customer data with each other they invade individuals’ privacy and risk breaching the Data Protection Act. The result is duplication, waste and missed opportunities ...

Tallyzoo, a service dedicated to self monitoring, allows users to measure anything from their caffeine intake to the number of times they cut their grass. Users collect data using a mobile device or website program which creates interactive flashbased graphs enabling them to spot trends and patterns in their consumption habits, work, health and fitness goals. Data is manipulated so that users can share statistics and compare the end results ...

Access to such data represents a ‘holy grail’ data to companies because it explains why people do what they do and predicts what they are going to do next.
Silly old privacy laws. They just get in the way. They're synonymous with waste and duplication. They stand in the way of interactive flashbased  graphs of our coffee consumption and lawn-mowing. With midata choice engines we'll be able to predict the future and control it.

Which mooncalf would fall for this unlikely sales pitch? Cui bono?

Wednesday, 17 October 2012

PRESS RELEASE: GOV.UK/digital by default – 17 questions for Mr Maude

The following press release has been issued:



PRESS RELEASE


To:

Home Office
OIG (re US-VISIT)
IDABC (re OSCIE)
China (re Golden Shield)
Pakistan (re NADRA)
FBI (re NGI)
UIDAI (re Aadhaar)
Agencies
GOV.UK/digital by default – 17 questions for Mr Maude
17 October 2012
Francis Maude, Cabinet Office Minister, has announced today that public services are in future to be delivered on-line: "... t
oday marks the start of a new way of delivering public services digitally. GOV.UK is a platform for future digital innovation".



Public services are to become “digital by default”, to use the term popularised by Martha Lane Fox, the Prime Minister’s digital champion, who first proposed the development of GOV.UK.

Digital by default is to be delivered via GOV.UK, a website developed by the Government Digital Service (GDS). The chief executive of GDS is ex-Guardian man Mike Bracken, who is also the senior responsible officer owner for identity assurance, please see below.
17 questions for Mr Maude:
1. “Digital by default” means replacing people with computers. How many public servants will be made redundant and how much money will the taxpayer save?
2. Between eight and ten million adults in the UK have still never used the web. Will they be excluded by default from public services?
3. GOV.UK is to be hosted in the cloud by Skyscape Cloud Services Ltd, a start-up which has not yet submitted any accounts to Companies House, which has no company secretary and only one director, a Mr Jeremy Robin Sanders, who also owns 100% of the £1,000 paid-up share capital in the company. What reason is there to believe that Skyscape are reliable, competent and big enough for this enormous task?
4. Starting from Skyscape’s own website it is easy to work out where its data centre is. ARK Continuity Ltd, the property company that built it, even provide a map how to get there. GOV.UK is an important national asset. How will our data be kept secure?
5. HMRC also, like GDS, intend to store our data with Skyscape. Will the Minister please comment on the professionalism of Whitehall procurement which entrusts national assets to a one-man company the location of whose servers is revealed on the web for all to see including terrorists?
6. Even with the big cloud services companies like Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Apple it is commonly understood that cloud computing entails the customer – in this case GDS and HMRC – losing control of their data. Their data may be stored on any machines anywhere in the world and managed by staff the customer has no control over. Why is Whitehall following the fashion and embracing cloud computing?
7. In connection with cloud computing, Microsoft and Google have warned the British public that under the powers of the USA PATRIOT Act and other legislation the FBI can demand to see any data stored by any US company anywhere in the world. These powers extend to non-US companies which also happen to operate a substantial business in the US, e.g. QinetiQ. Does the Minister wish to join Microsoft and Google in warning the British public that their GOV.UK data can be inspected by the US authorities?
8. Individuals and companies already have a tool for transacting with the government on-line – the Government Gateway – and have done for the past ten years and more. How can throwing away that tried and tested tool and replacing it with GOV.UK be called a saving?
9. The Government Gateway has tried and tested identity assurance procedures which minimise on-line fraud and error. Individuals and companies have user IDs issued to them by DWP, who operate the gateway. GDS are said to want to throw away that security and use Facebook, Google and Twitter user IDs instead. What reason is there to believe that these social network user IDs are as reliable as the Government Gateway’s?
10. ... and what qualifications do GDS have to make these foreign companies which pay very little UK tax, not to mention Mr Jeremy Robin Sanders, a part of the British Constitution?
11. GDS are also said to want to take advantage of the logon details the public use for on-line banking to help with identity assurance. UK banks tend to have strong security but nevertheless the problem of on-line fraud persists. Given which, what is the benefit of incorporating the banks’ identity assurance procedures into GOV.UK?
12. Operating through the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS), GDS are trying to issue everyone with PDSs, personal data stores. The provisions for PDSs are part of a BIS initiative called midata and statutory powers to mandate PDSs are tucked away in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill currently going through Parliament. Would the Minister confirm that a PDS is no more than the software equivalent of an ID card and that PDSs are the real vehicle for identity assurance advocated by GDS?
13. On 5 September 2012, GDS, BIS and the Foreign Office hosted an event at which GCHQ explained how badly British companies deal with cybercrime. Why is GDS simultaneously trying to exacerbate the problem by putting all public services on-line?
14. CESG is the information assurance arm of GCHQ and has published recommendations on the requirements for the secure delivery of on-line public services (RSDOPS). Will the Minister please show the public the documentation proving that GOV.UK satisfies RSDOPS?
15. All public services are on-line in Estonia and in 2007 Russia found it easy as a result to bring the country to its knees with a simple distributed denial of service attack. What is to stop the same fate befalling the UK if digital by default succeeds?
16. This is not the first time digital by default has been tried in the UK. Back in 2005 when Tony Blair called for joined up government, Sir Gus O’Donnell and Ian Watmore devised a programme called “transformational government”. That failed principally because the other departments of state wouldn’t co-operate with the Cabinet Office. What is there to make them co-operate this time?
17. Universal Credit (UC) is an important coalition government policy designed to spring the poverty trap and make work pay, for millions of benefits claimants. The biggest risk faced by UC according to Lord Freud, the DWP Minister responsible, is the lack of identity assurance. Control over its own identity assurance was wrested away from DWP by GDS. DWP couldn’t make any progress on the matter as a result, and GDS haven’t made any progress either. It looks as though the needs of real people are being side-lined while a few senior civil servants indulge their fascination with computers. Would the Minister care to comment?
It is timely to pose these questions today, the day on which GOV.UK goes live. Or next Monday 22 October 2012 when GDS are due to make a major announcement about identity assurance. Or the following Friday 26 October 2012 when Whitehall's G-Cloud team (government cloud) also have a major announcement to make.
ARK Continuity Ltd, by the way, boast the Rt Hon The Baroness Manningham-Buller, formerly the Director General of MI5, as a non-Executive Director.

About David Moss
David Moss has worked as an IT consultant since 1981. The past 9 years have been spent campaigning against the Home Office's plans to introduce government ID cards into the UK. It must now be admitted that the Home Office are much better at convincing people that these plans are a bad idea than anyone else, including David Moss.
Press contacts: David Moss, BCSL@blueyonder.co.uk

PRESS RELEASE: GOV.UK/digital by default – 17 questions for Mr Maude

The following press release has been issued:



PRESS RELEASE


To:

Home Office
OIG (re US-VISIT)
IDABC (re OSCIE)
China (re Golden Shield)
Pakistan (re NADRA)
FBI (re NGI)
UIDAI (re Aadhaar)
Agencies
GOV.UK/digital by default – 17 questions for Mr Maude
17 October 2012

Friday, 21 September 2012

Public spending 1

... if you cut today's public spending by the IPPR's other figure of 3.8%
this year and every year for the next 25 years,
it would fall to £263.8 billion,
which is still higher in real terms than it was in 1970-71.
It's a long time ago, certainly,
but we weren't exactly running around in nothing but woad 40 years ago,
there's plenty of room for 3.8% cuts. ...

----------  o  O  o ----------

There is currently a certain amount of debate in the UK about public spending. Iain Duncan Smith wants to "make work pay". Frank Field argues that means-testing rots people's souls. Support for the benefits system, a report says, is at its lowest level for three decades. And according to Alegra Stratton, the political editor of BBC TV's Newsnight, the government is eyeing an end to the link between benefits and inflation.

Ms Stratton laid out the options for public spending over the next few years, please see Wednesday's edition of Newsnight between 15'38" and 21'28". If the budget is to be balanced, the Institute for Public Policy Research say that public spending will have to be cut by 3.8%. If the NHS, education and international aid budgets are to be ring-fenced then the other departments face a cut of 8% in their budgets. There will have to be cuts, says Ms Stratton, and cuts upon cuts, and what does "8% cuts elsewhere, beyond the fence" mean? It means 8%, that's what it means, but Ms Stratton assists her viewers' understanding by explaining that that's equivalent to:

BBC TV Newsnight 19 September 2012
Either that, or huge cuts in welfare, which brings us back to Iain Duncan Smith.

The debate isn't exclusive to the UK. Mitt Romney makes his own pertinent contributions to it in the US.

And it's not a new debate, as Polly Toynbee reminds us in the Guardian. "David Cameron's mission was to break the postwar consensus on the welfare state that survived Margaret Thatcher", she says, and quotes the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) claim that the overall spending cuts planned by the coalition government are "almost without historical and international precedent".

(Notice that "almost". What the IFS mean is that there are historical and geographical precedents. Almost the opposite of what it sounds as though they're saying.)

The debate is over-heated at the moment, permanently in danger of taking off into outer space – Ms Stratton's Newsnight package, for example, uses Mozart's Requiem as background music. The debate needs to be tethered to planet Earth. It needs some facts, to ground it, and HM Treasury have kindly published those facts in their report Public Spending Statistics July 2012, which includes the figures below in Table 4.1 on p.42:

Total Managed Expenditure

Nominal £billion
Real terms £billion
Per cent of GDP
1971-72
25.2
255.4
42.6
1972-73
28.3
263.9
41.9
1973-74
33.4
291.9
44.4
1974-75
43.7
319.9
48.7
1975-76
55.7
325.0
49.7
1976-77
63.6
326.4
48.6
1977-78
69.5
313.6
45.6
1978-79
78.6
319.8
45.1
1979-80
93.6
326.4
44.6
1980-81
112.5
331.8
47.0
1981-82
125.6
338.1
47.7
1982-83
138.3
348.7
48.1
1983-84
149.7
361.5
47.8
1984-85
160.0
367.8
47.5
1985-86
166.6
363.7
45.0
1986-87
172.8
366.5
43.6
1987-88
183.3
369.1
41.5
1988-89
190.7
360.5
38.7
1989-90
210.2
372.3
38.9
1990-91
227.5
376.1
39.2
1991-92
254.2
394.5
41.5
1992-93
274.2
416.5
43.3
1993-94
286.3
425.7
42.6
1994-95
299.2
438.5
42.1
1995-96
311.4
444.2
41.4
1996-97
315.8
437.2
39.5
1997-98
322.0
437.0
38.0
1998-99
330.9
439.9
37.0
1999-00
342.9
447.9
36.3
2000-01
341.5
443.7
34.6
2001-02
389.2
496.1
37.8
2002-03
421.2
523.8
38.8
2003-04
455.5
554.2
39.5
2004-05
492.4
582.0
40.5
2005-06
524.0
605.5
40.8
2006-07
550.0
619.0
40.7
2007-08
582.9
640.0
40.7
2008-09
629.7
673.0
44.3
2009-10
670.2
705.6
47.3
2010-11
689.6
706.1
46.6
2011-12
694.9
694.9
45.5
There follows a series of questions. DMossEsq doesn't know the answers.

41 years ago, 1971-72, annual public spending in the UK was £25.2 billion. Taking account of inflation in the intervening period, that is equivalent to £255.4 billion today in real terms.

Public spending today isn't £255.4 billion, it hasn't been maintained at its 1971-72 level. Instead, it's gone up to £694.9 billion. Why?

If public spending today was £255.4 billion, it wouldn't have been cut at all. For 40 years, it would have been maintained, guarded, ring fenced, ...

If you cut today's public spending by the IPPR's figure of 8%, it would fall from £694.9 billion to £639.3 billion, roughly the level of 2007-08. We were not in a state then – Ms Stratton please note – equivalent to having 70,000 fewer defence personnel and 20,000 fewer policemen and we wouldn't be now.

If you cut today's public spending by the IPPR's other figure of 3.8% this year and every year for the next 25 years, it would fall to £263.8 billion, which is still higher in real terms than it was in 1970-71. It's a long time ago, certainly, but we weren't exactly running around in nothing but woad 40 years ago, there's plenty of room for 3.8% cuts.

But was public spending in 1970-71 at the right level? What is the "the right level"? Perhaps we should choose a different base line. Which? And why?

Public spending today has gone up in real terms since the treasury's 1970-71 base line by a factor of 2.7208, it's increased by 172.08%. That means the state has taken on new burdens, burdens which it didn't used to shoulder. Is that a good thing? Or a bad thing? Is the state taking on unwonted responsibilities? Is it being intrusive? Is there any limit to the state's responsibilities?

The coalition government has not yet managed to cut public spending. Public spending has levelled off for two years but it hasn't been cut. Not appreciably.

It's hard to cut. It takes time.

Equally, it's hard to make material increases in public spending. Every time the NHS budget is materially increased, under whichever government, the question arises whether its systems can absorb all the extra money. Of course they can, but the question is whether the money can be used efficiently, without waste. No, it can't. Increases have to be planned, just as much as reductions.

The IFS describe 3.8% spending cuts as "unprecedented". For a conservative organisation like them, that is a criticism, they assume that you shouldn't do things that are unprecedented. If an action is unprecedented, does that mean it shouldn't be taken? Or is now the time to be radical?

The 172.08% increase from £255.4 billion to £694.9 billion over 40 years works out at a steady rate of increase of 2.5% p.a. But the change hasn't been steady.

Spot the cuts?

Cuts are not unprecedented. There are six years when public spending was cut:
  • 1977-78 (-3.9%),
  • 1985-86 (-1.1%),
  • 1988-89 (-2.3%),
  • 1996-97 (-1.6%),
  • 2000-01 (-0.9%)
  • and 2011-12 (-1.6%)
and 34 years when it went up.

There were two hefty increases in public spending, in:
  • 1973-74 (+10.6%)
  • and 1974-75 (+9.6%)
and the biggest ever was in:
  • 2001-02 (+11.8%)
followed by an unprecedented run of further increases – +5.6% in 2002-03, +5.8%, +5.0%, +4.0%, +2.2%, +3.4%, +5.2% and +4.8% in 2009-10.

To put it another way, public spending in 2009-10 (£705.6 billion) was 59% up on the 2000-01 figure (£443.7 billion) 10 years before:

Unprecedented?

Yes.

For 30 years, public spending had increased at an annual average rate of 1.9% from £255.4 billion to £443.7 billion in 2000-01. Then the rate of increase nearly trebled to 5.3% p.a., taking public spending in 10 years from £443.7 billion to £705.6 billion in 2009-10.

The end points of the solid lines in the graph above show what did happen, with the trajectory in between smoothed out. The dotted lines show what could have happened instead. On the established trend, the long run 30-year rate, public spending in 2009-10 could have been "only" £526.7 billion. Instead, it was £178.9 billion higher at £705.6 billion.

By the IFS's reckoning, those increases should not have been made.

Somebody nevertheless, ignoring the IFS, put their foot on the accelerator. During Labour's 1997-2001 administration, Gordon Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer was wedded to Prudence. Thereafter, Prudence left and Mr Brown was joined by Sir-Gus-now-Lord O'Donnell, first as Permanent Secretary at the Treasury and then as Cabinet Secretary. Whose foot was on the accelerator? The cautious/prudent/indecisive and some say cowardly Brown's? Or O'Donnell's, the man to whom every government economist reported, the man who would be King?

Is the state better at allocating resources than individuals and private sector organisations? Or worse? Is state spending always benign? Clearly O'Donnell thinks the answer is "yes", but is it?

Today's public spending represents 45.5% of GDP according to the Treasury. With public spending standing at £694.9 billion, it follows that GDP must be £1,527.3 billion.

Does that mean that we can afford a public spending level of £694.9 billion, or that we can't? Is 45.5% of GDP the "right level" for public spending?

What's public spending got to do with GDP anyway? Does public spending act as a drag on growth? Or does it actually promote growth?

Can anyone answer these questions? Politicians? Mandarins? Economists? Journalists? You?