This is an excellent insight into the practical administration of David Cameron‘s UK government, how a good plan to save £1 Billion was watered down to £55 million. It’s a must-read. Check it out!
via Planning for the Better Care Fund – National Audit Office (NAO).
What started out as a good idea was derailed by the bureaucrats and political meddling. It’s the usual problems of poor planning, ineffective program management and absence of leadership. Trying to avoid too much centralization, funding was to be devolved.
I worry about the effectiveness of financial controls in both central and local government, and the damaging impact of political interference. I question the wisdom of excessive dependence upon the major consulting firms for expertise, rather than relying upon independent professionals.
Overall, I question the absence of vision and robust, properly costed and risk-assessed strategy. As John Gelmini effectively argues, unlike Japan and China, the UK is way down the curve on deployment of robotics.
Ultimately, the questions are surely:
- Will the quality of care in the UK improve?
- Will the country get better value-for-money?’
Dr Alf asks an important question towhich the answer is no and even a billion in savings in this area is little more than a rounding error.
We know that the Government has to find a further £48 billion gbp in the coming Parliament or that its successor does.
None of the political parties has identified more than £2 billion gbp in savings and local authoririties have made and are making no meaningful cuts or attempting to merge.
No-one talks about productivity,no-one talks about the Barnett Formula and everyone talks about “localism” which will add yet more costs and create diseconomies of scale.
The number of old ,unproductive people is rising,the number of illiterate and not job ready youngsters is rising and tax receipts are falling.
That means more costs,no savings and unless we improve the top line with more exports further decline and in many cases no services at all.
The question of delivering better services for less money is redundant unless we are prepared for harsh and radical measures.
Since we are not deterioration and greater expense plus non service provision are the order of the day.