Jonathan Werran’s Post

The Citizens' White Paper from Demos sets a bold ambition for the future of policymaking. The paper from Miriam Levin, Polly Curtis, Sarah Castell and Hana Kapetanovic offers a forward-thinking approach to policy design, and is a must-read for anyone interested in creating policy initiatives that are inclusive, adaptive, and effective. We especially like the fact that it gets to practical recommendations to move beyond the 'what' to the 'how', such as: - Five flagship Citizens’ Panels, focussed on the governments five missions, to ensure citizens have a direct role in shaping priorities and making decisions. - Establishment of a large, demographically representative pool of citizens standing by to support participatory policymaking across all departments. - Creation of a central hub for participatory policy making to offer expertise and support, to help teams embed participatory methods. Read more at: https://lnkd.in/eJzSs5hX

A lot has been said about John Prescott's legacy over the last few days and I agree with the general theme that he was a true politicians and a man of the people who wanted to change things for the better. In doing some research for a lecture I'll be giving this week, I came across this brilliant speech by Prescott where he sets out the Government's intentions for directly elected regional assemblies at the launch of the white paper 'Your Region, Your Choice'. Whilst the main thrust of this failed to deliver on the directly elected assemblies as a result of the North East referendum where over 77% of those voting rejected it, it still had significant impact on governance across England, especially for planning. It's a good reminder that the attempts to introduce regional planning at this point was for a fully integrated approach to supporting long term sustainable growth: "Regional assemblies will be responsible for developing joined-up regional strategies on issues such as sustainable development, economic development and regeneration, skills and employment, planning, transport, housing, health improvement, and culture. Assemblies will have a range of powers to help them to deliver those strategies. For example, they will allocate funding for economic development, housing, tourism, arts and sport. They will also be responsible for the regional development agencies, appointing the board and approving the regional economic strategy." The whole debate is worth a read in the context of the forthcoming English Devolution White Paper and to see the one word Eric Pickles contributes to the whole thing - "sabotage"

Our view on the English Devolution white Paper 👀

I am so excited to share the first major policy report of our workstream 'Reimagining the Local State', as well as my first ever published policy report! It is widely accepted that power is dramatically overcentralised, with the impacts being severe, systemic regional inequalities, an inefficient and complicated state (locally and centrally), and a 'one-size-fits-all' model that certainty does not fit all - if anyone. But it is also agreed that the centre should retain responsibility for certain issues. So what powers should sit where? How do we determine the best-placed tier of governance for each responsibility? How should our structures shift and change to become conducive to well organised governance? Our new report, 'What powers where?', explores just this, setting out design principles for local systems and recommendations for whole regional systems to work together and distribute powers at every scale. It also sets out the notional distribution of powers for a much more devolved system. If you would like to get in touch to discuss, please message me or the lead on this paper Simon Kaye! Thanks to Power to Change for supporting this paper 👏 https://lnkd.in/ep4zJGy9

Cornell University professor Jamila Michener knows that public policy and public benefits can and should work better for everyone. It starts with changing how we design policy: "Human-centered policy design means finding, creating, and building additional channels for a wider swath of people to have a deeper say over what happens with policies, especially the policies that are most important in their own lives," she says. Read the whole interview at Acumen America now: https://lnkd.in/e9xmmn-u 

Here's the Inner Circle view on the English Devolution White Paper 👇 'For this moment to yield a smaller number of organisations working as before would be a dismal failure for all involved' #reform #prevention #housing #lgr #devolution #growth #trust #localgov

A welcome contribution to a growing conversation. Public service renewal matters. With declining trust in public institutions and a corresponding sense of loss of purpose and role within those institutions, serious attention is needed. The reforms in 2006 promised to restore confidence and integrity in our institutions. Updates to the values and ethics codes in 2012 brought more change. And still more changes reduced the role of the Public Service Commission and decentralized the application of the merit principle. Is fearless advice now anti-democratic? Has public disclosure requirements isolated departments from stakeholders? Is the draconian 5 year cooling off periods for public office holders starving offices of both elected and non elected officials of knowledge and talent? Canadians deserve a public service connected, informed, equipped and able to deliver advice and options to keep our country safe and prosperous. Decision makers have always had the democratic mandate to decide. Now decision makers are also generating options. Public servants are less equipped to provide advice, fearless or otherwise, more constricted in who they talk to and drowning in reporting rather than options development. Thanks The Globe and Mail and Konrad Yakabuski

SUBSTANCE PLEASE, NOT SLOGANS! Our conflicting political tribes seem united on one thing. They love a good slogan. In 2016 the Brexiteers caught a mood with ‘Take back control’, then the Tory government thought ‘Levelling Up’ sounded bracing and inclusive beyond their normal support base. Now the Labour party have chosen ‘Change’ simply because anything different to the last 14 years captures what so many are thinking. We’ve been taken in by the superficiality of slogans far too much and need the substance supposedly behind them. Control to achieve what? Levelling up to where and how? Change in which direction? The planning seems to stop at the capture of a single idea with implementation and delivery woefully far behind. The results from all our political tribes have been dire: the NHS still in desperate need of reform; the Post Office prepared to destroy postmasters to defend its reputation; our armed forces critically underfunded and a fear of investing in major infrastructure like HS2, so-called fossil free power or decent water management, all because we can’t control the costs. What has happened to Britain that we prefer short gains now over building for the future? Where is the ability to convert vision into implementation? I will vote for the party that convinces me they have a longer term horizon in mind than the next couple of years and the substance to invest and build behind the slogans. Right now, none of them come close. But hey! there are still more than 5 weeks to go. I live in hope. https://lnkd.in/dKNRC82

How and Why Government do as they do To understand how and why governments do as they do, Klein and Marmor argue that three basic tools suffice: 🎯 An understanding of the ideas, assumptions, and theories policy actors bring to assessing problems, their causes, and their solutions 🎯 Analysis of the institutions within which governments operate (i.e., the ‘rules of the game’) 🎯 An analysis of the interests operating in a particular political arena. This content looks at interest groups and, particularly, those drawn from the civil society The public policy process has changed profoundly in most countries since World War II in a gradual shift from ‘government’ to ‘governance’. A relatively simple policymaking process in which the government of each nation-state was central, working with a small number of professional groups and with civil servants largely monopolizing policy advice, has gradually given way to a more complex, messy process in which government shares power with, and is influenced by, a wider range of national and even global actors located outside formal political structures. The ‘core’ of the state is said to have lost power due to developments within countries and internationally as a result of the forces of globalization. Rhodes refers to the latter as the ‘external hollowing out of the nation-state’. At its extreme, the governance literature portrays the central government of a typical nation-state as ‘now only one actor among many in the policy-making process…the process of governing today involves a much more pluralistic conceptualization of power…’ This trend means that a range of interest groups, including so-called ‘civil society organizations,’ operating within and across countries, have greater salience in making and delivering public health policy than was the case 50 years ago. Although business interest groups, especially transnational corporations, and international donors currently exert considerable influence on national governments, transnational nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), civil society organizations, and related social movements can also successfully put pressure on governments, as well as support them on occasions in the face of demands from business (e.g., to reduce social protection). This is an open discussion, share your thoughts. I'll be in the comment Judith Nyior FIMC, CMC,CMS, training and providing solutions to government policies across many organizations. #Whygovernmentdoastheydo #governmentpolicysolution

NEW report, out today! Our first big output from the Reimagining the Local State programme is now live. We explore the elements needed for a successful 'devolution revolution', and local systems equipped to succeed with powers at every scale. From levelling up to the ‘devolution revolution’, there is growing recognition that England is drastically overcentralised. Attempts are continuing to correct this, with devolution deals being offered to Combined Authorities at a more strategic, regional scale.   But this approach will not, in itself, be enough. For real regional governance, a far broader sweep of powers should be available to be devolved to combined authorities and the GLA by default. This would mean a deep effort to build the maturity and capacity of this emerging institutional scale.  Kick-starting stronger regionalism is a necessary, but not a sufficient, solution for the challenges faced in England. Indeed, without specific efforts, there is a risk that this new ‘layer’ will reinforce a top-heavy system that continues to marginalise the very communities it aims to empower.  There is also significant need, then, for local and hyper-local governance in England, with clear responsibilities and ways to effectively propose the drawing-down of powers from higher tiers when appropriate. For now, this smaller scale of local government is all but overlooked by the policy world.  At hyper-local scales, the state can operate very differently, fostering deep neighbourhood resilience and facilitating the activities and self-governance of communities themselves.  For devolution to work, all of these layers must be aligned, and each playing to its distinct strengths within the larger local system.  What powers where? Achieving the ‘devolution revolution’, kindly sponsored by Power to Change, is the first major policy report in Reform’s Reimagining the Local State programme. It sets out design principles for local systems, recommendations for whole regional systems to work together and distribute powers at every scale. It also sets out the notional distribution of powers for a much more devolved system.  'What powers where? Achieving the 'devolution revolution', from Simon Kaye, India Woodward, and Giorgia Vittorino, is available to download now! https://lnkd.in/e4w5qy3A