This article by Peter Oborne in the Telegraph is STRONGLY RECOMMENDED READING. Check it out!
Normally, I respect Peter Oborne’s writing but this time disagree strongly with his overall thesis and much of his detailed argument; indeed the article, for me, is rather disjointed.
Peter Oborne starts by commending David Cameron’s Government for being radical and reforming. Personally, I am highly critical of David Cameron‘s achievements in this regard. Here are six unanswered, overarching, open questions:
- What is the vision?
- Where is the strategy?
- Where is the business case, risk analysis and bottom up costing for the so-called reforms?
- Where is the implementation plan?
- What is the outcome in terms of quantifiable benefits achieved?, and finally
- Where is the authority from the UK people?
For me, David Cameron’s Government have been political butterflies, dancing from one petal to the next as it gets too hot in the public glare. Let’s remember that neither David Cameron’s Conservative Party, nor coalition partner Nick Clegg‘s Liberal Party, actually won an overall majority in the last election; so democracy seems to be subordinated by this Government.
Moving on to the second half of Peter’s Oborne’s argument where he talks about Francis Maude‘s proposals to make Permanent Secretaries political appointments; at the sweep of the knife, the proposal is to abandon two centuries of good practice in public administration. Similarly, changes to the legal aide system and possible outsourcing of courts are just as flaky, in my view.
From my perspective, the whole of David Cameron’s policy agenda is looking increasingly flaky. David Cameron does not have a popular political mandate and the people could soon start rebelling angrily, perhaps this Summer if it is hot and the rain hold off. It is time for David Cameron to be challenged, by back-bench Tories, in a vote of no confidence. An early election might start to restore the country’s faith in democracy.