Devolution of Power: Post-Referendum Negotiation - Prof Janice Morphet, UCL

The constitutional crisis and chaos that has followed the ‘no’ vote has focussed primarily on England rather than the additional powers that will be given to Scotland. Is this just a distraction to encourage speculation and relief when a solution is found or is it rooted in a more fundamental need for change? Will this result in more practical changes being offered to all the nations of the UK on domestic policy matters such as local economic regeneration which have already started to devolve through Citydeals in England and Scotland?

The first issue to consider is the continued trend towards devolution and devolved decision making. Although devolution was an event in 1999, it has always been a process with further powers being added to those devolved in Scotland, Wales and London whilst Northern Ireland was included in the devolved settlement for the UK nations through the St Andrews Agreement in 2006. 

Update to our brief guide for public managers to the implications of the Scottish referendum: what the unionist party leaders' vow means and doesn't mean - Prof Perri 6 - Chair in Public Management, Queen Mary

Within three hours of publishing our brief guide for public managers to the implications of the Scottish referendum, the leaders of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties published a “vow” in Scotland's “Daily Record”. Much has been in the press of the commitment made in that vow about public spending. Here is the sentence to which Mr Cameron, Mr Miliband and Mr Clegg put their names.

“And because of the continuation of the Barnett allocation of resources, and the powers of the Scottish parliament to raise revenue, we can state categorically that the final say on how much is spent on the NHS will be a matter for the Scottish parliament.”

This has been misrepresented in some of the press commentary. Some people have claimed that the leaders are committing themselves to putting the “Barnett formula”, which sets the shares of public spending for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, into legislation. But the vow makes no such promise. The formula is and has only ever been a piece of Treasury policy. In other words, it is an established convention.

A short guide for public managers to what the Scottish referendum means for the public services in the UK and in Scotland - Prof Perri 6 - Chair in Public Management at Queen Mary

Source

In the final days of the campaigns for and against independence before the vote, politicians and journalists have given most of their attention to the big economic, business and constitutional issues. At the Centre for Government and Leadership, our role is to think about public services and public management. This short guide picks out some of the main things that managers of public services both north and south of the border need to think about.

Of course, if the people of Scotland do vote for independence, years of negotiation will follow. In that time, everything I talk about here will be raked over. Nothing is certain now. Much would change very quickly after a “yes” vote. So I make no apology for speculating. At this stage, everyone has to. The question is not whether to speculate, but how to speculate thoughtfully.

The guide is organised straightforwardly. First, I look at the implications of a “no” vote. Under that heading, the consequences for their counterparts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are considered first, before turning to impacts on the work of public managers in Scotland. Then the guide addresses the likely effects of a “yes” vote. Again, implications for public services the rest of the UK are considered first, before examining the consequences for Scotland. The conclusion considers the time horizon over which the effects might be felt.

This way of organising the issues means that the guide begins with some of the mildest effects but moves steadily toward some of the more dramatic ones.

This guide focuses on issues that have been largely neglected in the mainstream broadsheet press. It is devoted entirely implications for public managers. Therefore, it says nothing about party politics or about constitutional issues except as they affect the financing and redesign of public services.

Former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, speaks at Queen Mary on 'How Government Really Works'

Speaking to the Mile End Group at Queen Mary University of London on Monday 28th October, former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, spoke of the need for governments to modernise and adapt to a rapidly changing world.' You will find a full transcript and video of the the event here. 

The Future of Public Administration - A Roundtable Forum held at Queen Mary University of London

The Centre for Government and Leadership at Queen Mary University of London will be hosting a Roundtable Forum on Wednesday 13th November at 13:00

The topic of discussion will be 

The Future of Public Management

What skills will public servants and public managers need in the coming decade?

What role will universities and national schools of public administration play in developing them?

Guest speakers:

Professor Marga Pröhl, Director-General of the European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA)

Professor Marcel Proulx, former CEO of the Canadian School of Public Management (ENAP)

Professor Les Metcalfe, Professor Emeritus of Public Management, University of Bocconi; Visiting Professor at Queen Mary University of London

Forum Chair:

Professor Martin Laffin, Head of School, School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London

This event is open to the public, if you would like to attend, please reserve your ticket here

The event will take place in the Colette Bowe Room, Queen's Building, Mile End Campus, E1 4NS

It could cost more than it is worth... why the government's plan to charge visitors for NHS care looks like another Child Support Agency in the making - Prof Perri 6, Chair in Public Management, Queen Mary

Getty Images

Some people from outside Europe who make use of the National Health Service are to be charged for their care, the British government announced on Tuesday 22^nd October. We've seen proposals for more effective and thorough efforts to charge people for NHS care before, of course. And some hospitals – mainly larger urban ones – do make efforts to charge where they can. Now research commissioned by the Department of Health estimates that much bigger sums could be found by more determined charging, although the researchers admit that there are a great many contentious assumptions in their numbers.

Females to the fore in reshuffle – but women’s policy input may remain limited

As expected, David Cameron has boosted the number of women in his Government. But this strategy is problematic,argue Professors Claire Annesley and Francesca Gains, and may not address the lack of women’s policy input in decision making.

Earlier this spring Andy Coulson, David Cameron’s former spin doctor, suggested that ‘Sam Cam’ was the Conservatives’ ‘secret weapon’ to win back women’s votes. This is a clear sign that in the run up to the next election the battle to win women’s votes is intensifying – and for good reason.

For many years after winning the franchise women in the UK were more likely to vote Conservative, and the ‘gender gap’ (the difference in the Conservative lead over Labour between male and female votes) was in double figures. In the 1970s and 1980s, as women’s roles in the home and the workplace changed, the gender difference in voting narrowed and psephologists argued that sex differences were not important in understanding UK voting patterns.

However the re-emergence of a small but significant gender gap in 1992, reflecting a swing by younger women to Labour, led to a sustained interest by the Labour Party in identifying and mobilising around women’s interests and demands which contributed to their successful 1997 return to office.

In the face of recent polling data, which shows falling support for the Conservative from women, the party has sought – rather belatedly – to proffer a more female friendly campaign strategy.

McBride's Muddle - Prof Perri 6, Chair in Public Management, Queen Mary

This week Damian McBride, sometime Treasury communications leader and later special advisor to Gordon Brown, published an article in Prospect magazine entitled “Not fit for purpose”. McBride claims that the policy failures and fiascos which have been discussed at length in books published this year such as Anthony King’s and Ivor Crewe’s “The blunders of our governments”[i] and Richard Bacon’s and Christopher Hope’s “Conundrum”[ii] are principally the result of the civil service being out of touch, of there being too few people among the upper echelons of the service who are female, young, from working class origins, from regions far from London, not from expensive schools and universities, or indeed who have not previously worked in the Treasury. Overcoming the narrowness of recruitment will, he claims, make the civil service more meritocratic and more “fit for purpose”.