The role of Progress is to positively influence policy in order to improve Britain. This does not just demand influence over policymakers. It also requires Progress to develop policy ideas that can be realised: that is, suggest changes that can be translated into action and therefore improve the lives of British people.
The realisation that policy alone is insufficient came relatively late to the previous Labour government, but from about 2001 it became increasingly competent at translating the party’s policy aspirations into real reforms to the way the country works. The party developed an extensive apparatus to ensure policy can be delivered: the best known is its Delivery Unit, charged with ensuring ministers’ directions were realised. These were, with exceptions, dismantled by the coalition, resulting in a government that is struggling to deliver its agenda and offering a salient lesson to those seeking reform of public services.
This experience suggests a number of features that will be essential to ensuring the success of any reformist agenda. These reflect the realities of operating in an uncertain and complex environment. They suggest policymakers should be humble but offer a means to deliver radical policies.
First, policy must be pragmatic. Governments are not omnipotent. They operate in an environment of limited power and influence, even within public services. Therefore, governments must compromise to ensure they achieve some of their aims and acknowledge the ideal may not be possible – usually, this means working within the existing system to achieve incremental improvements. For example, Labour was able to amend its plans for a national minimum wage to win the board support that ensured its successful delivery. In contrast, the coalition attempted to achieve an idealised model of health reform until it realised the limits of its power; only on the brink of failure did they accept a need to listen to the views of healthcare professionals.
Second, flexibility. Governments are not omniscient. Humanity is complex, and the best models and ideas are only approximations of reality. There will always be an unknown that disrupts a policy in an unexpected way, or an unintended effect not planned for. Therefore, policy needs to accept the limits of the government’s knowledge and be able to adapt to circumstances. For example, Labour was able to adapt its approach to peace in Northern Ireland throughout its time in government, and maintain a degree of flexibility and uncertainty in order to make progress. In contrast, the coalition welfare reforms have been marked by a rigid persistence, creating significant impacts that were, presumably, unintended.
Third, these conditions of uncertainty and limited power mean some ambitious ideas will not work as intended. Therefore, the government needs to be able to let policies fail and quickly amend them. To do so effectively requires a resilient system. Labour was able to experiment with ideas such as foundation hospitals and academies because the system was, overall, growing and would have been able to accommodate policies that did not fully succeed. In contrast, the coalition has embarked on an all-or-nothing economic policy where there is no space for failure; as a result, the country is struggling and policy cannot be allowed to fail.
Finally, delivering policy effectively requires persistence and focus. The civil service does not translate government intentions into reality without some support, and the role of ministers is as much managing this process as deciding policy. Here, Michael Gove has been ruthlessly effective, purging the Department for Education to ensure alignment with his vision for education and quickly, but relentlessly, driving through his planned reforms. Similarly, Tony Blair held the Home Office to account for crime rates and managed to disprove, through robust management of the department, the consensus that crime rates always increase.
These four elements are rather technocratic. Indeed, one of the strengths of technocrats is their focus on delivery, which if adopted by democratic governments would significantly amplify the effectiveness of government; for this reason, they would be worthwhile tests for the policy work of Progress. While they lack the inspirational quality of the ideas that create policy, they do offer the satisfaction that ideas can make a difference to the lives of British people.
—————————————————————————————
Stephen Farrington is a candidate in the members’ section in the Progress strategy board elections 2012. You can find out more about all the candidates at the dedicated Progress strategy board election microsite