8 October 2001
People fall behind in race for best value
There are a number of irritating buzz phrases that enjoy a period of fashion in corporate and government circles before going belly-up and being brushed under the skirting board. Among the more recent ones are total quality and employee empowerment.
As one commentator observed, why bother to employ such phrases if quality is already good and employees can make meaningful decisions? You wouldn’t even think about it – unless of course it was in fashion.
The current buzz phrase is “best value”. This usually means simply cheapest, but it can be adapted to justify all kinds of disruptive changes – the most obvious of which at the moment is Norfolk County Council’s plan to dispose of its 32 residential care homes to the private and independent sector.
The reasoning behind this is that the private sector would run them more cheaply and free up money for other exciting schemes.
Norwich City Council would understand that. It wants to lose community development workers to fund a jolly summer play scheme. But is it best value? The county plan has already caused sinking hearts around the county among people with experience of compulsory competitive tendering – the brave new (now old) scheme to allow private firms to bid for council contracts like school cleaning with the aim of saving money.
The result of compulsory competitive tendering is too well known to be stated. But it certainly did not result in increased staff satisfaction and better cleaning.
Some private care homes are excellent, but there are obvious fears that corners are cuttable and staff exploitable. However, this is not really the point.
The point is the value of the people involved. When councils speak of “best value” they do not think of people at all.
In the homes are committed staff who see the changes as a threat to their security; and the residents themselves – people who towards the end of their lives cannot deal with change, who are physically and mentally affected by uncertainty and who deserve to live in a secure, loving environment.
Councillors say they must go for “best value” to save council taxpayers’ money. What they mean, presumably, is that they don’t want to antagonise voters, or perhaps their Whitehall masters. What they should be concerned about is the happiness and security of the people involved.
It is people that count. Newts, coypu and councils only measure cash.
Culture confidence hits Norfolk
Two new contestants will be trying to thwart Norwich in its heroic quest to be European Capital of Culture for 2008.
While Norwich will be the obvious cultural choice of every right-thinking Briton and city councillor, Hingham and Little London, near Corpusty, will be pushing it hard.
Mrs Hicks, Mayor of Little London, was confident yesterday. “We have everything Norwich has except the nightclubs,” she said. “And the traffic congestion. And the Castle Museum, the Millennium Library, the cathedral, the bypass and a red light district. I don’t see how we can lose.”
While Little London is well known for its culture and vote-rigging, Hingham too has many backers.
“We don’t rig votes, but we can sell things,” said culture rep Professor V A R “Varry” Scheinlich. “And since we are familiar with time distortion, we can probably get in first.”
Hingham has attracted attention in recent years for the famous wormhole effect, which produces odd experiences for most visitors. However, since it is an autonomous republic with indigenous coypu, some doubt whether it would qualify for the contest.
“Really Norwich is the obvious choice,” said Professor Ian “Sam” Aufmerksam of the UEA. “You only have to walk down Prince of Wales Road on a Saturday evening to soak up the culture – and possibly a few punches as well.
"The costumes are great too. We’re unbeatable.”
Scapegoat voles not reason for dualling rejection
Most astonishing story of last week was the news that the A47 Acle Straight is not going to be dualled.
Well, to be honest, it was not quite the most astonishing: it came in 5493rd.
I blame the voles. That’s not quite true either: the voles, whose habitat might be affected by building a new carriageway, were very close to the weakest excuse put forward for not making improvements that would undoubtedly save lives.
The real reason, as usual, was money. And, of course, that is far more important than lives.
When it comes to making absurd decisions, the Highways Agency has a great track record. The words “new” and “hospital” spring immediately to mind. But this time they have an answer: to save lives, they are going to reduce the speed limit to 50mph.
Brilliant. I don’t remember the last fatal accident on the A47 caused by excess speed. A reduced speed limit is more likely to cause accidents than stop them, because it will create the potentially fatal conditions of tiredness and tedium.
Never mind, if they install speed cameras, they can make some money out of it.
Happily there is public consultation before all this is implemented. The next most astonishing story will be the ignoring of everyone’s objections. Well, maybe not most astonishing: say about the 5493rd most astonishing that day.
Effective front moving in
The great thing about global warming, if you like that sort of thing, is that it is a wonderful source of media stories.
Think of something that happens in summer now and consider the likelihood of it happening in winter soon – cricket . . . sunbathing . . . mowing the lawn – chuck in a couple of dire warnings and Bob’s your uncle, or at least a very close relative.
And so we have instant propaganda for the scary faction, fulfilling the avowed aim of distinguished global warmer Scary Stephen Schneider: “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
His approach has obviously convinced my favourite weather presenter, Isobel Lang, who was quoted as saying we would probably see a rise in temperature of six degrees in the next century.
This is roughly four times what the scientists reporting for the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change say is likely, but never mind. It is the figure that the politicians put about, for their own dubious reasons.
And who do you trust? It’s hard enough to get the weather for the weekend right.