Below is a note I sent on 26 April regarding how we could shift to Plan B including with a serious testing system. It helps people understand what an incredible mess testing was and why care homes were neglected. Hancock had monumentally failed. The Cabinet Office did not have the people it needed to grip the problem. Many were screaming at me that Hancock was failing to act on care homes while spinning nonsense to the Cabinet table.
"Risk comes from not knowing what you're doing." - Buffet
So true in this instance....they clearly had no idea how to counter such a major incident...even though there was plenty of education that this was likely going to happen within our life-times. It had already happened with SARS, but they prepped nothing.
Were any "war games" conducted at all for this kind of situation before 2020? Even a bio-weapon type situation?
Dido Harding given £20 billion for track and trace.
20p silicon wristbands, (infected, vaccinated, tested, shielding, keyworkers), cctv, human eyes and google maps using Zoe style simple mobile phone app.... no exposure of sensitive medical info.
Gives huge 10-20 million person daily dataset of infections in uk, and means to track, trace and support.
Not even tried..... £5 billion vaccination program, £1 billion rapid test, .... follow the money.
Turing beat enigma with paper punch cards , pencils and smart thinking. Virus has not got brain.
Also, a question about 'power in Whitehall' and how to actually make something happen.
You want an immediate Covid enquiry (for good reasons). What is the actual plan to make that happen? Asking on Twitter is about as effective as a change.org petition, which is to say, worse than useless.
It'll only happen when (if) some Whitehall figure judges it politically less painful to change the timescale than to leave it as it is.
Who is that person, and what will actually move the needle on that calculation?
Start unofficial one any way..... is a good start. On line library, here, of statements and key documents. So ready for when enquiry officially starts?
You do know don’t you, that care homes were being advised by the CQC (under government guidance) not to lockdown at the start of the pandemic. Some did anyway (they were largely those who had the resources to do this, mainly staff who would agree to isolate in the home) and ended up with no infections. They knew exactly how infections would spread, and this was largely through the peripatetic workforce. They were admonished by the CQC, but ignored them. I know this partly because I’m a lay inspector for the CQC. You should investigate this
The issue of some care providers offering post hospital transition arrangements for the elderly who may have covid, rather than directly back into their care homes, has not been explored or publicised enough
Given the apparent issues with COBRA, number 10 set up, lack of basic IT etc. Was moving the 'nerve centre', say into the Elizabeth Conference Centre, ever considered?
Having worked across many organisations in the private and public sector (central and local govt, nhs, regulators,quangos, prison service) I know that the culture of the public sector is designed to avoid accountability. Some of this goes to a basic but arcane value set, which runs along the lines of ‘if I am offering a public service, I don’t deserve to have my performance assessed. In fact the whole private sector notion of ‘performance’ is anathema to me’. So this deeply held but well hidden construct runs through everything - organisation structures, job design, the way people are or aren’t rewarded, the kind of people who get hired. People like me have tinkered at the edges, tried to introduce ‘change’ (the whole concept of change is seen as an ‘initiative’ which has no bearing on cultural or behavioural transformation. In fact they often love to use the word ‘transformation’ as it makes them sound as if they really mean it this time) Dominic speaks to everything I know and have experienced, but there is no critical mass to disrupt, never will be, and the nature of the change required is just not achievable. The most anyone can hope for is transactional change. At the level of, like, some civil servants learn some project management skills. They will eff this up too though because they’ll make some simple principles into an industry called Prince 2 (again,focus on process change,not cultural, leadership behavioural)
I feel your pain! Certainly left to themselves not much will change. But I wd argue the referendum shows things can change, the Vaccine Taskforce shows things can be done differently.
A necessary condition though is having *the will to make relentless efforts to do things differently* in No10...
Agree on Taskforce but Referendum proof that nothing has changed. Politicians made promises they knew they couldn’t keep * - public has no recourse as there’s no accountability. I shall obviously reverse my view should we achieve anything more than leaving or sovereignty.
I’ve worked across many sectors (UK and US): Multinatiomals, Consulting, Finance, Startups and NGO (probono) and I’m at my wits end in terms of dealing with the public/ non profit sector. Not only is no one responsible, but it’s also political, territorial and highly inefficient. No regard to how funds are spent or allocated as budgets are ‘flexible’ I also sense a strong (completely absurd) sense of moral superiority for having chosen a career in the public sector.
Based on my private sector experience, performance is driven by accountability, sense of ownership, pride in achievement and personal development (that’s progression as well as being surrounded by strong performers. Pay is important, but less so than you believe. Haven’t worked in the public sector but had to collaborate very closely with the NHS trusts, early on in my career. Saw all that you mentioned - was extremely frustrating for me as there was no respect for follow through or timelines. Luckily my firm (very well known for graduate development) realised I was struggling (had lost my temper etc), gave me a different positive and then sent me on numerous courses on how to work with and influence ‘all types of people’. Those actually helped a lot.
Regarding change, it will most likely come from bringing in senior people from the private sector. The type that can navigate the cultural divide and set tone. Trying to improve graduate recruiting won’t help. You can hire the best people, but they will get demotivated and leave. Alternatively, two of my firms (banks) had a intern swap program whereby you could spend time working with client/ customer or they’d find you position in public sector. Was junior level and apparently successful.
Something I’ve never understood is how are politicians get away with lies and manipulating the public. Had I behaved like some in Government, I’d could very easily have landed up in jail for market manipulation. It’s makes no sense that someone as insignificant as me is held to higher account than those running the country
*Dominic - regarding my point that Brexit was based on lies. As a party member I attended numerous fundraisers in 2019 and personally spoke to those currently in gov’t.
a) All spoke glibly at superficial level but none actually understood details. I knew way more than they did but whenever I pushed for a response, they’d shift the debate.
b) One spent 20 mins trying to explain how post Brexit, UK would become the next silicon valley. He seemed obsessed with ‘tech’ yet when I (purely out of politeness) asked if he had any preferences (in terms of specific technologies), the response was a blank look and prolonged silence. Then I was reminded that it didn’t matter - public would be happy as long as the term ‘tech’ was attached to any initiatives
c) Someone actually dared to ask me why I had such strong remain views when apparently, those in my position would likely benefit from leaving…
If you believe these people drove any positive change, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
A different structure and leadership arrangement was set up under Kate Bingham though, and she was allowed to operate within a task culture, not a role or power culture (Charles Handy). This may be possible for this kind of ‘got to get it done, clear objectives’ type enterprise, but the murky, diffuse and ‘bar of soap’ nature of most government and public sector decision making, I think, makes systemic change far more challenging.
Agree... I think no alternative to regular CLOSING of entities and replacing. Nothing else works with public sector bureaucracies as they can keep failing until the entire regime collapses...
In my experience, if you close one, it springs up in another form, usually equally ineffective. Take Monitor - a now defunct regulator set up to regulate the financial governance of nhs Trusts. A huge budget and led by McKinsey consultants on very large salaries. I worked there as an interim but chose to leave as it was clear there was little ambition for or knowledge of the nhs and a culture of complete indifference. Now it’s been absorbed into ‘nhs improvement’, another wasteful and non influential organisation. It happens all the time - to cover government bottoms and look as if things are being done, to find jobs for ‘great and good’. Even in government departments you won’t find many people getting fired for poor performance - the system mitigates against this. Some change might come if the whole recruitment system changes - a move away from graduates to broader CVS and assessment of talent through other means than archaic ‘boards’. Without critical mass though people get indoctrinated or leave. The cabinet office is largely irrelevant. It could be a centre of excellence for other departments - a repository of project management tools, skills and of organisation development skills offering change management skills across government. Either that or have it simply as a very small thought leadership department. At the moment it’s an amorphous mess. ‘Regime change’ is a bit ambiguous. Do you mean broader culture change across the civil service or basically a change of PM (and cabinet)? Agree on Boris (and your views on Sunak, Raab and Javid), but the top level ministerial capability and culture is different from the role culture of the civil service an other government bodies
I don't have experience of local or cntrl govt, certainly no insight into no 10. I always imagined the Cabinet Office to be fairly agile and responsive due to the competitive nature of the roles - so reading DC's blog has been an eye-opener. I agree with you 100% on Cultural Change (spent the first half of career working for multinationals, mostly in start-up mode – one being a Mgmt Consultancy. The second half public sector – from early years to tertiary education, with some time in NHS in between). Main behavioural difference I noticed between public and private was resistance to change and risk aversion. A simple illustration of systems problem - when I joined NHS in L&D role I asked for an Org Chart for a multi-million project NHS project... it took me 6 months to get one with clearly defined roles and responsibilities... Intense competition keeps things agile and responsive, which is difficult to achieve in two-party state. I believe Proportional Representation to be only way to achieve this, with added bonus of enforced collaboration and scrutiny. Can't say I'm an advocate of the "smash and burn" approach favoured by DC.... referendum shook things up, ensuing chaos highlighted fault lines... but it's short-term thinking - ensuring good governance needs planned interventions and long-term thinking. Bit difficult in a pandemic though!
And the other biggie is procurement which in modern organisations is more akin to marketing than the low level administrative exercise it’s usually treated as public sector. These are largely process not cultural changes but I think by tackling some of the really problematic processes first, some behavioural changes will emerge. As for the quality of Ministers - ultimately this comes down to the nature and quality of MPs we can attract
Do you think that the PM is mentally ill? I ask because the 'volte-face' about sacked/resigned seems madly abrupt and a bit bonkers. Spin needs diminished interest which always comes with the passage of time but rewriting yesterday's history is a risk too far surely? Or is he just badly advised by some impetuous advisor?
His wife! PR guru - my arse! As Dom points out Boris influenced, it seems, by Daily Telegraph..... wtf? But look back on year and that pattern is obvious!
Boris the clown messes hair up before every performance, only missing red nose, paint and huge slippers.
His name is Alexander! Boris is a persona - but in pandemic
it could become persona non gratis?
*Latin joke! Follow the money..... vaccinate under 50s, under 30s, under 18s, boosters, mix the jabs, flu jab, money money money, it’s a rich mans world.....
who has virus in the population, where are they , are they moving (if yes, why).
30 million mobile phones that can track movement down to 100m ( not shop, but street)
why no effective use of CCTV and mobile phones... because no money in IT!
these in place already for free - they cover fraud and terror, and mobile information access.
use them to fight a war against a virus. If Dom shows 20p solution to limit covid and track it ( helping those with it, limiting spread, assisting isolators and avoiding financial impacts) that could lead to regime change.....
how you eat an elephant - 1 bite at a time - how you beat virus - with 20p ppe!
1/ The peak in hospitals was not 8th - it was 18th, if my memory right (data is public).
2/ NHS was overstretched that the death rate substantially rose at the peak because some people did not get the ICU treatment they needed.
3/ 'already' meaning what? It was weakening because a/ public increasingly isolated themselves through March and b/ we ditched Plan A and revved everything up pronto.
4/ If these things hadn't happened and it kept doubling every ~3 days, then first wave cd have easily been x2, x4 worse
5/ I am *not* clever - I understand effective political action better than most but that's not to do with being 'clever'...
1. The UK'S peak fatality date was 8th April irrelevant what it was in hospital's. Trying to rewrite the known time lines to support what appears to have been an unnecessary 4 weeks too late lockdown?
2. Yes absolutely the NHS was overwhelmed by lack of containment inside the hospitals. It was overwhelmed much as it is every year with seasonal flu.
3. The 1st wave had passed before the start of lockdown 1. That is evident from the data and from the earlier than expected 8th April peak fatality date.
4. All the evidence points towards the virus having burnt itself out in the general population in London and the South East it was only in hospitals that is caused a spike because Hancock infected the care homes by moving infected people from hospitals into the care homes. To make space that was never needed. Has Hancock done nothing we would have see tens of thousands of fewer deaths.
5. The clever big is looking at the historic data and evidence as it appears and working out what is happening. The stupid bit is allowing your subconscious to be fixed in forecasts and nonsense.
I think you need to revise your view on the reality of this virus and it's actual potency.
You need to be honest with yourself
It's OK to be wrong and correct yourself
You are only human and you were caught up inside the echo chamber of SAGE and Johnson's Panic
1. 'The 1st wave had passed before the start of lockdown 1.' But hospitalisations rose rapidly after lockdown1 and would have kept going up without a combination fo public fear and government action. And we did not have case data then, all we had was hospital data because testing was so awful. And all the hospital data 9-23 March suggested it was spreading like wildfire and x2 every 3 days or so.
2. If the virus had 'burned itself out', why was there a second wave?
1. If the wave had passed and peak infection date missed then as you confirm the NHS saw the full force of covid 19 in London and the South East
2. The "2nd" wave was outside of London and the South East
It had burnt itself out in that area
The logic is it was slowed up by the 1st Lockdown
And on historic evidence it would not have overwhelmed the NHS outside of London and the South East
Becuse it is evident that it wasn't as Potent as believed
The evidence the data and logic show government intervention caused the virus to dwell and fester for longer and that caused more deaths by infecting thousands in care homes and all the later issues of undiagnosed cancer heart disease etc etc not to mention the spike in suicides
Unfortunately the evidence is damning
The conclusion is
If government had not lockdown hadn't got busy with clearing out hospitals, if they had put out sensible advice and used a Multivariate Approach applying real protection for those who were at risk (known from Italy in February, the old obese and weak)
Then the actual fatality numbers would have been comparable to for eg the 2017-18 50,000 excess flu death's
Everything government did served to only make things worse and result in more loss of life
It was the BINARY approach that failed to take into account any Unintended Consequences
To confirm......
1. If the wave had passed and peak infection date missed then as you confirm the NHS saw the full force of covid 19 in London and the South East
2. The "2nd" wave was outside of London and the South East
It had burnt itself out in that area
The logic is it was slowed up by the 1st Lockdown
And on historic evidence it would not have overwhelmed the NHS outside of London and the South East
As Paul argues the evidence was that the virus was being caught and passed on within the hospital and care home sector. Thousands died because an isolation policy was not functioning there instead the virus was spreading within these institutions. This is still the case. NHS has to get on top of infection.
They moved infected people put of care homes (to make space in empty hospitals) into care homes which infected and ended up killing tens of thousands of elderly people.
Also
Because the previous winter had been very mild on the flu front there were more weak vulnerable people than normal which increased the numbers who would sucum to covid.
Regardless the virus was expected to be way more deadly (which it wasn't because under 60 without underlying health conditions you have near zero risk of death and a very small risk of hospitalisation) the data is absolutely conclusive.
I suspect the Great British Public prefers the consensual, and in your view rather ineffective and amateurish form of government represented by Heywood, to that of Pharaoh Cummings.
This is Britain. We believe in Democracy, protected by strong institutions. Many fantasists find this arrangement frustrating.
But frustration is often preferable to mass death, once The Rule Of Law is trodden over by bright sparks such as yourself.
There was no universal suffrage in Britain until the early 20th century. Democratic government is a very recent development. Freedoms and rights of the individual is something that does go back a long way in British history however, with Magna Carta etc. I suggest we need to separate the two to fully understand that British history has a much stronger thread of personal freedoms than it does of democracy.
Magna Carta is something of a vexed subject. It's not really what people think it is. It was reissued multiple times (1216, 1217, 1225, 1297) and the 1297 version is the one most "recognised" by historians. However, by about 1350, half of its provisions had fallen into abeyance, and most of the rest were taken off the Statute book by the Statute Law Revision Act of 1863 (followed by a similar act for Ireland in 1872). The only parts remaining on the Statute book since 1863 have been about protection of the English Church (irrelevant given Henry VIII), the privileges of the City of London (today a tiny part of London), and the part that says no man should be denied justice, and no one can sell justice. The idea that it enshrined habeas corpus is an, ahem, "interpretation" dating from the constitutionally-fraught 17th century and embedded in the 19th century by then-dominant Wjig historians. Far greater impact today comes from the gradual widening of the franchise from 1867 (no universal franchise till 1967 though) and the development of mass public opinion, and the need for politicians to respond to it, either by appealing to it (often falsely), appeasing it (often unsuccessfully), ignoring it (riskily) or shaping it. Rights of the individual have far more to do with a widening franchise than they do to Magna Carta or to Whig historians' desire to build a mythical "continuity of rights and liberties" back to the Anglo-Saxon era. You could even argue - as I believe Dom does - that this has left us with a system where popularity Trump's sensible long-term policy most times. Not always, but most of the time, and that was very clearly in evidence in some of the pandemic-handling in 2020 (cf Hancock!)
So are you argument that Magna Carta is more about universal suffrage than it is the rights of the individual? I would have to disagree with that. Also the ideas you mention, irrespective of it being a vexed subject, seem to me to relate to rights of individuals and make no mention of democracy. Hence my point - the broad thrust of English history is about a journey for individual rights. Democracy is merely a later straggler. But I do agree with you that Magna Carta is does not align with the cartoon representation given to it - and same can be said for all of the rest of history popular history.
Also when you say:
"Far greater impact today comes from the gradual widening of the franchise from 1867"
I wasn't disputing the impact so I agree with you the century span 1867 -> 1967 certainly holds significant sway over our current position. If we were to take an audit of Britains relative position in the world at the start and end of that period (and even to more recent times) I think we could come to some interesting conclusions as to how successful this relatively recent (in the span of 2000 years of history) experiment has been.
My argument was in fact that this - That the story of universal suffrage holds a far greater sway over modern minds than is warranted because the broad thrust of the history of these islands before 1867 was nothing to do with universal suffrage. This is idea is a late comer an interloper which has almost parasitically attached itself to the idea of individual rights and drawn much of that ideas strength into itself.
I don't think Magna Carta is about either individual rights, or about universal suffrage (the latter a distinctly late 18th century concept). It was more about a power struggle at the top of society, but it suited 19th century historians to narrate a long and inevitable march towards the full liberty of the individual (ie the "current" systems represents perfection) . To be honest, l disagree with that whole concept. Historically, few things are inevitable, and there can easily be retrograde movements: in the 1930s, there was a significant body of thought that suggested democracy would die out during the 20th century, to be replaced by either totalitarian or technocratic systems. The point I was trying to make (not very well) was that universal suffrage, and how political elites/systems responded to it, are probably of greater importance today to how our governments behave, than anything like Magna Carta. Arguably, you could say that the embedded and irreversible idea of annual Parliaments had more impact, and that was a process spanning the 12th to 16th centuries, with many "retrograde steps" as we would now view them. The real question I thi k, is whether public opinion and the rights of the individual have greater importance than sound and we'll thought-out public policy, even if the latter is unpopular. I'm aware this can be seen as an "anti-democratic" argument, but it's an intetesting question:at what point are individual freedoms and support for a given policy incompatible with the wisest or optimal policy? And how does a "democratic" society address that question with a political establishment obsessed with the media, focus groups, public polling, etc?
I think we pretty much agree - It's true that the idea of a thread of individual rights is also as much a story as universal suffrage, my point was only that this story has deeper roots and a longer thread than the story of US. I tend to use that as a tool to dislodge people stuck on the idea that US is the pinnacle of human achievement that we have been striving thousands of years to achieve.
You are also correct that once we are mature enough to move beyond the idea of these childish stories, then we can start having the real discussion which is exactly what you stated - what is the best system of government that balances these concerns given the current shape of the world now. Amazing how that's exactly the same debates that Plato and the other ancient Greek philosophers were having isn't it? There is truly nothing new under the sun.
Yes, we agree on a lot. You make a particularly good point re the continuity with the ancient Greeks. We're grappling with the same questions they did. Ultimately, they rejected "pure" democracy and opted for a representative form, which they knew wasn't "real" democracy at all. If I understand Dom's comments, he's close to espousing a form of technocracy/expert government, in which things like polling and focus groups get a polite "thank you, noted", in favour of public policy and state mechanisms which actually deliver optimal outcomes. Clearly, this would involve major reformation of govt mechanisms (ie depts of state), political parties (better quality of candidates/better selection systems), the media (alternative forms that inform and educate) and the exploitation of technology and data to inform both the voting public and the public servants/political elites. Tough ask, given that our systems all seem to be preserved in aspic. But he's asking the questions, which is more than most.
You made earlier a very good point regarding Britain's relative position in the world, 1867-1967. Apologies for not addressing this earlier. The questions of relative vs absolute decline are very well covered by Paul Kennedy in "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" and "The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery". A very interesting alternative view comes from George Bernstein's "The Myth of Decline". All totally worth reading.
Democracy may be relegated to the history books in our lifetime - groupthink is muzzling this conversation. I suspect that one motivation of the VL campaign was to trigger a shift in the Overton window on universal suffrage amongst the metropolitan elite..... imagine the referendum results if only landowners were allowed to vote..... a very politically incorrect conversation of course
Completely agree. The referendum result was the first time I could really recall the liberal elite actually questioning - 'hang on, we completely disagree with this decision...and yet it was democratic!'. Extreme cognitive dissonance ensued. Almost all of us are part of undemocratic organisations for the majority of our everyday lives. Work places are almost never democratic - there is almost always a hierachy / chain of command which we submit to. Only entrepreneurs regularly have to submit to some form of democracy at work, the customer. There are many interesting angles here.
....defined hierarchy and transparent chain of command is crucial for effective management of any type of organisation... we need to start imagining post-democracy..... our instrinsic and extrinsic motivations and values have changed so much over pandemic....
There is nothing consensual whatsoever about taxes, which fund the vast, bloated and ineffective apparatus of state. If democracy is putting into action the will of the people, then an effective government is part of the deal. The legitimacy of democracy craters if the wishes of the public do not manifest. The moral legitimacy to claim tax fades as the taxpayer becomes aware of the one-sidedness of the transaction.
An effective, efficient government would adhere to the Gladstonian principle of 'cheese-paring' and treating the public purse as an item held in trust, rather than Utgard-Loki's drinking horn.
Monarchy was the default form of government the world over for most of recorded history and has an excellent track record. Your historical knowledge could be carved onto the head of a pin.
That must be why there are so many powerful, wealthy countries with autocratic dictators, and so why so many risk their lives to flee democracies/republics to live in them every year.
There are ample examples of autocratic government in the form of monarchism as a viable and sustainable political system throughout history, in spite of what you claim. So the current crop of autocratic governments that horribly abuse their people must share a different common factor *cough* left wing politics *cough*. As a student of history, I'm sure you're well aware of that.
Agree - though if taxes are in fact consensual and 'morally legitimate' to the extent that the public are unaware of ineffective government, and reciprocity is one of the principles that justify doing better, then what?
It means that unless Westminster is subjected to reform, the public will eventually withdraw their consent and power relations transition into occupation by a hostile elite. You cannot be incompetent and demand payment forever. The Soviets tried it and it didn't work.
The system hates DC, but without him, or someone like him, the decline is terminal. Arguing for the status quo as personified by Heywood is merely a desire to keep one's snout in the trough, secure in the knowledge that it won't be them who are faced with the consequences when it runs dry.
Further, the Heywood Acolyte demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how systems featuring perpetual growth are regulated in nature. Westminster does not enjoy immunity from this process. It can either manage this in a fashion akin to controlled burns in forestry, or it can let the bureaucratic brambles grow unchecked until a random lightning strike ignites a century of dead wood and reduces the whole forest to ash.
What was the response to your 26th April note? It seems insane that you felt the need to write it - who else was 'the eye in the sky', the executive knitting everyone together?
We used that note to hammer a better plan together over coming weeks and take control away from Hancock. Yes it was insane I had to write it - a good example of how the system had collapsed...
I was working as a statistician elsewhere in government (with some very talented people) while all this was going. It's honestly terrifying that all of the standard data analysis we assumed was being done by far more competent people than ourselves was barely even happening months later.
Yup. Even in July it wasn't right. Things did not really improve until we got the Analytical Private Office going, which made a huge difference and is entirely unreported by media...
Dominic --- I believe you
"Risk comes from not knowing what you're doing." - Buffet
So true in this instance....they clearly had no idea how to counter such a major incident...even though there was plenty of education that this was likely going to happen within our life-times. It had already happened with SARS, but they prepped nothing.
Were any "war games" conducted at all for this kind of situation before 2020? Even a bio-weapon type situation?
Hi Dom - Effective Altruism have released this document outlining how one can Improve Institutional Decision-Making (IIDM), and it seems rather apt having just read the complete lack of maxims regarding any decision-making from tight No. 10 team. Here it is for those interested parties: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ttpSEgE3by7AAhQ7w/improving-institutional-decision-making-which-institutions-a
I am studying Quadratic Voting as a means of helping to address (among other things) certain facets of IIDM.
Maybe should have liaised with this lot... https://www.covid-arg.com/group
Dido Harding given £20 billion for track and trace.
20p silicon wristbands, (infected, vaccinated, tested, shielding, keyworkers), cctv, human eyes and google maps using Zoe style simple mobile phone app.... no exposure of sensitive medical info.
Gives huge 10-20 million person daily dataset of infections in uk, and means to track, trace and support.
Not even tried..... £5 billion vaccination program, £1 billion rapid test, .... follow the money.
Turing beat enigma with paper punch cards , pencils and smart thinking. Virus has not got brain.
Also, a question about 'power in Whitehall' and how to actually make something happen.
You want an immediate Covid enquiry (for good reasons). What is the actual plan to make that happen? Asking on Twitter is about as effective as a change.org petition, which is to say, worse than useless.
It'll only happen when (if) some Whitehall figure judges it politically less painful to change the timescale than to leave it as it is.
Who is that person, and what will actually move the needle on that calculation?
Start unofficial one any way..... is a good start. On line library, here, of statements and key documents. So ready for when enquiry officially starts?
What's your take on the use of personal Gmail by Hancock, Bethell and Whately?
Convenience, stupidity, diary management, corruption, technical illiteracy, criminal intent, arse-covering, or a select mix of the above?
Incompetence! Pure and simple. After Hilary Clinton scandal why go down that route?
Scottish health minister first act in pandemic...seek to stop freedom of information requests...wtf?
Is it any wonder Scotland has highest delta spikes in Eu?
You do know don’t you, that care homes were being advised by the CQC (under government guidance) not to lockdown at the start of the pandemic. Some did anyway (they were largely those who had the resources to do this, mainly staff who would agree to isolate in the home) and ended up with no infections. They knew exactly how infections would spread, and this was largely through the peripatetic workforce. They were admonished by the CQC, but ignored them. I know this partly because I’m a lay inspector for the CQC. You should investigate this
The issue of some care providers offering post hospital transition arrangements for the elderly who may have covid, rather than directly back into their care homes, has not been explored or publicised enough
Given the apparent issues with COBRA, number 10 set up, lack of basic IT etc. Was moving the 'nerve centre', say into the Elizabeth Conference Centre, ever considered?
too many cctv cameras there! lolz
Having worked across many organisations in the private and public sector (central and local govt, nhs, regulators,quangos, prison service) I know that the culture of the public sector is designed to avoid accountability. Some of this goes to a basic but arcane value set, which runs along the lines of ‘if I am offering a public service, I don’t deserve to have my performance assessed. In fact the whole private sector notion of ‘performance’ is anathema to me’. So this deeply held but well hidden construct runs through everything - organisation structures, job design, the way people are or aren’t rewarded, the kind of people who get hired. People like me have tinkered at the edges, tried to introduce ‘change’ (the whole concept of change is seen as an ‘initiative’ which has no bearing on cultural or behavioural transformation. In fact they often love to use the word ‘transformation’ as it makes them sound as if they really mean it this time) Dominic speaks to everything I know and have experienced, but there is no critical mass to disrupt, never will be, and the nature of the change required is just not achievable. The most anyone can hope for is transactional change. At the level of, like, some civil servants learn some project management skills. They will eff this up too though because they’ll make some simple principles into an industry called Prince 2 (again,focus on process change,not cultural, leadership behavioural)
You should write my next book
"Disresponsibility - When Things go Wrong and it's Nobody's Fault....."
I feel your pain! Certainly left to themselves not much will change. But I wd argue the referendum shows things can change, the Vaccine Taskforce shows things can be done differently.
A necessary condition though is having *the will to make relentless efforts to do things differently* in No10...
Agree on Taskforce but Referendum proof that nothing has changed. Politicians made promises they knew they couldn’t keep * - public has no recourse as there’s no accountability. I shall obviously reverse my view should we achieve anything more than leaving or sovereignty.
I’ve worked across many sectors (UK and US): Multinatiomals, Consulting, Finance, Startups and NGO (probono) and I’m at my wits end in terms of dealing with the public/ non profit sector. Not only is no one responsible, but it’s also political, territorial and highly inefficient. No regard to how funds are spent or allocated as budgets are ‘flexible’ I also sense a strong (completely absurd) sense of moral superiority for having chosen a career in the public sector.
Based on my private sector experience, performance is driven by accountability, sense of ownership, pride in achievement and personal development (that’s progression as well as being surrounded by strong performers. Pay is important, but less so than you believe. Haven’t worked in the public sector but had to collaborate very closely with the NHS trusts, early on in my career. Saw all that you mentioned - was extremely frustrating for me as there was no respect for follow through or timelines. Luckily my firm (very well known for graduate development) realised I was struggling (had lost my temper etc), gave me a different positive and then sent me on numerous courses on how to work with and influence ‘all types of people’. Those actually helped a lot.
Regarding change, it will most likely come from bringing in senior people from the private sector. The type that can navigate the cultural divide and set tone. Trying to improve graduate recruiting won’t help. You can hire the best people, but they will get demotivated and leave. Alternatively, two of my firms (banks) had a intern swap program whereby you could spend time working with client/ customer or they’d find you position in public sector. Was junior level and apparently successful.
Something I’ve never understood is how are politicians get away with lies and manipulating the public. Had I behaved like some in Government, I’d could very easily have landed up in jail for market manipulation. It’s makes no sense that someone as insignificant as me is held to higher account than those running the country
*Dominic - regarding my point that Brexit was based on lies. As a party member I attended numerous fundraisers in 2019 and personally spoke to those currently in gov’t.
a) All spoke glibly at superficial level but none actually understood details. I knew way more than they did but whenever I pushed for a response, they’d shift the debate.
b) One spent 20 mins trying to explain how post Brexit, UK would become the next silicon valley. He seemed obsessed with ‘tech’ yet when I (purely out of politeness) asked if he had any preferences (in terms of specific technologies), the response was a blank look and prolonged silence. Then I was reminded that it didn’t matter - public would be happy as long as the term ‘tech’ was attached to any initiatives
c) Someone actually dared to ask me why I had such strong remain views when apparently, those in my position would likely benefit from leaving…
If you believe these people drove any positive change, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
A different structure and leadership arrangement was set up under Kate Bingham though, and she was allowed to operate within a task culture, not a role or power culture (Charles Handy). This may be possible for this kind of ‘got to get it done, clear objectives’ type enterprise, but the murky, diffuse and ‘bar of soap’ nature of most government and public sector decision making, I think, makes systemic change far more challenging.
Agree... I think no alternative to regular CLOSING of entities and replacing. Nothing else works with public sector bureaucracies as they can keep failing until the entire regime collapses...
In my experience, if you close one, it springs up in another form, usually equally ineffective. Take Monitor - a now defunct regulator set up to regulate the financial governance of nhs Trusts. A huge budget and led by McKinsey consultants on very large salaries. I worked there as an interim but chose to leave as it was clear there was little ambition for or knowledge of the nhs and a culture of complete indifference. Now it’s been absorbed into ‘nhs improvement’, another wasteful and non influential organisation. It happens all the time - to cover government bottoms and look as if things are being done, to find jobs for ‘great and good’. Even in government departments you won’t find many people getting fired for poor performance - the system mitigates against this. Some change might come if the whole recruitment system changes - a move away from graduates to broader CVS and assessment of talent through other means than archaic ‘boards’. Without critical mass though people get indoctrinated or leave. The cabinet office is largely irrelevant. It could be a centre of excellence for other departments - a repository of project management tools, skills and of organisation development skills offering change management skills across government. Either that or have it simply as a very small thought leadership department. At the moment it’s an amorphous mess. ‘Regime change’ is a bit ambiguous. Do you mean broader culture change across the civil service or basically a change of PM (and cabinet)? Agree on Boris (and your views on Sunak, Raab and Javid), but the top level ministerial capability and culture is different from the role culture of the civil service an other government bodies
I don't have experience of local or cntrl govt, certainly no insight into no 10. I always imagined the Cabinet Office to be fairly agile and responsive due to the competitive nature of the roles - so reading DC's blog has been an eye-opener. I agree with you 100% on Cultural Change (spent the first half of career working for multinationals, mostly in start-up mode – one being a Mgmt Consultancy. The second half public sector – from early years to tertiary education, with some time in NHS in between). Main behavioural difference I noticed between public and private was resistance to change and risk aversion. A simple illustration of systems problem - when I joined NHS in L&D role I asked for an Org Chart for a multi-million project NHS project... it took me 6 months to get one with clearly defined roles and responsibilities... Intense competition keeps things agile and responsive, which is difficult to achieve in two-party state. I believe Proportional Representation to be only way to achieve this, with added bonus of enforced collaboration and scrutiny. Can't say I'm an advocate of the "smash and burn" approach favoured by DC.... referendum shook things up, ensuing chaos highlighted fault lines... but it's short-term thinking - ensuring good governance needs planned interventions and long-term thinking. Bit difficult in a pandemic though!
And the other biggie is procurement which in modern organisations is more akin to marketing than the low level administrative exercise it’s usually treated as public sector. These are largely process not cultural changes but I think by tackling some of the really problematic processes first, some behavioural changes will emerge. As for the quality of Ministers - ultimately this comes down to the nature and quality of MPs we can attract
A quality system usually attract quality people
Do you think that the PM is mentally ill? I ask because the 'volte-face' about sacked/resigned seems madly abrupt and a bit bonkers. Spin needs diminished interest which always comes with the passage of time but rewriting yesterday's history is a risk too far surely? Or is he just badly advised by some impetuous advisor?
He just says contradictory/nonsensical stuff routinely, nothing new!
His wife! PR guru - my arse! As Dom points out Boris influenced, it seems, by Daily Telegraph..... wtf? But look back on year and that pattern is obvious!
Boris the clown messes hair up before every performance, only missing red nose, paint and huge slippers.
His name is Alexander! Boris is a persona - but in pandemic
it could become persona non gratis?
*Latin joke! Follow the money..... vaccinate under 50s, under 30s, under 18s, boosters, mix the jabs, flu jab, money money money, it’s a rich mans world.....
who has virus in the population, where are they , are they moving (if yes, why).
30 million mobile phones that can track movement down to 100m ( not shop, but street)
why no effective use of CCTV and mobile phones... because no money in IT!
these in place already for free - they cover fraud and terror, and mobile information access.
use them to fight a war against a virus. If Dom shows 20p solution to limit covid and track it ( helping those with it, limiting spread, assisting isolators and avoiding financial impacts) that could lead to regime change.....
how you eat an elephant - 1 bite at a time - how you beat virus - with 20p ppe!
The truth about the 8th April peak fatality date
4 weeks too late
Yet the NHS wasn't overwhelmed
Evidence that the virus was already dissapearing & weakening
Yet they continued peddling fear propaganda and lies
WHY is Dominic blind to this???
I think it's due to subconscious beliefs embedded
Maybe Dominic isn't as clever as he thinks he is?
1/ The peak in hospitals was not 8th - it was 18th, if my memory right (data is public).
2/ NHS was overstretched that the death rate substantially rose at the peak because some people did not get the ICU treatment they needed.
3/ 'already' meaning what? It was weakening because a/ public increasingly isolated themselves through March and b/ we ditched Plan A and revved everything up pronto.
4/ If these things hadn't happened and it kept doubling every ~3 days, then first wave cd have easily been x2, x4 worse
5/ I am *not* clever - I understand effective political action better than most but that's not to do with being 'clever'...
1. The UK'S peak fatality date was 8th April irrelevant what it was in hospital's. Trying to rewrite the known time lines to support what appears to have been an unnecessary 4 weeks too late lockdown?
2. Yes absolutely the NHS was overwhelmed by lack of containment inside the hospitals. It was overwhelmed much as it is every year with seasonal flu.
3. The 1st wave had passed before the start of lockdown 1. That is evident from the data and from the earlier than expected 8th April peak fatality date.
4. All the evidence points towards the virus having burnt itself out in the general population in London and the South East it was only in hospitals that is caused a spike because Hancock infected the care homes by moving infected people from hospitals into the care homes. To make space that was never needed. Has Hancock done nothing we would have see tens of thousands of fewer deaths.
5. The clever big is looking at the historic data and evidence as it appears and working out what is happening. The stupid bit is allowing your subconscious to be fixed in forecasts and nonsense.
I think you need to revise your view on the reality of this virus and it's actual potency.
You need to be honest with yourself
It's OK to be wrong and correct yourself
You are only human and you were caught up inside the echo chamber of SAGE and Johnson's Panic
1. 'The 1st wave had passed before the start of lockdown 1.' But hospitalisations rose rapidly after lockdown1 and would have kept going up without a combination fo public fear and government action. And we did not have case data then, all we had was hospital data because testing was so awful. And all the hospital data 9-23 March suggested it was spreading like wildfire and x2 every 3 days or so.
2. If the virus had 'burned itself out', why was there a second wave?
1. If the wave had passed and peak infection date missed then as you confirm the NHS saw the full force of covid 19 in London and the South East
2. The "2nd" wave was outside of London and the South East
It had burnt itself out in that area
The logic is it was slowed up by the 1st Lockdown
And on historic evidence it would not have overwhelmed the NHS outside of London and the South East
Becuse it is evident that it wasn't as Potent as believed
The evidence the data and logic show government intervention caused the virus to dwell and fester for longer and that caused more deaths by infecting thousands in care homes and all the later issues of undiagnosed cancer heart disease etc etc not to mention the spike in suicides
Unfortunately the evidence is damning
The conclusion is
If government had not lockdown hadn't got busy with clearing out hospitals, if they had put out sensible advice and used a Multivariate Approach applying real protection for those who were at risk (known from Italy in February, the old obese and weak)
Then the actual fatality numbers would have been comparable to for eg the 2017-18 50,000 excess flu death's
Everything government did served to only make things worse and result in more loss of life
It was the BINARY approach that failed to take into account any Unintended Consequences
To confirm......
1. If the wave had passed and peak infection date missed then as you confirm the NHS saw the full force of covid 19 in London and the South East
2. The "2nd" wave was outside of London and the South East
It had burnt itself out in that area
The logic is it was slowed up by the 1st Lockdown
And on historic evidence it would not have overwhelmed the NHS outside of London and the South East
As Paul argues the evidence was that the virus was being caught and passed on within the hospital and care home sector. Thousands died because an isolation policy was not functioning there instead the virus was spreading within these institutions. This is still the case. NHS has to get on top of infection.
boderseer
It is even worse than that
They moved infected people put of care homes (to make space in empty hospitals) into care homes which infected and ended up killing tens of thousands of elderly people.
Also
Because the previous winter had been very mild on the flu front there were more weak vulnerable people than normal which increased the numbers who would sucum to covid.
Regardless the virus was expected to be way more deadly (which it wasn't because under 60 without underlying health conditions you have near zero risk of death and a very small risk of hospitalisation) the data is absolutely conclusive.
Underneath ‘specific regime change’, dictatorship.
I suspect the Great British Public prefers the consensual, and in your view rather ineffective and amateurish form of government represented by Heywood, to that of Pharaoh Cummings.
This is Britain. We believe in Democracy, protected by strong institutions. Many fantasists find this arrangement frustrating.
But frustration is often preferable to mass death, once The Rule Of Law is trodden over by bright sparks such as yourself.
There was no universal suffrage in Britain until the early 20th century. Democratic government is a very recent development. Freedoms and rights of the individual is something that does go back a long way in British history however, with Magna Carta etc. I suggest we need to separate the two to fully understand that British history has a much stronger thread of personal freedoms than it does of democracy.
Magna Carta is something of a vexed subject. It's not really what people think it is. It was reissued multiple times (1216, 1217, 1225, 1297) and the 1297 version is the one most "recognised" by historians. However, by about 1350, half of its provisions had fallen into abeyance, and most of the rest were taken off the Statute book by the Statute Law Revision Act of 1863 (followed by a similar act for Ireland in 1872). The only parts remaining on the Statute book since 1863 have been about protection of the English Church (irrelevant given Henry VIII), the privileges of the City of London (today a tiny part of London), and the part that says no man should be denied justice, and no one can sell justice. The idea that it enshrined habeas corpus is an, ahem, "interpretation" dating from the constitutionally-fraught 17th century and embedded in the 19th century by then-dominant Wjig historians. Far greater impact today comes from the gradual widening of the franchise from 1867 (no universal franchise till 1967 though) and the development of mass public opinion, and the need for politicians to respond to it, either by appealing to it (often falsely), appeasing it (often unsuccessfully), ignoring it (riskily) or shaping it. Rights of the individual have far more to do with a widening franchise than they do to Magna Carta or to Whig historians' desire to build a mythical "continuity of rights and liberties" back to the Anglo-Saxon era. You could even argue - as I believe Dom does - that this has left us with a system where popularity Trump's sensible long-term policy most times. Not always, but most of the time, and that was very clearly in evidence in some of the pandemic-handling in 2020 (cf Hancock!)
So are you argument that Magna Carta is more about universal suffrage than it is the rights of the individual? I would have to disagree with that. Also the ideas you mention, irrespective of it being a vexed subject, seem to me to relate to rights of individuals and make no mention of democracy. Hence my point - the broad thrust of English history is about a journey for individual rights. Democracy is merely a later straggler. But I do agree with you that Magna Carta is does not align with the cartoon representation given to it - and same can be said for all of the rest of history popular history.
Also when you say:
"Far greater impact today comes from the gradual widening of the franchise from 1867"
I wasn't disputing the impact so I agree with you the century span 1867 -> 1967 certainly holds significant sway over our current position. If we were to take an audit of Britains relative position in the world at the start and end of that period (and even to more recent times) I think we could come to some interesting conclusions as to how successful this relatively recent (in the span of 2000 years of history) experiment has been.
My argument was in fact that this - That the story of universal suffrage holds a far greater sway over modern minds than is warranted because the broad thrust of the history of these islands before 1867 was nothing to do with universal suffrage. This is idea is a late comer an interloper which has almost parasitically attached itself to the idea of individual rights and drawn much of that ideas strength into itself.
I don't think Magna Carta is about either individual rights, or about universal suffrage (the latter a distinctly late 18th century concept). It was more about a power struggle at the top of society, but it suited 19th century historians to narrate a long and inevitable march towards the full liberty of the individual (ie the "current" systems represents perfection) . To be honest, l disagree with that whole concept. Historically, few things are inevitable, and there can easily be retrograde movements: in the 1930s, there was a significant body of thought that suggested democracy would die out during the 20th century, to be replaced by either totalitarian or technocratic systems. The point I was trying to make (not very well) was that universal suffrage, and how political elites/systems responded to it, are probably of greater importance today to how our governments behave, than anything like Magna Carta. Arguably, you could say that the embedded and irreversible idea of annual Parliaments had more impact, and that was a process spanning the 12th to 16th centuries, with many "retrograde steps" as we would now view them. The real question I thi k, is whether public opinion and the rights of the individual have greater importance than sound and we'll thought-out public policy, even if the latter is unpopular. I'm aware this can be seen as an "anti-democratic" argument, but it's an intetesting question:at what point are individual freedoms and support for a given policy incompatible with the wisest or optimal policy? And how does a "democratic" society address that question with a political establishment obsessed with the media, focus groups, public polling, etc?
I think we pretty much agree - It's true that the idea of a thread of individual rights is also as much a story as universal suffrage, my point was only that this story has deeper roots and a longer thread than the story of US. I tend to use that as a tool to dislodge people stuck on the idea that US is the pinnacle of human achievement that we have been striving thousands of years to achieve.
You are also correct that once we are mature enough to move beyond the idea of these childish stories, then we can start having the real discussion which is exactly what you stated - what is the best system of government that balances these concerns given the current shape of the world now. Amazing how that's exactly the same debates that Plato and the other ancient Greek philosophers were having isn't it? There is truly nothing new under the sun.
Yes, we agree on a lot. You make a particularly good point re the continuity with the ancient Greeks. We're grappling with the same questions they did. Ultimately, they rejected "pure" democracy and opted for a representative form, which they knew wasn't "real" democracy at all. If I understand Dom's comments, he's close to espousing a form of technocracy/expert government, in which things like polling and focus groups get a polite "thank you, noted", in favour of public policy and state mechanisms which actually deliver optimal outcomes. Clearly, this would involve major reformation of govt mechanisms (ie depts of state), political parties (better quality of candidates/better selection systems), the media (alternative forms that inform and educate) and the exploitation of technology and data to inform both the voting public and the public servants/political elites. Tough ask, given that our systems all seem to be preserved in aspic. But he's asking the questions, which is more than most.
You made earlier a very good point regarding Britain's relative position in the world, 1867-1967. Apologies for not addressing this earlier. The questions of relative vs absolute decline are very well covered by Paul Kennedy in "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" and "The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery". A very interesting alternative view comes from George Bernstein's "The Myth of Decline". All totally worth reading.
Once again, excuse typos!
Democracy may be relegated to the history books in our lifetime - groupthink is muzzling this conversation. I suspect that one motivation of the VL campaign was to trigger a shift in the Overton window on universal suffrage amongst the metropolitan elite..... imagine the referendum results if only landowners were allowed to vote..... a very politically incorrect conversation of course
Completely agree. The referendum result was the first time I could really recall the liberal elite actually questioning - 'hang on, we completely disagree with this decision...and yet it was democratic!'. Extreme cognitive dissonance ensued. Almost all of us are part of undemocratic organisations for the majority of our everyday lives. Work places are almost never democratic - there is almost always a hierachy / chain of command which we submit to. Only entrepreneurs regularly have to submit to some form of democracy at work, the customer. There are many interesting angles here.
....defined hierarchy and transparent chain of command is crucial for effective management of any type of organisation... we need to start imagining post-democracy..... our instrinsic and extrinsic motivations and values have changed so much over pandemic....
We could say it's more like awakening from a dream. Reality as it is already suddenly becoming a little clearer...
100% Andrew!
There is nothing consensual whatsoever about taxes, which fund the vast, bloated and ineffective apparatus of state. If democracy is putting into action the will of the people, then an effective government is part of the deal. The legitimacy of democracy craters if the wishes of the public do not manifest. The moral legitimacy to claim tax fades as the taxpayer becomes aware of the one-sidedness of the transaction.
An effective, efficient government would adhere to the Gladstonian principle of 'cheese-paring' and treating the public purse as an item held in trust, rather than Utgard-Loki's drinking horn.
And as history tells us, ‘effective, efficient governments’, which rely on the authority of a dictator, are anything but.
Monarchy was the default form of government the world over for most of recorded history and has an excellent track record. Your historical knowledge could be carved onto the head of a pin.
That must be why there are so many powerful, wealthy countries with autocratic dictators, and so why so many risk their lives to flee democracies/republics to live in them every year.
There are ample examples of autocratic government in the form of monarchism as a viable and sustainable political system throughout history, in spite of what you claim. So the current crop of autocratic governments that horribly abuse their people must share a different common factor *cough* left wing politics *cough*. As a student of history, I'm sure you're well aware of that.
This is hardly Aristotelian-tier logic.
Forgive me, but aren't most of those socialist? Cuba, Russia, China, N. Korea, Venezuela come to mind...
Eloquently put.
Agree - though if taxes are in fact consensual and 'morally legitimate' to the extent that the public are unaware of ineffective government, and reciprocity is one of the principles that justify doing better, then what?
It means that unless Westminster is subjected to reform, the public will eventually withdraw their consent and power relations transition into occupation by a hostile elite. You cannot be incompetent and demand payment forever. The Soviets tried it and it didn't work.
The system hates DC, but without him, or someone like him, the decline is terminal. Arguing for the status quo as personified by Heywood is merely a desire to keep one's snout in the trough, secure in the knowledge that it won't be them who are faced with the consequences when it runs dry.
Further, the Heywood Acolyte demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how systems featuring perpetual growth are regulated in nature. Westminster does not enjoy immunity from this process. It can either manage this in a fashion akin to controlled burns in forestry, or it can let the bureaucratic brambles grow unchecked until a random lightning strike ignites a century of dead wood and reduces the whole forest to ash.
Perfect analysis!
What was the response to your 26th April note? It seems insane that you felt the need to write it - who else was 'the eye in the sky', the executive knitting everyone together?
We used that note to hammer a better plan together over coming weeks and take control away from Hancock. Yes it was insane I had to write it - a good example of how the system had collapsed...
I was working as a statistician elsewhere in government (with some very talented people) while all this was going. It's honestly terrifying that all of the standard data analysis we assumed was being done by far more competent people than ourselves was barely even happening months later.
Yup. Even in July it wasn't right. Things did not really improve until we got the Analytical Private Office going, which made a huge difference and is entirely unreported by media...
Could you write a blog on the analytical private office? Is it still there or has it been carrie’d?
Will do... Yes still there