Public Policy Conjectures

A lesson for today?

Not a lot seems to be known about the reign of Ethelred, despite his reigning from a minor for 38 years, dying in his 50’s . Most of his reign seems to have been passed buying off the Danish and other raiders who had restarted their depredations at the beginning of his reign, after a century of absence. Despite the seemingly huge wealth of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom—one of the great attractions for the Scandinavians — he seems never to have raised an effective army. Nor did he make effective use of the fortified burghs and other strongholds established so effectively by King Alfred. At one stage he built a navy of 100 ships, but 80 of those were quickly lost in a storm, largely it seems as a result of internecine rivalries. Gradually the raiders settled and returned time and time again and gradually took over the kingdom, such that before the end of his reign in 1013 Swein, King of Denmark was effective ruler of England. His son Cnut became king after a struggle with the last effective Anglo-Saxon ruler, Edmund, son of Ethelred, who probably died from war-wounds. 

Unreadiness all round, not just by Ethelred, seems to have rung the death-knell of the Anglo-Saxon monarchy.  Its brief revival under Edward the Confessor was at the will of the Danes, Scandinavians and their fellow northmen, the Normans. Harold was a last gasp. William the Conqueror in 1066 was only restoring Northmen control established by King Swein during the reign of Ethelred, 53 years earlier, and cemented under Cnut between 1016 and 1035. 

Is Britain ready today?  

Britain in the 2020’s seems to be in a similar state of unreadiness. Like the rest of the world, we were and are unready for climate change —today we’ve discovered we haven’t built reservoirs for over 40 years.  But we were also unready for the implosion of the bankers, Covid, Putin and Trump. Our only great surge of energy and activity was Brexit.  But no-one was ready for that either. They still aren’t! 

What is worse, if anything can be worse, no opposition party has been ready for government since 1964, when for the first time since 1951 the country had a Labour Government.  Harold Wilson complained that he was not ready for what he found when he “opened the books”.  

It is possible he was the first prime minister to be in that position.  During the war, the coalition government  had a common information base. There was no surprise to Labour when they took power in 1945. Everyone knew the dire state of the nation.  Moreover, there was general, if reluctant, consensus about what policies should be pursued, what should be done.  In 1951, when the Conservatives took back power, there were still no great surprises in store for the incoming administration.  The public had been told by Labour that there was a massive balance of payments deficit. But in 1964, there was a surprise.

Harold Wilson complained that the balance of payments deficit was not £400 million as was commonly believed, but £800 million.  It was twice as bad.  Probably the public figures were actual figures from the previous year and the £800 million was the estimate for the end of the current year or even for the next year.  Estimates like that are not made public.  The estimate was the critical figure: it required decisions and upset plans. 

I graduated in History from Bristol University in the summer of 1964 and started work in local government finance.  I was totally surprised by this revelation.  I mistakenly thought British government worked well.  But my first essay into the real world showed that it worked terribly badly.  How could it possibly be that the leader of the opposition party who had masterminded a manifesto and an election, didn’t know what the balance of payments situation was?  For everybody, it was the great excitement of the time.  How could he possibly not know?  How on earth could he possibly implement his manifesto if the factual basis for it was completely wrong?  What else didn’t he know?  And what was all this nonsense about “opening the books”?

How can any politician be ready if this is the mad-house we call British government? 

What is even more amazing is that when Wilson started his 1970 term as prime minister, he had almost the same experience over exactly the same subject—the balance of payments.  

And 60 years later, Starmer still had to “open the books” in July 2024.

Would you Adam and Eve it?  (Why do I keep using this expression?) 

So should opposition parties know the facts before they write manifestos and win elections? 

There seems no sense in having a system whereby the incoming opposition party administration is in ignorance about the key factors and policies that it is inheriting. 

But the only way it can be in a state of knowledge, not of ignorance, is for the civil service to brief it.  And this briefing must influence the opposition party’s manifesto.  If not, then its mandate is built on rotten foundations. That means in practical terms that the briefing must probably be continuous throughout any parliament. 

All that incoming political parties get as they have the potential for government is some civil servant briefing a month or so before the election — if there is enough time I suppose!  This briefing must not include any policy advice.  What use is that, if the opposition party has sweated and fought for 2 or 3 years to get a manifesto agreed, and then finds the problem of the day is twice as bad as everyone except the government thought?  That’s official secrets gone mad. 

In local government the situation was different. The officers of the local authority briefed both controlling and opposition parties. In practice this was not an onerous task, for a variety of very good reasons.  But the task would be very big in central government because the circumstances are so different and the subjects even bigger and more difficult.  This clearly presents significant problems and calls for considerable resources.  It would be a significant reform of the machinery of central government. It would be a very signficant change to the way government is conducted in the UK. 

The situation in local government has changed with the introduction of cabinet government and mayors. I cannot imagine opposition parties now have much idea of what is going on. Certainly my observation of one of Boris Johnson’s question times demonstrates a total inability of opposition councillors to obtain any useful answers to any questions, leave alone hold the mayor to account. And the whole idea that audit, performance and accountability committees after the event with little or no evidence, little time and few resources can have any impact or influence, is for the birds.  It rather seems that here in Winchester and all over the country, councillors not in the Cabinet have no role beyond a ward or constituency one.  Ignorance is bliss. 

British government has descended to such a degree that no-one but those at the top, the mayor and prime minister really know what’s going on.  Cabinets in local government may well do so.  But in central government as far as I can see, the cabinet is the place to get corporate agreement on what has been decided elsewhere. It’s not where information is brought to the table, meaningful discussion takes place within a united and highly motivated team, where policy is shaped and the country governed.

Actual decisions are made on sofas if you’re lucky, or on hard chairs in Downing Street offices.

Should MP’s also know the facts? 

At the moment, MP’s can ask parliamentary questions of ministers and get written and also oral answers for some questions.  Many, many questions are put and answers received. All questions and answers are specific and narrowly defined —even if extraordinarily wide in scope.  Some answers prompt the question “So What?”  As can all matters of information.  I know from asking AI questions just how easy it is to ask the wrong question. Or for AI by chance to answer a related question that you didn’t ask.  Google AI is very good at that. Likewise, exchanges are needed between civil servants and MP’s to clarify both questions and answers. But they are not provided for. And even where they do happen they are not always very fruitful. 

The Olly Robbins farce is a clear public policy example of cross-purpose exchanges in a public confrontation, where Emily Thornberry totally failed to understand the way the security vetting form worked.  If you can work that out, you know that Olly Robbins’ argument was completely sound—as anyone would expect from a civil servant of his position and stature.  I can work it out because I have experience as a bureaucrat and experience of computer administrative and financial systems.   But lawyers like she is often can’t understand these things—as seems also to have been the case with the prosecution of post office workers. 

For any MP to understand big policy issues, they need time, explanations, discussion of answers to questions, chance for reflection and then maybe a supplementary question or two.  

That all requires a lot of civil service time and a lot of MP’s time. And a new approach to information.  The bit of patience and relaxed discussion needed to get to the bottom of the MP’s concern, and for him to get the answers he needs, should be his right.  How can he do his job without it?

As I say elsewhere in this Blog, I have struggled to “read” the government’s Defence Review and Investment Plan, Industrial and Housing strategies.  Besides, Winchester house building allocations are a mystery.  How many of our 650 MP’s will have read all of these? And the other strategies? How many will have had the same trouble I have had in understanding them? How many are in a state of ignorance? 

Besides a state of ignorance, there are other serious problems for a new administration. These problems are quite big enough on their own. They include inexperience.  They also now include a tradition, culture, fervent belief that the civil service are not to be trusted—indeed of seeing them as an obstacle.  Even I, in local government, was numbered amongst Tony Blair’s wreckers. 

Passing a law saying public servants should speak with candid tongues, not candied tongues, gets no-one no-where very fast.  It’s also a very nasty personal insult.  Why do politicians think they, and they only, are motivated to speak the truth? Or only they are motivated to seek the public good?

This attitude and action ups the anti—which is already very high, thanks to “Yes Minister”.

So if incoming prime ministers from an opposition party are always surprised when they “open the books”; and most MP’s probably have little idea of what’s going on outside their area of speciality—if they have one— then how does the Mayor of Manchester stand much chance of being ready?  

He has no chance, has he?  

Yet the chattering classes, the voters of Makerfield, the media circus, the Labour Party, 650 MP’s, Uncle Tom Cobley and All, know he is ready.  Are sure he is ready.  Are disappointed when he doesn’t reveal his well developed plans and strategies.  Opposition MP’s and parties thrive on the idea.  He’s not ready: what a wally!  Today’s BBC R4 talk about social care was just the same: huge aspirations, hitting the ground running, no mention of money—perish the thought— could be sorted by next year, (having been seen and said, 20 years ago).  And of course we never get to the “detail” so beloved of the BBC, but never revealed, as no politician gets time on air to get beyond vague aspirations and generalities.  Indeed, the listener is fortunate if he gets even the entire principles.  And then we all “move on”; or one of Harold Macmillan’s events intervenes. 

I know also that politicians (they always come out as “pelicans” at the speed I type)  … that politicians love to blame the previous government for their inability to deliver.  But their ignorance in coming into office is not an obvious help. 

Ethelred is indeed alive and well and thriving in today’s British politics!  Unreadiness is the curse of British politics.  It has been for 60 years.  And no-one seems to notice. They did notice when Ethelred was in charge. 

© Philip Morgan 2026 Public Policy Conjectures  All rights reserved