There is no social problem so large that cannot be resolved with a few extra bureaucrats and a new top-down process
Ed Balls did not say this on Radio 4 this morning but he may as well have. Here we are, one of the chief “brains” behind the New Labour Project explaining that Baby P died because there was not enough scrutiny, not enough oversight, not enough paperwork. Here was Ed Balls, Secretary of State for The Children, explaining that the Victoria Climbie enquiry did not introduce enough red tape, did not tie up state employees tightly enough, did not introduce reforms that were bold enough.
I have a more old-fashioned approach. Before the days of statutory micro-management, we had a common law tort called negligence. We all had, under the law, a duty of care. If we were negligent in our profession or failed in our duty of care the courts would hold us accountable. How about a bit of that, Mr Balls? How about the people who allowed Baby P to die take a bit of responsibility for their actions and inactions? Instead of allowing incompetents to hide behind the excuse that all the procedures were followed to the letter, how about re-introducing a bit of humanity into the system? Mr Balls, a system which is supposed to deal with people cannot be staffed by robots following a process. Every case is different, let those on the ground decide what might work and what might not. Give them the powers to deal with the situation and let them carry the can if they get it wrong. If a flurry of legislation and additional bureaucracy is the answer, you are asking the wrong question.
Blog news
There is a by-election in my council ward on the same day as the Euro elections. One of my local councillors was elected in 2006 and then promptly moved to Bristol to get onto the ballot paper there for the next general election. His Labour colleagues have finally (three years later) decided that it is not good enough and have forced him to resign. Both the Tories and the Lib Dems are fighting hard to win this safe Labour seat. Both parties say that the stats show that, if you want to keep Labour out, there is no point in voting for the other party. Each party puts a virtually identical bar chart on its literature to show that “only the Tories/Lib Dems can beat Labour here”. Which is true? I don’t know. I do know that it is possible to overturn huge majorities in ward seats if the will is there. I have considered tactical voting but given the lack of sensible information I think I will stick to True Blue and hope enough others do the same.
A very scruffy bearded crumpled gentleman knocked on my door over the weekend. “Hello”, he said, “I am calling on behalf of the Labour party”. My anger started to rise, I prepared myself to deliver an impromptu doorstep speech on how badly the Labour government and council had betrayed the country and the borough. “Will you be considering voting Labour in the upcoming by-election?” he asked. “I find it very unlikely”, I started to reply, “there would have to be quite a rapid turnaround in Labour’s performance in the country and locally, I find Gordon Brown reprehensible and hugely damaging, I wish he would call a general election so we can have a real choice for a change”. “I’ll take that as a no then” Mr Scruffy sighed. I hope I was the ninetieth person to have said the same thing that morning.
When I stood for the council in a previous life, my local party provided beautiful “canvas cards”, for use on the doorstep, which had the names of all the local voters from the electoral roll collated with previous canvas returns so we would measure our success and target our resources. This system had been going for many years because I remember helping my mum out on the campaign trail as a kid and she always had these too. Mr Scruffy had a ragged old piece of lined paper with a few names scrawled on it. When I had given him a piece of my mind he scribbled something down long-hand. In my old area we would have simply marked an “S” or an “L” in the appropriate box next to a non-supporter’s name. Mr Scruffy should have given me a nice big “C”. Mr Cameron is our only hope for real change.
“We all had, under the law, a duty of care. If we were negligent in our profession or failed in our duty of care the courts would hold us accountable.”
My god, that’s a blast from the past, isn’t it – letting professionals do their job, if they fail in their statutory duties, they are punished heavily. This type of oversight / regulation is a mystery to the Labour Party but I honestly think the Conservatives can see that.
The Balls stuff is predictable, from Labour in general and from him in particular. I’d already assumed he had been working on ways to duck responsibility and further his/Labour’s bureaucratic agenda, ever since he appeared so contrite on TV earlier this year. It is their way…
As for canvass cards: yup, I’ve done that myself many times! They are a sensible way to record one’s findings on the doorstep without looking too much like an insurance salesman or similar(!)
I hate those “Can’t win him” and “It’s a two-horse race” bar charts on literature, as they are so often completely false — at least the LibDem ones are, as I have been able to show from their claims in my own ward.
L – I hope so
JW – just because it isn’t surprising doesn’t make it any more palatable. Luckily legislation like this will take longer to get through than Labour have left. The Climbie law only came in last year! I also hate the Can’t Win Here stuff – total nonsense! I am not happy about the Tory literature either. They have the silly bar chart but also a “quote” from a “local resident” who happens to be the constituency chairman. A bit disingenuous to say the least.
Great post, Blue Eyes. I suppose we can stick this one in the ‘Labour’s Failures’ pile, along with education based on ability instead of social status, an end to ‘child poverty’ within 10 years and the promise not to raise taxes…
Maybe it’s time to try for becoming a councillor again, BE?
Excellent post, Blue. I still find myself wanting to cut and paste your first two paragraphs on every billboard in the country. Actually I’d like to post it in neon letters in Ed Balls’s office.
Re: tactical voting. My view is that you should for those who you mostly agree with – not against those you mostly don’t.
Oops! That should say …. My view is that you should VOTE for those who you mostly agree with – not against those you mostly don’t.
Stu – thanks and yes, add it to the list of wasted opportunities and counter-productive initiatives. It makes me want to cry and shout at the same time. Hmm… even if I wanted to I couldn’t do the last bit…
P – cheers!
Stan – I didn’t notice the error in the first, we all knew your meaning!! I happen to agree.
BE: You are the tip of the spear. If you can defeat them in the heartlands then they will stay dead longer.
The bloke has his balls in his brains. (Makes a change, I suppose?)
Great post – straight to the heart of the matter: “How about the people who allowed Baby P to die take a bit of responsibility for their actions and inactions?” Sadly, accountability has gone the same way as personal responsibility; it smacks too much of deference for New Labour. I’ve just dealt with a surveyor who has made – to general agreement – a complete balls-up of the job he was contracted to do. When I pointed out his failings [Yikes!], he said; “Well, it’s very easy to play the blame game.” It isn’t. As games go, the blame game makes bridge look like darts.
I’ve heard the answer is more graduates in social services.
No.
More wiley hard nosed bastards is what we need in all such areas.
Problems involving scrotes can be over thunk, y’know.
“I’ve heard the answer is more graduates in social services.”
The answer is fewer leftist, non-judgemental, moral equivocating, cultural relativists and more conservatives in social services (particularly at the top end). What needs to happen is that they stop recruiting through the pages of the Guardian and start recruiting through non-politicised channels.