tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post4617449936183195449..comments2024-03-17T00:10:44.022+00:00Comments on From Arse To Elbow: Characters in Search of an AuthorDavid Timoneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03568348438980023320noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-6464771439238358332015-01-21T18:16:57.064+00:002015-01-21T18:16:57.064+00:00"To suggest that any criticism of the state a..."To suggest that any criticism of the state and its bureaucracy is 'Cameronian' is frankly ridiculous."<br /><br />I wasn't, I was:<br /><br />1) Cheekily replying to your use of Panglossian<br />2) I was suggesting that your specific criticisms chime with the Tory agenda. I am happy for a critique of 'bureaucracy', though a critique is usually an honest assessment.<br /><br />Maybe the NHS is different to the rest of the public sector, but in the rest of the public sector they have budgets, and before 2007 if you wanted that budget increasing you had to complete an investment paper detailing why you wanted the extra budget. It was the same with all savings, they had to have a financial report attached as well as detailing the impact of the saving on the service. It was also required to show whether the saving was a cash or non cash saving. The savings would then need full approval from cabinet etc I.e. a robust, systematic process which the Tories ripped up and replaced with austerity anarchy.<br /><br />Though you have now brought up the idea of shared services, something Cameron was banging on about to Andrew Marr the other week. I think the same trope was promoted by Thatcher in her attack on the GLC and county councils.<br /><br />"I think your assumption that increases in public sector bureaucracy are some kind of step towards socialism"<br /><br />Did I say that? If that was your understanding then you are sorely mistaken. However, the debate is over the term and meaning of bureaucracy. If the introduction of a 'bureaucratic' process improves productivity, reduces labour time or results in less mistakes being made then this is a good thing. If it results in simply the additional burden of useless people who serve the organisation no purpose then I would say that is a form of madness and probably a huge caricature, bordering on total ignorance.<br /><br />Decreasing the role of the state doesn't mean getting rid of 'bureaucracy', as Marx put it the state is replaced by the administration of things.Herbie Kills Childrennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-67580779589528826422015-01-20T21:08:18.696+00:002015-01-20T21:08:18.696+00:00I don't think you understand my position. To s...I don't think you understand my position. To suggest that any criticism of the state and its bureaucracy is 'Cameronian' is frankly ridiculous.<br /><br />Nye Bevan once said 'the language of priorities is the religion of socialism'. I'm pointing out that many of the bureaucratic hoops that hospital trusts have to jump through are created by the government, who, like their Labour predecessor, are quite happy to set targets, duties and penalties while leaving lower levels of administration to carry out the duties and take the responsibility. These lower levels then employ more people to ensure that targets are met, while neglecting other tasks, since funds are limited. Similar trends are observable in the education sector, where academies each appoint their own management structures or pay 'consultants', rather than sharing these functions with other schools in the form of the LEAs.<br /><br />I think your assumption that increases in public sector bureaucracy are some kind of step towards socialism, or even efficiency, is a rather dangerous one. In the present context they simply reinforce wider trends of managerialism that reflect those in the wider economy. Some socialists want to decrease the role of the state as well as those on the right, but with very different aims and methods in mind.Igor Belanovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-18903158379841947822015-01-20T17:54:31.403+00:002015-01-20T17:54:31.403+00:00"but it is rarely asked whether the time and ..."but it is rarely asked whether the time and attention put into them is really the best use of time, whether their continuation is needed, and if they are achieving their aims."<br /><br />I don't accept this Cameronian understanding of Public sector practice, it sort of chimes with Eric Pickles criticisms and prejudices - massive savings can be made and austerity is therefore justified. Yes, you may be able to pick out examples but I don't think this tells you about the whole. So when David Cameron claims efficiencies are being made they are, more often than not, simply cuts.<br /><br />From the late 1990's to around 2007 there were processes within the public sector to ask all the 'efficiency' questions. Do we have the correct procedures, are our systems optimized, can we make efficiency savings. There were Savings investment papers, Gerhson savings, systematic processes were in place to bring about efficiency savings. The Tories ripped up this systematic approach and replaced it with anarchy. So I think it is wrong to say that questions were rarely asked about the best use of time, I actually find this an incredible statement of ignorance.<br /><br />I would accept that there are flaws in the process, for example, in order to save the time it takes to collate all the government financial statistics (revenue/capital outturn for example) a form was developed that captured where the activity stood within the statistical returns, so was effectively done by the push of a button, saving a great deal of time for those that produced the stats. What wasn’t fully factored in was the time it took to fill in the extra bits on the form! But still when putting forward savings they must come backed with impacts and what the saving is, i.e. they result in the budget being reduced!<br /><br />David,<br />Anecdotally I would say there are/were differences between public and private sector’s. I knew a private sector business owner who would simply not employ Muslims. That practice would not develop in the public sector, and I guess big business. Though I certainly recognise the idea that work is a process of permanent assessment. The trend has been toward private sector management techniques!<br />Herbie Kills Childrennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-75207228465871020252015-01-20T08:49:07.564+00:002015-01-20T08:49:07.564+00:00You're right, I should have made it clear that...You're right, I should have made it clear that I used the public sector as an example because I happen to be familiar with it, not trying to contrast it with an efficient, non-bureaucratic private sector!<br /><br />I must take issue, however, with Herbie's Panglossian suggestion that procedures always take place for the best of reasons. Obviously most start for a reason, but it is rarely asked whether the time and attention put into them is really the best use of time, whether their continuation is needed, and if they are achieving their aims. This does seem to be important given the issues affecting the NHS, and has been getting worse with the increase in targets and the emphasis on managerialism.Igor Belanovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-33717939598862937312015-01-19T18:50:50.532+00:002015-01-19T18:50:50.532+00:00There is little difference between bureaucracy in ...There is little difference between bureaucracy in the private and public sectors, either in qualitative or quantitative terms. The political pressure to adopt commercial practices in public services means that bureaucratic processes that have evolved under neoliberalism have been rolled out across both sectors.<br /><br />For example, "re-application" is a standard part of private sector reorganisation these days, whether or not the end result is a net reduction in employees. Similarly, you might think that the permanent revolution of reorganisation is an affliction peculiar to the NHS, but this has become common practice in the private sector since BPR first appeared in the 80s. <br /><br />The ideological purpose is twofold. First, to remind employees that the structure and boundaries of financialised firms are fluid, and that they consequently have no job security (i.e. offshoring, outsourcing and automation are constant threats). Second, that work is a process of permanent assessment (performance management), and that those who succeed, either by climbing the management hierarchy or meeting targets, are thereby worthy of admiration and large bonuses. <br /><br />Re-applications do have a rationale in the public sector - essentially to show that government jobs aren't given to unqualified mates as a favour - however it is worth noting that this practice was extensively adopted in the UK public sector only after it became common in the private sector. Once upon a time, a "personal recommendation" was considered a good thing, rather than a corrupt practice.<br /><br />Big capital doesn't have a problem with bureaucracy. Raising the cost of doing business is an effective way of increasing the cost of market entry and thereby limiting competition. It actively encourages red-tape in the public sector, as this privileges large firms that specialise in bidding for such contracts (Capita, G4S, Serco etc). For small capital, red tape raises the cost of doing business and in particular limits the ability to grow profits by pushing down on labour costs.David Timoneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03568348438980023320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-82485045713640038312015-01-19T17:11:20.801+00:002015-01-19T17:11:20.801+00:00"to the farce that is many procedures in the ..."to the farce that is many procedures in the public sector"<br /><br />This is where I would take issue, often we think the process is absurd but usually there are very good reasons for it, and we just don't think wide enough. We only think of our immediate inconvenience. I find it hard to believe that procedures are established that don't serve specific purposes but at the same time one procedure tries to capture as many scenarios as possible.<br /><br />Where the most reactionary recesses of the private sector take issue is not really with 'bureaucracy' as such but with 'red tape', i.e. sex and race discrimination legislation or health and safety.<br /><br />"but simultaneously making it obvious that the decision was taken above the level of the court."<br /><br />yes this really chimes with me! When a questionnaire goes out to staff or the public to seek opinions, you simply know that the conclusion has already been written! I have first hand experience of this! There is the tick box phenomenon I think, we saw this in the USSR, where production figures were rigged to meet the quotas.Herbie Kills Childrennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-41074434388510471352015-01-19T12:25:23.190+00:002015-01-19T12:25:23.190+00:00Bureaucracy and absurdity, however, is pretty much...Bureaucracy and absurdity, however, is pretty much the default position. Bureaucracy functions most 'efficiently' when it is entirely formal and the 'best' bureaucrats are jobsworths. The absurdity of bureaucracy can move from the tragedy of Eichmann to the farce that is many procedures in the public sector.<br />My own recent experience is a good example. My department (admin at a large hospital) was losing staff to better-paying trusts and decided to create some jobs at the next-highest paying band to keep some of us happy. In order to comply with official procedure, we had to apply for this promotion, even though all applicants came from within the department, there were as many applicants as jobs available, and the job role was practically identical. After having the obligatory interview, after a month we all discovered that we had been 'successful'. After another month we were told that we would have to bring three separate items of ID to work and go for a CRB check at the recruitment office. This is despite the fact that I have been working for my present employer for over eleven years, in the same department for more than seven, and the new job didn't even require me to move desks! Of course, the NHS is currently suffering a massive bed crisis and shortages of staff, but at least they've managed to ascertain that I'm not the next Jimmy Savile.....Igor Belanovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-76622621652752035232015-01-18T21:11:57.300+00:002015-01-18T21:11:57.300+00:00I don't think this film is criticising the com...I don't think this film is criticising the competence or effectiveness of bureaucracy per se (they certainly have the planning process under control), but rather the farcial forms it takes when serving ulterior interests.<br /><br />There are two scenes during which a court judgement is read out. In both, the court official reads so fast that the words are barely comprehensible, fulfilling the formal requirements of the process but simultaneously making it obvious that the decision was taken above the level of the court. What I think this film does satirise well is that "self-serving hierarchy".<br /><br />I agree that the general representation of bureaucracy is misleading. Western cinema usually cleaves to either a conservative view, in which government officials (other than the military, police etc) are incompetent or malign, or a liberal view that simply extends this trope to the private sector. <br /><br />There is a self-hating quality to this when you consider that a large percentage of the film-watching audience in the West will be bureaucrats of one sort or another. Of course, much of modern film and TV centres on selling us the daydream of rebellion.David Timoneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03568348438980023320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-75210163401292891632015-01-18T19:34:11.799+00:002015-01-18T19:34:11.799+00:00I think the criticism of bureaucracy portrayed in ...I think the criticism of bureaucracy portrayed in literature and film is, dare I say it, cheap and lazy. I am also not sure that art tackles very well the concept either.<br /><br />I remember the scene in Brazil (a film I like) where the hero is sent from one ministry to the other, Douglas Adams is full of this. The answer to this inconvenience was the development of the call centre. Filling in forms, something we all hate is often found to save labour time somewhere further down the line.<br /><br />What I think this art is criticising is self serving hierarchy but I don't quite think it fever fully realises this. Herbie Kills Childrennoreply@blogger.com