Is Technocracy Dead?

Ellie Keen — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 13:59:23 +0000

What do fighter jets, ID cards, the sale of a department of the Ministry of Defence and measles have in common? The answer is they have all been involved in scandalously poorly run, and in one case quite possibly corrupt, government deals and schemes. And while they may seem to have nothing to do with UK democracy, the level of trust the public has in government, and its’ competence, certainly does. Given that this is the government who struggle to send computer discs through the mail, it is no surprise that public trust ebbs by the day.

The question is, if the government wants to run the UK as a board runs a company, why do they not have the necessary standards and expertise to cope with the demands this brings? In perhaps the most egregious case of realpolitik to emerge under New Labour, Britain’s biggest ever arms deal was shown to have been secured via slush funds and bribes. The Serious Fraud Office investigation was blocked by the government, who then lost a High Court challenge by anti-corruption campaigners to keep the affair out of the courts. To add insult to injury, one of the world’s biggest IT projects- the NHS National Programme for IT, which will connect GPs to hospitals- has been beset by problems and is not trusted by the majority of the medical profession. Another medical-related disaster has been the surge in cases of measles in some London boroughs, partly as a result of the bad computer system installed in 10 out of 31 boroughs just two years ago. In the words of Dr. Mike Fitzpatrick, “It’s true that at the moment in the whole of the north Thames area the authorities have only a very vague idea of the level of [vaccination]… because of the problems with the computer system.” This has put tens of thousands of people at risk of catching the disease, which can lead to permanent disability.

Perhaps the biggest cloud on the horizon though is the introduction of ID cards. Given the recent loss of computer discs with 25m peoples’ personal details, all eyes will be on the roll-out of what some see as the most expensive way imaginable to help thieves steal identities. There is now serious concern over whether the government possesses enough expertise to coordinate the project. If discs containing the personal details of 25m people are lost in a time of little pressure, what are the chances of a cutting-edge project like ID cards going to plan? For all the Chancellors profuse apologies, the impact on the government’s reputation is very serious. It will take years, if it is possible at all, to undo the damage to the public’s trust in their rulers.

Apart from the administrative mess ups and confusion, are Labour dealing with the public assets as well as they might? Two recent cases stand out. The words ‘Northern Rock’ are now forever associated with the perils of deregulation and blind faith in the markets. But a lesser known example is the sale of ‘QinetiQ’, formerly the research division of the Ministry of Defence, a story only now hitting the headlines. The Treasury, under Gordon Brown, oversaw the sale of one third of QinetiQ’s shares American defence firm Carlyle for £42m in 2003. The sale was rushed through to help cut the defence budget, and appears not to have been the best deal for the public, as Carlyle sold QinetiQ three years later for £300m. Two people who have done well from the sale though, are Sir John Chisholm and Graham Love, the chairman and chief executive at the time, whose initial investments of £129,000 and £108,000 turned into assets worth £22m and £18m after the sale. In all, 10 top managers between them invested £540,000 of their own money in the company and saw this rise to £107.45m. Whichever way you look at it, the equation looks good for the managers, and bad for the public. It does, however, seem like very good business for Sir John, Mr. Love et al, who made £200 for every £1 they invested, while the company was part-sold for about an eighth of its’ estimated value.

Underlying all this is the erosion of trust in the government. The point is that Labour is doing considerable harm to our democracy by running the country like the (not very good) board of a company. Some of the main reasons for our ailing democracy are represented in these stories; loss of faith in the basic competencies of the people in charge of public affairs; worryingly low levels of expertise in politicians; lack of accountability, and the business mentality now so popular in government. Put simply, some aspects of government do not benefit from the market-based approach embedded in the New Labour project. Universities, schools, hospitals and other public sector institutions have all suffered from mixed results when exposed to market systems, but the government persists in using market-based service delivery. This harms democracy, because both main parties now have the view that a markets work, full stop, and to interfere with them is to restrict their potential. Vince Cable was right when, responding recently to the Queen’s Speech, he opined that it had been written in “the bluest of ink”, adding later that “[t]here are wide areas of policy on which Labour and the Conservatives have exactly the same position.” Choice and competency underlie democracy. Politicians are some of the least trusted people in the UK, and have been for a long time. To repair democracy in the UK they must up their game and recognise that their actions have far-reaching consequences for institutions outside their immediate office. Only by providing choice and proving their competency will politicians and political parties earn the public’s trust, and in the process re-invigorate democratic engagement in the UK. A good start may be to spend a bit less on buying jets for Saudi princes, and a bit more on postage.

Ben Rymer | ukwatch.net

Is Technocracy Dead?