Photo credit: www.bbc.com
While it may seem unusual, a closer look reveals that the critiques offered by Sir Keir Starmer and Liz Truss regarding government inefficiency share striking similarities. Both figures are expressing frustrations that resonate with long-standing concerns about governmental operations.
This is not a new narrative; discontent with the effectiveness of government has been voiced for decades. Over twenty years ago, former Prime Minister Tony Blair addressed similar issues in a speech, emphasizing the paralysis that stems from a fear of accountability and asserting that the civil service often acts as a “shock absorber” to preserve the status quo.
Starmer and Truss may articulate their thoughts differently, yet they converge on the underlying diagnosis of government dysfunction. Starmer has pointed to the bureaucracy as being “overcautious” and “flabby,” suggesting that while the government has expanded, it has paradoxically become less effective. This ineffectiveness, he argues, stems from the increasing prevalence of arm’s length bodies—entities that are funded by taxpayers but operate independently of the government, thereby diluting accountability and action.
Within Downing Street, there is a growing awareness that such organizations, initially conceived to safeguard political leaders from negative repercussions, are now hindering ministers from executing their agendas. A notable example of this is the recent controversy surrounding the Sentencing Council in England and Wales, which has become emblematic of these governance challenges.
In her post-government reflections, Truss raised concerns about the “tyranny of the technocracy” and the “power of the administrative state,” labeling these dynamics as undemocratic. She criticized her predecessors, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, for establishing a complex framework of regulations that empowered technocrats, potentially leading to gridlock. While this marks a divergence in terms of specifics, it also reveals a shared sentiment regarding the constraints placed on governance.
Interestingly, the Sentencing Council itself was established in April 2010 during Gordon Brown’s tenure, underscoring that even those who advocate for reform can be tied to the very systems they seek to critique. Starmer, writing in the Daily Telegraph, notes the tendency to respond to challenges with the creation of even more arm’s length bodies, which he believes ultimately block effective governance without specifying any individual organizations.
Moreover, this current administration has established its own arm’s length bodies, like GB Energy and Skills England, illustrating the complexity of the conversation surrounding governance. There is a human tendency to view one’s initiatives as benign compared to those created by previous administrations.
Despite these political comparisons, the stakes remain high as an overarching sentiment prevails among the public: a belief that the government is increasingly ineffective. This is particularly evident in everyday experiences, such as the frantic attempts to secure a doctor’s appointment or the lengthy wait times for medical procedures.
Some senior figures within Labour express concerns that their rhetoric about “missions” and a “Plan for Change” may appear inadequate given the enormity of the challenges at hand. Starmer’s recent speeches reflect both frustration over governmental inertia and an urgent call to restore functionality within the system.
Source
www.bbc.com