I've just clicked on 'blogs' after reading the article about government department staff survey results (my daily email from civil service live), as I thought it would be interesting to peep in after not blogging on here for a very long time (I find the site components very confusing plus our IT is so abominable that my PC hangs for minutes while I try and type this).

There seems to be hardly anyone blogging in response to any of your articles. Do they go somewhere else on this site to chat or is there no longer any interest out there in blogging on this site?

I'll try and drop in a bit more often in order to develop a better understanding of what goes on here. Mind you, I'm on redeployment so it is uncertain how much longer I will be in the civil service at all - something that is preoccopuying me (as the main provider for a family of 5) to the point of losing interest in blogging at all!

Michael ONeill 483 days ago

Oh and I suppose I might as well comment on your article and on 'Plan B'.

I've had a long-time interest in FDR, the New Deal and in the Great Depresison and its political fallout (understatement). I don't really understand why Plan B wasn't Plan A in the first place. Despite what history tells us, and despite a recent TV programme attempting to cite the meteoric rise of Hong Kong’s economy as the case for government spending not being the key to economic growth, we ought to know by now that at times like this, monetarism/capitalism is likely to let us down. We need to work on promoting an understanding of what real wealth and riches are, as opposed to financial prosperity. We need to show leadership by example (no more paparazzi infested skiing holidays for the Chancellor, or big pensions and new well paid jobs for un-needy retiring PS's, and doctors should hang their heads in shame for silently grasping at huge salaries over displaying a dedication to saving life and working to help promote physical and mental wellbeing). We need to rebuild the ruined trust in our institutions and politicians. We need - all of us (and especially the financially well off) - to be prepared to invest in activities that may restore hope, citizenship, employment and that are essential to maximising our chances (for there are few if any guarantees) of sustaining both human life on earth and freedom of the spirit (for even the cynical must know that slaves do not work as well as the free and the brave).

President Obama is already hinting (his recent reference to Russia getting someone into space ahead of the USA and how that spurred America on to lead in the space race) that government must lead in investing in new opportunities for employment in order to lift up the gaze of ordinary people and give them hope. It’s time we stopped this sad old British (fantasist, imperialist) tradition of dragging out puff-chested public schoolboys, young and old, to tell us we are all in this together. Rudyard Kipling is dead – RIP. To handle the public mood today, politicians and leaders must be able to truly empathise: you cannot fool the public all the time (using spin and PR advisors), and you certainly won't fool them now.

Another thing that I question (and have for a long time, along with insisting that pension schemes were just the ultimate example of pyramid selling, and other such heretical suggestions) is that everything has to be centred around stuff like 'economic growth', and 'competition'. At a time when we are being asked not to waste food, or to reduce the amount spoiled before it even reaches the market, to recycle, to abstain, would it not be more reasonable to consider ideas like cooperation, collaboration, consolidation, conservation. Into that mix must be injected imagination, entrepreneurialism, leadership and - just as importantly - humanism.

As W H Auden wrote (and the last line of which was quoted recently on the radio by Dame Shirley Williams or else I would not know it):

…There is no such thing as the State
And no one exists alone;
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police;
We must love one another or die.

Michael ONeill 483 days ago

Hi Michael, Thanks for coming back to Civil Service Live Network - just to let you know we are currently working on a redesign which should make it easier to use the site. We're hoping to relaunch early next month and would really welcome your thoughts and suggestions as we continue to develop the network, so do keep on dropping by!
Suzannah

Suzannah Brecknell 482 days ago

I will try to Suzannah. Sadly, I am one of many now on redeployment and, with no posts coming up, my focus is having to shift to how to manage my personal life forward as a 59yr old bloke with a wife and 3 kids for whom he is the provider, and where he is unlikely to become long-term unemployed (which will take me to 65 yrs of age - hmmmm). I can see the whole nation trying to sell its houses in order to raise capital (but where to stash it safely - aye, there's the rub), and prices collapsing as this swollen new supply is sucked into the vacuum of absent demand.

I’m finding the quote I presented from W H Auden rather apposite now that the latest news coming out of Egypt tells of how the vigilantes calling for Mubarak's resignation are receiving friendship and support from the Egyptian army. The repercussions could be immense, across the Middle East, the BBC reporter (John Simpson?) has said.

Meanwhile, your latest email points me to the news that PCS is to challenge the Government over its changes to the civil service compensation scheme. I am a latecomer to the civil service, and am probably not disadvantaged by the new terms as I have only a small number of years in service. I also worry that PCS can at times be as wide of the mark, or out of touch, as the employer. So I am essentially a neutral. However (and I speak as a past producer of conferences on industrial relations and a time-served private sector manager), I am very concerned at the fast and loose attitude towards the rights and the livelihoods of workers (ordinary people in effect). I understand the economic arguments, but I am not convinced that (UK) workers have been given leaders of sufficient character as well as cleverness to whom they can be persuaded to give their trust. And so I am more optimistic these days about working with the unions than with employers in order to revive our economic prospect.

In your piece of today was a quote from Francis Maude. It said:

"I continue to believe it’s a great pity that during the discussions on the reform of the scheme, the PCS leadership did not engage in the same way as the other unions. This meant that during negotiations their members’ interests were not represented by their own union leadership. Perhaps that explains their very low ballot turnout – less than a third of their members took part."

I might (and I stress 'might') have been persuaded to Mr Maude's sincerity, until I read the last sentence. His remark is cheap. And I would like to reply to Mr Maude thus:

"Perhaps that explains it. But perhaps what you are witnessing is a phoney peace, or a silent gestating of anger out of apathy, that presages a blitzkrieg of industrial unrest. I don't honestly know, but for the sake of modesty and decency, I would abstain from speculating, or spinning, in public. Later or sooner, your efforts to discredit the opposition may undo you. You've certainly not impressed me with your words."

Finally (and by way of a personal plug), I contributed over 1000 posts to our Home Office blog before it was closed last December, and became quietly (and anonymously) famous. I believe passionately in blogs as a modern means of exercising the free speech that our leaders and politicans should want most keenly to have full sight of in order to be kept informed on the public’s mood. I used many pseudonyms, and enjoyed playing devils advocate, provoking and facilitating debate, challenging the axe-grinders and the obfuscators, and generally presenting views that were 'not necessarily those of the author'. The HO blog became very well read and I believe it made a real difference to employer/employee relations. I do hope you can build your blogs up to achieve something similar, as we desperately need a flagship forum on which to focus our written efforts.

Bon chance to us all.

Michael ONeill 477 days ago

ERRATUM - in para.1 of my post above I said:

"....and where he is unlikely to become long-term unemployed ".

I should of course have written "....and where he is LIKELY to become long-term unemployed "

Doh! What was I thinking (claps hand to forehead).

Michael ONeill 477 days ago

Oh and Suzannah, you said:

"...just to let you know we are currently working on a redesign which should make it easier to use the site"

On my latest visits to your forum, I seem to have found the site OKish to use (though perhaps an old fogey like me who is not used to the facebook culture and its bewildering array of features and options will struggle more than youngsters: a danger in itself though). But even if it is easier to use, it will need the injection of some good, provocative writing in order to promote the viral e-wordofmouth recommendations that are key to driving readers to the site (where they must continue to find compelling stuff to read). I think this means that something like the good old 'heated debate' beloved of Mrs Merton's TV Show, and found often on the Home Office blog, needs to start happening. And I'm not sure professional journalists alone can achieve that. You need the target audience (managers and employees) to be seeing your forum as their daily diet: something they can dip into in order to inform themsleves on the general mood, as well as lobbying for their point of view. There is always a risk of boring axe-grinding that will turn new readers off, but surely the right kind of editorial control can filter out repetitive stuff? Always remember to give rejected contributors feedback on why they didn't get published and on how to fare better next time.

Good luck (in English this time!)

Please 'scuse any typos - I'm rattling this off hurriedly.....as you do.

Michael ONeill 477 days ago