Martin Kettle is right to call for leaders who can operate the machinery of government (Opinion, 7 August). However, it should be made clear that the machinery of government – in which I work as a senior civil servant – is not a “machine”, as many current leaders assume.
In his 2024 book On Leadership, Tony Blair says leaders often make the mistake of believing that the machinery of government is “like an instrument in their hands” that they can learn how to use. It is not an instrument, he points out, but “a living organism [with] a mind and a temperament”.
This common misunderstanding of the nature of the system underpins the government’s consistent inability to deliver. Anne Owers’ independent prison capacity review is just the latest example. Machines can be mastered with manuals, precise plans and predictable cause-and-effect levers, but living organisms behave differently. As anyone who has raised a toddler or a teenager can attest: predictability and cause-and-effect do not apply.
Linear approaches suitable for the “machine”, such as plans and targets, are ineffective, serving only to increase bureaucracy. Meanwhile, all remains quiet on the delivery front. Owers’ review evidences this, describing the prisons-capacity response as bureaucratic and repetitive, with too much discussion and too little action.
Treating the machinery of government like a complex organism, rather than a machine, is the only way it will be effectively deployed. The UK government’s own guidance on “systems thinking for civil servants”, as well as research by the Institute for Government, acknowledges this, with the latter noting that the machinery of government cannot be “controlled through plans and ‘levers’”.
Yet time and again, leaders fall back on the same familiar levers, expecting different results. They deploy tools suitable for the “machine”, including endless plans and committees. Bureaucracy begets bureaucracy, while delivery is missing in action. Breaking this cycle will remain unsuccessful for as long as leaders continue to treat government as a “machine”.
Name and address supplied
Martin Kettle correctly identifies the stranglehold that Treasury orthodoxy has on government, but does not go far enough in identifying the source. Supply-side theory claims that growth comes when entrepreneurs are given incentives such as tax breaks or subsidies. Private businesses will employ people and the wealth they create, the taxes they pay, will allow government to improve public services. Forty years of failure has not dented faith in this flawed doctrine. Perhaps because those who administer the policies do not suffer the effects.
Instead of giving money to rich businessmen, much of which finds its way into tax havens, why not try using it productively through existing channels? Public spending is not a dirty word. Creating a safe, healthy and prosperous society is the essence of government.
Local authorities, especially in poor areas, are desperate for funds to keep their communities in a half-decent state: give them money to rebuild and repair, perhaps with encouragement to source locally. Bring in a local income tax instead of rates. Reverse the increase in employer’s national insurance contributions, which is a tax on jobs. When demand increases, supply will follow. In this way the economy will grow organically, sustainably and all around the country.
Hazel Davies
Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside
Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
