The problem with the public sector is…

There are a number of issues. First comes indecision and lack of urgency about anything. Projects run on for ever; no one knows how they are going. Meanwhile, we spend money, time and effort duplicating whatever the project is trying to achieve. Sometimes there are similar projects, running at the same time, uncoordinated and pulling in different directions.

Another malady is change for change’s sake, often packaged and sold as a brand spanking new approach to doing things that will revolutionise work practices. In reality it is nothing of the sort. Bureaucrats and quangocrats get bored easily with doing the same thing over and again. So they make a ‘business case’ for a new way of doing things. After many meetings, train journeys and lunches, the new way is approved and those lower down the order are rescued from ennui for another year by the order to start implementing the new way.

But then a problem arises. The higher ups, having written, discussed and approved the new way of doing things, begin to feel bored just sitting there monitoring the lower downs. Some of them move onto newer pastures, which are ripe for new ‘initiatives.’ Others stay and come up with more new ways of doing things; and so the bureaucratic merry-go-round of initiatives continues. If it ain’t broke, fix it any way!

Then there is the empire building and backyard protecting. Quangocrats forget that they are publicly funded, with a moral duty, if not always a clear legal one, to the taxpayers. If something can be done more efficiently if delivered centrally (e.g. a software package to automate administration), why argue against it? We have to be careful here. Often there is no direct arguing against. Instead, there are vague distinctions made to show how we are different, how the solution being offered centrally will not meet our needs. The sky will fall in if a central solution is imposed.

Crowning all this is the perpetual existential threat, particularly to Quangos. They make easy picking when HM Opposition is shouting waste and bureaucracy. When there is a problem, create a quango to deal with it; when bloated bureaucracy is the problem, chop the quango. Politicians win both ways.

All this arises, I think, because much of the daily work of bureaucrats and quangocrats lacks a convincing raison de etre. Doctors and nurses tend the sick, teachers impart knowledge and firemen extinguish fires. Factory workers make things that are sold. There is dignity and gratification in that. Quangocrats don’t do anything that makes one jot of a difference to people. Some work extremely hard, travel the length and breadth of the country and develop vast networks (always useful when turbulence strikes). But to most people, they make no difference.

The educational divide

As of 15 January of this year, 221,523 females had applied for full-time university undergraduate courses, as against 173,784 males. We do not yet know how many of these have been accepted on the courses, but for the purposes of this blog I want to assume that the male-female ratio will remain the same. The trend of recent years is certainly a growing gulf between the number of male and female applicants.

What does this mean? It means the future is feminine:

• On the assumption that graduates earn more than non-graduates, the divide between the rich and the poor, between the well off and the less well off, could in future reflect a sex divide.
• If intellectual compatibility and equality is necessary for a happy marriage, then women could be short of suitable partners to marry. Similarly, if people in general marry from the same social class as themselves, then the sex-cum-class divide described above will further restrict the choice of marriage partners. Settling down mellows people; with all those unmarried and unattached men, there will be a lot unchecked testosterone around, which could quite easily channel into other areas, like crime, alcohol, drugs and even terrorism.
• More women will come to occupy positions of influence. Will that mean that what have traditionally been regarded as feminine values- such as receptiveness, warmth, understanding, collegiality, cooperation, ‘motherliness’- become the dominant values in society? If so, the problem above about unchecked testosterone can be avoided.
• I wonder what will happen to the birth rate and population level. Will more and more women come to delay or postpone starting families, as they progress with their careers?

State of language

In a refreshing change from the text-speak led attrition of language, the nation’s vocabulary has increased by one in recent days. ‘Mastication for the nation’ is the catchline of an advert for a new chewing gum. It is another thing, of course, that the nation’s vocabulary should increase as a result of such trivial activity as munching on chewing gum. Surely the nation has better things to do and learn from?

The point of my blog today is to bemoan the state of language. Two things have happened to language. First, any hint of using posh or long words is shunned, on grounds of arrogance, snobbery or inaccessibility. This is related to the general trend of the decline of learning for learning’s sake, and its replacement with such instrumentalism as widening participation (in itself a good thing), ‘bite-sized learning’, the dominance of easy, marketing speak-words over heavy text ones and the general preference for imagery, where words play only a supporting role. Yet life is complex: only a rich variety of words can capture the nuances of life. There is also a complex relationship between words and thoughts: it’s not a one way process of thoughts issuing in words. The ready availability of words helps to shape thoughts.

Another modern phenomenon is the rise of pre-packaged words. Indeed, there are templates for communicating anything: you just fill in the blanks. Related to this is the consultant-speak pap that keeps reappearing in different forms: enhance, diversity, ‘going forward’, value-added, knowledge management, customers (to describe taxpayers and students), etc.

Happiness

We tend in general to experience pain and discomfort more than their opposites, intense, orgasmic pleasure, that pervades everything in our being. Whether derived from sexual fusion or some other pleasure enhancing intervention, such experiences are inevitably short lived. On the other hand, the sense of general happiness of circumstances, where life, family, career, etc, are in equilibrium, is very often not on the surface and requires some reflection to bring it out.

So what does this mean? It means we become used to an easy existence and take it for granted. Our threshold for enduring minor inconveniences is thereby lowered. That, primarily, for me explains why a huge increase in living standards has not translated into an equally huge increase in happiness. It never will- we adapt.

One reason why we are not happy is because we compare ourselves to others who are better off, financially or in other ways, than us. Once we have achieved what those others have, we begin to compare ourselves to yet others who have yet more. We may start off by comparing our situation with the person down the road who lives in a semi-detached and has a two-year old car, as against our terraced and jalopy. We begin to earn more and move to a semi and buy a better car, but then another person down the road has a sports car and lives in a detached house. And so on it continues- a constant state of anxiety and restlessness.