Latest news with #KeithJoseph
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
In post-Thatcher Britain, Whitehall is a monument to decline
Why is Britain run so badly? Why is the UK economy, and many of its public services, on a seemingly inevitable downward course? Why do our leaders seem so unable to address the great geopolitical challenges to life and liberty, control immigration, or even just get a grip on the Civil Service machine? Where are the novel methods, people and skills that can reframe problems and build solutions coming from? Fifty years ago, I was involved in the first great attempt – and, sadly, the last – to address such questions. The Stepping Stones project, triggered by Keith Joseph and Alfred Sherman at the Centre for Policy Studies, sought to analyse the UK economy as an ecosystem. It produced for Margaret Thatcher a series of joined-up, strategic interventions to resolve Britain's union problems and restore the government's authority, and our nation's economic performance. Thatcher believed, like Louis Pasteur, that chance favours the prepared mind. It was not an accident that made her the UK's longest-serving prime minister. It was her well-prepared mind and its strategic courage. In particular, Stepping Stones worked because it helped to train senior ministers and colleagues to act in unison; two years before they were elected – and afterwards, to gain not just office but 'office with power'. Its prime movers, including me and my co-author John Hoskyns, carried their strategic approach into 10 Downing Street with Thatcher. Today, however, it is not just the unions that are the problem, but our entire system of government. Inside Whitehall, rigid boundaries, silos, baronies, hatreds and dishonesty prevent timely preparation and progress. Individual and group inadequacies and rivalries limit freedoms to explore, study, accept and discover better ways. New prototypes are stifled before they can be born; while self-serving, problem-avoidant behaviours replace altruism and public service. The resulting incoherence ensures that the deadly complacency of conventional governance groupthink dominates politics, and political parties. Even when Whitehall appoints internal 'red teams', to challenge its thinking, it is just groupthink at play: because red teams are selected from the existing people and culture, they will return to their box after their game is over. The result is that policy formulators, task forces, project teams, nations or governing systems fail to achieve what their people need most to survive in our brutal global era. I have named it 'The Traumatics', as impermanence and vulnerabilities are innate risks that threaten human lives world-wide. Imperfect bureaucrats and generalist amateurs imagine they are coping well. They avoid admitting their incompetence and unfitness for ruling. But citizens are not fooled, they know bad governance when they see it. Crucial strategic oversight is deliberately suffocated by wilful omissions in training, duty, intelligence and research. In an ideal world, the regime change we need within government would be pioneered by a truly objective and radically reformed Civil Service; acting as a trail-blazing learning organisation, in the national interest. Alas, a historic, inbred, meritocratic presumption of administrative excellence has resulted in a culture of untutored arrogance, limiting Whitehall's scope to become a knowledge-building and transforming institution. Polished complacency has been set in a concrete shell and preserved – as a national monument to decline. This is not just a new complaint. In many ways, our greatest failure in the Thatcher era was to re-sculpt, or demolish, this great Victorian obelisk. John produced a famous 'wiring diagram', setting out the forces acting on the economy. Evaluating legacy governing ecosystems wasn't highlighted. So, in 1977, I did not envisage the need for an 'unwiring diagram' to diagnose and classify government's emergent existential flaws; geo-populism lit that fuse more recently. So what should be done? Many have called for a Stepping Stones for our brutish era. If its new 'circuit diagram' establishes the eco-systemic causes of today's threats, then suitable policies can be prepared before crises happen. A disjointed, piecemeal approach, is unlikely to identify and align the interlocking systems and innovations that could best enhance performance, stability and growth. Indeed, while good ideas can always improve current performance a smidgeon, tactics alone can never address or fix the defects in our existing governance, with its habitual positions, runaway egos, self-centred operating cultures and ongoing battles for power. Innovative working paradigms of system-wide strategic leadership, devised to improve citizens' lives and future security, are absent. Well-designed reforms, must upgrade or replace unsafe governing systems: but how? Nasa's founding leader – the first among three equals – was James Webb, whose huge, eponymous, infrared telescope now orbits our planet. I learnt much from him in 1982, when he lectured on our first Oxford Strategic Leadership Programme. I designed and launched it for and with Douglas Hague. He was Margaret Thatcher's original economic adviser in opposition and consulted with the No 10 Policy Unit once she won office. Under Webb, Nasa trail-blazed an open, original approach built around new blood, great minds, mixtures of various disciplines, competing teams and rocket science. The result was Nasa's environment of radical inventiveness which prepared them to address complex problems and find original solutions. Such tasks are best done well before seismic disruptions – like Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic and Trump's 'cards' – destroy the old world order. Webb showed that high-level patronage and support are essential to provide the freedom and space to study, develop and alter legacy governing systems; and then plan for far-reaching change. Escaping existing conventions, rituals and cultures creates the chance for independent, outlier minds to provide the governance improvements we and the world lack. Professional humility, collaboration and objectivity are all critical capabilities. Without these elements, any new team may turn out to be incapable of becoming the thinkers, talents, advisers, catalysts and leaders we need. And of course, any governing ecosystem must work before political parties can succeed. But it is not just the Civil Service that needs reform. It would be wise, before the next election, for all candidates to have been taken through training syllabuses; custom-designed to reflect the complexities and challenges that they will face. Without such a 'regime change', it is hard to believe that any new leader or election manifesto will earn the chance of putting their party and nation back on track, with the expertise to govern well. Yet voters must believe this next generation of leaders can succeed; or else their despair will only get worse. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
a day ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
In post-Thatcher Britain, Whitehall is a monument to decline
Why is Britain run so badly? Why is the UK economy, and many of its public services, on a seemingly inevitable downward course? Why do our leaders seem so unable to address the great geopolitical challenges to life and liberty, control immigration, or even just get a grip on the Civil Service machine? Where are the novel methods, people and skills that can reframe problems and build solutions coming from? Fifty years ago, I was involved in the first great attempt – and, sadly, the last – to address such questions. The Stepping Stones project, triggered by Keith Joseph and Alfred Sherman at the Centre for Policy Studies, sought to analyse the UK economy as an ecosystem. It produced for Margaret Thatcher a series of joined-up, strategic interventions to resolve Britain's union problems and restore the government's authority, and our nation's economic performance. Thatcher believed, like Louis Pasteur, that chance favours the prepared mind. It was not an accident that made her the UK's longest-serving prime minister. It was her well-prepared mind and its strategic courage. In particular, Stepping Stones worked because it helped to train senior ministers and colleagues to act in unison; two years before they were elected – and afterwards, to gain not just office but 'office with power'. Its prime movers, including me and my co-author John Hoskyns, carried their strategic approach into 10 Downing Street with Thatcher. Today, however, it is not just the unions that are the problem, but our entire system of government. Inside Whitehall, rigid boundaries, silos, baronies, hatreds and dishonesty prevent timely preparation and progress. Individual and group inadequacies and rivalries limit freedoms to explore, study, accept and discover better ways. New prototypes are stifled before they can be born; while self-serving, problem-avoidant behaviours replace altruism and public service. The resulting incoherence ensures that the deadly complacency of conventional governance groupthink dominates politics, and political parties. Even when Whitehall appoints internal 'red teams', to challenge its thinking, it is just groupthink at play: because red teams are selected from the existing people and culture, they will return to their box after their game is over. The result is that policy formulators, task forces, project teams, nations or governing systems fail to achieve what their people need most to survive in our brutal global era. I have named it 'The Traumatics', as impermanence and vulnerabilities are innate risks that threaten human lives world-wide. Imperfect bureaucrats and generalist amateurs imagine they are coping well. They avoid admitting their incompetence and unfitness for ruling. But citizens are not fooled, they know bad governance when they see it. Crucial strategic oversight is deliberately suffocated by wilful omissions in training, duty, intelligence and research. In an ideal world, the regime change we need within government would be pioneered by a truly objective and radically reformed Civil Service; acting as a trail-blazing learning organisation, in the national interest. Alas, a historic, inbred, meritocratic presumption of administrative excellence has resulted in a culture of untutored arrogance, limiting Whitehall's scope to become a knowledge-building and transforming institution. Polished complacency has been set in a concrete shell and preserved – as a national monument to decline. This is not just a new complaint. In many ways, our greatest failure in the Thatcher era was to re-sculpt, or demolish, this great Victorian obelisk. John produced a famous 'wiring diagram', setting out the forces acting on the economy. Evaluating legacy governing ecosystems wasn't highlighted. So, in 1977, I did not envisage the need for an 'unwiring diagram' to diagnose and classify government's emergent existential flaws; geo-populism lit that fuse more recently. So what should be done? Many have called for a Stepping Stones for our brutish era. If its new 'circuit diagram' establishes the eco-systemic causes of today's threats, then suitable policies can be prepared before crises happen. A disjointed, piecemeal approach, is unlikely to identify and align the interlocking systems and innovations that could best enhance performance, stability and growth. Indeed, while good ideas can always improve current performance a smidgeon, tactics alone can never address or fix the defects in our existing governance, with its habitual positions, runaway egos, self-centred operating cultures and ongoing battles for power. Innovative working paradigms of system-wide strategic leadership, devised to improve citizens' lives and future security, are absent. Well-designed reforms, must upgrade or replace unsafe governing systems: but how? Nasa's founding leader – the first among three equals – was James Webb, whose huge, eponymous, infrared telescope now orbits our planet. I learnt much from him in 1982, when he lectured on our first Oxford Strategic Leadership Programme. I designed and launched it for and with Douglas Hague. He was Margaret Thatcher's original economic adviser in opposition and consulted with the No 10 Policy Unit once she won office. Under Webb, Nasa trail-blazed an open, original approach built around new blood, great minds, mixtures of various disciplines, competing teams and rocket science. The result was Nasa's environment of radical inventiveness which prepared them to address complex problems and find original solutions. Such tasks are best done well before seismic disruptions – like Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic and Trump's 'cards' – destroy the old world order. Webb showed that high-level patronage and support are essential to provide the freedom and space to study, develop and alter legacy governing systems; and then plan for far-reaching change. Escaping existing conventions, rituals and cultures creates the chance for independent, outlier minds to provide the governance improvements we and the world lack. Professional humility, collaboration and objectivity are all critical capabilities. Without these elements, any new team may turn out to be incapable of becoming the thinkers, talents, advisers, catalysts and leaders we need. And of course, any governing ecosystem must work before political parties can succeed. But it is not just the Civil Service that needs reform. It would be wise, before the next election, for all candidates to have been taken through training syllabuses; custom-designed to reflect the complexities and challenges that they will face. Without such a 'regime change', it is hard to believe that any new leader or election manifesto will earn the chance of putting their party and nation back on track, with the expertise to govern well. Yet voters must believe this next generation of leaders can succeed; or else their despair will only get worse.
BBC News
02-04-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
The History Podcast Invisible Hands 2. The Mad Monk
A man throws up in a taxi on his way to an interview. He is nervous because he is about to make an argument. It's an argument that would change politics forever. His name was Keith Joseph. And this would be the start of a radical journey - from conventional conservative politician to ideological warrior and guru for Margaret Thatcher. Joseph set out on a tour of the country. He had eggs thrown at him, Marxist flags waved in his face. He was spat at. Heckled. All because he was arguing for one thing - the free markets. David Dimbleby traces the history of an idea that spans his life. It started on a chicken farm in Sussex, gained traction in the shadows of post-war London and rose to heights of excess in the new champagne bars of the City. It's 2025 and this once radical idea now defines every aspect of life in Britain. An idea that transformed the economy, politics and, ultimately, society itself. But how did it happen? Who are the little-known people behind it? What did they want? And - as Donald Trump threatens to overturn the global economic system - is the free market here to stay? Or are we entering a new era? Presenter: David Dimbleby Producer: Jo Barratt Executive Producers and Story Editors: Joe Sykes and Dasha Lisitsina Sound design: Peregrine Andrews Commissioning Editor: Dan Clarke A Samizdat Audio production for BBC Radio 4
Yahoo
30-03-2025
- General
- Yahoo
How London's boroughs were named 60 years ago
Ever heard of the London borough of New River? It doesn't exist, but it nearly did. On 1 April 1965 the local government map of London was set, with the establishment of the 32 boroughs that still exist today. Along with the City of London these boroughs tell others a lot about where we live, but also come with prejudices and assumptions about what they are like. Ahead of the 60th birthday of Brent, Bexley, Barking, Barnet and all the boroughs that don't begin with the letter B, we look back at how modern London was born. Once the boundaries were settled, via the London Government Act 1963, the clock was ticking. These 32 new boroughs were due to be born on 1 April 1965. What were they to be called? Rivers, bridges, mis-spellings and the long-standing military responsibilities of ancient parishes would all feature. The local government minister, Sir Keith Joseph, who would later become well-known as the intellectual father of Thatcherism, stipulated that there would be no 'and' boroughs. The merger between Wanstead and Woodford would be resolved with a new name – Redbridge. Wanstead and Woodford was not an option. Wandsworth was able to continue basically as it was, while Wembley found itself joined to Willesden, two areas that even in the 1960s had little in common. They were merged into Brent, named after a river that runs through the borough. Feltham, Heston and Isleworth, and Brentford and Chiswick councils chose none of those five potential names and became Hounslow instead. Tower Hamlets is a nod to parishes near the Tower of London that owed military service to the Constable of the Tower. Today the borough extends as far as Canary Wharf. Haringey simply defies explanation, with the merger of Hornsey, Tottenham and Wood Green being named after a small part of the new borough that's actually called Harringay. According to YouTuber and popular historian Jay Foreman, whose video about the formation of the London's local government has more than 6.7 million views, three of the new boroughs wanted to be called Riverside, including one that wasn't even on the Thames. Most chose one of their existing names, so for example the merger of Southgate, Enfield and Edmonton became Enfield. Enfield Chase and Edmonton Hundred were both rejected. East Ham and West Ham became New Ham – Newham. Clapham and Streatham became Lambeth. East Barnet, Friern Barnet, Hendon, and Finchley were merged into a single borough called Barnet. Which name was judged more historically important also played a role. Richmond and Twickenham warred over which one should be supreme – Twickenham lost. Chelsea managed to persuade ministers that "Chelsea" was such an important historical name that the no "and" rule should be broken. Thus the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea was the only one of the 32 boroughs created in 1965 with an "and". Later legislation allowed for the creation of Barking and Dagenham, and Hammersmith and Fulham. And New River? That was the proposed name for the merger between the metropolitan boroughs of Finsbury and Islington. New River was Finsbury's preferred name. Islington thought the name Islington would be better. Islington Borough Council it was. The reorganisation began with a Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London, also known as the Herbert Commission, was which established in 1957. Its final report was published in 1960 recommended radical change - the Greater London area was a messy mix of inner and outer London. In inner London were the metropolitan boroughs, many based on ancient parishes like Shoreditch, St Pancras, Hampstead and Kensington. Further out were a mix of county and municipal boroughs and urban districts which all had different functions and responsibilities. The Herbert commission proposed 52 greater London boroughs with a population range of 100,000 to 250,000, to be achieved by merging some authorities, which would mean taking bits of other counties into London. Among the towns surrounding the capital that could have been within the boundary of greater London were Chigwell and Hornchurch in Essex; Esher, Walton and Weybridge in Surrey, and Watford, Elstree and Bushey in Hertfordshire. Local government minister Sir Keith Joseph changed the plans, proposed 34 boroughs and set out the boundaries. That had been reduced to 32 by the time the bill passed through Parliament in 1963. A new Greater London Council (GLC) was also created on 1 April 1965, responsible for citywide services such as fire, ambulances and flood prevention. The London boroughs took over services such as social care, libraries and cemeteries. The inner London Education Authority (ILEA) took responsible for schools in the 12 inner London. The outer London boroughs were individual education authorities. The GLC was abolished by Joseph's protégé Margaret Thatcher in 1986, and ILEA was gone by 1990. It would take the election of a Labour government to revitalise some modicum of central control to the capital. In 2000 the first Mayor of London was elected and the Greater London Assembly was established. And just like the old GLC, the leader (now called the mayor) was Ken Livingstone. Sir Keith Joseph set out his vision for London when the legislation was being debated in 1963. He said it was essential that the new boroughs "should be based on a natural focus to carry out those duties and to evoke the necessary loyalties. This is the very opposite of bureaucracy. We are taking this step because we are trying to make a potential community for the people of Greater London". Sixty years on, whether or not council tax payers do have "the necessary loyalties" to their borough, it is a useful marker of where in London you live. From Hounslow to Hackney, Havering to Haringey, your borough says a lot about what community of London you live in. Listen to the best of BBC Radio London on Sounds and follow BBC London on Facebook, X and Instagram. Send your story ideas to Eating on the hoof: London's long history of street food London Eye at 25: The wheel that nearly wasn't Inside the London landmark where they're trying to save the Earth
BBC News
30-03-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
Politics: How London's boroughs were named 60 years ago
Ever heard of the London borough of New River? It doesn't exist, but it nearly 1 April 1965 the local government map of London was set, with the establishment of the 32 boroughs that still exist with the City of London these boroughs tell others a lot about where we live, but also come with prejudices and assumptions about what they are of the 60th birthday of Brent, Bexley, Barking, Barnet and all the boroughs that don't begin with the letter B, we look back at how modern London was born. No 'and' boroughs Once the boundaries were settled, via the London Government Act 1963, the clock was 32 new boroughs were due to be born on 1 April 1965. What were they to be called? Rivers, bridges, mis-spellings and the long-standing military responsibilities of ancient parishes would all feature. The local government minister, Sir Keith Joseph, who would later become well-known as the intellectual father of Thatcherism, stipulated that there would be no 'and' merger between Wanstead and Woodford would be resolved with a new name – Redbridge. Wanstead and Woodford was not an was able to continue basically as it was, while Wembley found itself joined to Willesden, two areas that even in the 1960s had little in were merged into Brent, named after a river that runs through the Heston and Isleworth, and Brentford and Chiswick councils chose none of those five potential names and became Hounslow instead. Tower Hamlets is a nod to parishes near the Tower of London that owed military service to the Constable of the Tower. Today the borough extends as far as Canary simply defies explanation, with the merger of Hornsey, Tottenham and Wood Green being named after a small part of the new borough that's actually called Harringay. According to YouTuber and popular historian Jay Foreman, whose video about the formation of the London's local government has more than 6.7 million views, three of the new boroughs wanted to be called Riverside, including one that wasn't even on the chose one of their existing names, so for example the merger of Southgate, Enfield and Edmonton became Enfield. Enfield Chase and Edmonton Hundred were both Ham and West Ham became New Ham – and Streatham became Barnet, Friern Barnet, Hendon, and Finchley were merged into a single borough called name was judged more historically important also played a and Twickenham warred over which one should be supreme – Twickenham managed to persuade ministers that "Chelsea" was such an important historical name that the no "and" rule should be the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea was the only one of the 32 boroughs created in 1965 with an "and". Later legislation allowed for the creation of Barking and Dagenham, and Hammersmith and Fulham. And New River? That was the proposed name for the merger between the metropolitan boroughs of Finsbury and River was Finsbury's preferred name. Islington thought the name Islington would be better. Islington Borough Council it reorganisation began with a Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London, also known as the Herbert Commission, was which established in final report was published in 1960 recommended radical change - the Greater London area was a messy mix of inner and outer inner London were the metropolitan boroughs, many based on ancient parishes like Shoreditch, St Pancras, Hampstead and out were a mix of county and municipal boroughs and urban districts which all had different functions and Herbert commission proposed 52 greater London boroughs with a population range of 100,000 to 250,000, to be achieved by merging some authorities, which would mean taking bits of other counties into the towns surrounding the capital that could have been within the boundary of greater London were Chigwell and Hornchurch in Essex; Esher, Walton and Weybridge in Surrey, and Watford, Elstree and Bushey in government minister Sir Keith Joseph changed the plans, proposed 34 boroughs and set out the boundaries. That had been reduced to 32 by the time the bill passed through Parliament in 1963. A new Greater London Council (GLC) was also created on 1 April 1965, responsible for citywide services such as fire, ambulances and flood London boroughs took over services such as social care, libraries and inner London Education Authority (ILEA) took responsible for schools in the 12 inner London. The outer London boroughs were individual education GLC was abolished by Joseph's protégé Margaret Thatcher in 1986, and ILEA was gone by would take the election of a Labour government to revitalise some modicum of central control to the 2000 the first Mayor of London was elected and the Greater London Assembly was established. And just like the old GLC, the leader (now called the mayor) was Ken Keith Joseph set out his vision for London when the legislation was being debated in said it was essential that the new boroughs "should be based on a natural focus to carry out those duties and to evoke the necessary loyalties. This is the very opposite of bureaucracy. We are taking this step because we are trying to make a potential community for the people of Greater London". Sixty years on, whether or not council tax payers do have "the necessary loyalties" to their borough, it is a useful marker of where in London you Hounslow to Hackney, Havering to Haringey, your borough says a lot about what community of London you live in.
