Skip to main content

Home Office Problem Solving

One of the top stories of the day is that the government intend fixing problems at the Home Office.

On the TV screens is a display of one of the presentations which goes approximately.
1. Find problem
2. Fix it
3. Check that it is solved.

This is really sad. If this is news to the Home Office then something is much more wrong than I ever believed. I still don't believe that they don't know this. I think it is purely window dressing.

The underlying problem as with any large organisation is one of how problems are solved. It is definitely the case that any board or senior manager should not generally be looking at little problems.

However, there is now a tendency to avoid ever looking at the details. This was a particular problem when we had Lin Homer as Chief Executive of the City Council. She (who now runs IND) argued strongly that we should never look at the detailed issues.

I would not see this as an approach which is only one for Ms Homer. There is a tendency in the paid officer service (Local Government Officers, Civil Servants) to get the politicians as far away as possible.

The problem is that you cannot really only manage services by considering outcomes. You also need to consider how to get the outcome. There tend to be turf wars between the different middle managers and the like and hence someone needs to be around to knock heads together.

In the public sector this is the final responsibility of politicians. It needs to be done in a sensible manner and simply going round ranting "Its not fit for purpose" does no-one any good.

As far as the responsibilities of the Home Office are concerned there is a very clear need for a flow chart of how people are processed by the system. I am very concerned as to what happens when people who have been given a "Hospital Order" are released. These are people who have committed a criminal offence because they are mentally ill. They are clearly dangerous people. They, however, seem to disappear in a crevasse between the NHS and the Courts and Criminal Justice system.

One of the problems with the way parliament works is that most of the problems in the UK public sector are management problems. Parliament is actually quite bad at holding the executive to account (by asking questions and getting answers), because the executive simply refuses to answer the questions.

The end result is that MPs get into the mood that the solution to a problem involves legislation. We end up, hence, with a vast quantity of rubbishy legislation when it really does not help.

What is actually needed is attention to detail. Identifying specific and clear problems and their solutions with full information. This can be done by opposition MPs perfectly well. Richard Bacon MP is quite good at this. Then you need to put your big bovver boots on and kick some backsides until the problem is fixed. Frequently the solution to a problem merely involves putting the boots on and no backsides need receive any metaphorical impetus. The threat is enough.

I am having a bit of a go on the audit of death certificates. If you want to identify doctors who kill their patients first look at the number of death certificates signed then look for the explanation of any large numbers.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men: