An interesting discussion last night with someone looking hard at Values in British public life.

It seems that senior civil servants are now brooding on the existential aspects of their relations with Ministers in an attempt to identify the Core Values of public life, which latterly are thought to have been lost in the fog of targets, objectives, strategies and so on.

Call me pessimistic, but I am pessimistic.

Values derive from Responsibility.

So much government process is now outsourced upwards/outwards to the EU and downwards/inwards to Agencies and Units and other exotic post-modern bureaucratic phenomena.

This means that politicians’ main effort is to live by ad hoc tactical moves. To try to snatch success whenever anything positive happens, and to profess determination to take action (usually creating yet more process either with another enquiry or close consultation with EU partners and/or other ‘stakeholders’) when something goes wrong,

What exactly does any Minister claim responsibility for these days?

Everything in general ("something must be done!") yet nothing in particular? 

It comes to this. Successive governments have created a sprawling state structure so complex that it is almost impossible to understand it, let alone do anything purposeful with it. Thus ruling politicians’ ability and willingness to give leadership by taking responsibility is much reduced.

The Baby P horror story exemplifies this. No-one at any level in the vast social policy chain concerned appears to be taking responsibility.

Instead we get the blandly repulsive language of official buck-passing, such as this:

In line with government guidelines for such circumstances, we immediately set up an independent review into what happened and have acted on every recommendation…" 

The review process is important in understanding what happened and how procedures can be strengthened for the future. Where we have needed to act, we have done so.

"This serious case review has revealed clear evidence of appropriate communication between and within agencies as well as weaknesses in specific areas of information flow."

It found that "safeguarding structures exist across Haringey agencies and offer a sound framework for the implementation of required procedures", but also identified "scope for improving the detailed application of some processes".

So top civil servants can pore over Values as much as they like, but without their political leaders taking responsibility it can not get very far.

Above all, no-one is ready to say that the point in any system is not slavishly to follow rules, but rather to use judgement. And then to accept responsibility for bad outcomes if those judgement calls turn out poorly.

As has been said:

… things are complicated. Long-term v short-term. Big v Small. Certainty v uncertainty. Principle v Politics v Practical v Possible.

Thus in a democracy what Ministers need is a team of skilled people able to help them steer through these operational and philosophical complexities for a few years.

People who simplify complexity but in a subtle, nuanced way. Who are good at bringing people of rival opinions together and explaining convincingly what might best be done. People who can juggle numerous balls but keep their eye on the Big Picture. People of unerring accuracy.

And ‘Judgement’ is the word for all that. Without Judgement a civil servant (like a Minister) is fairly useless.

Without Judgement there is no Responsibility.

And without Responsibility there are no Values.