Skip to main content
Bonfire of the Vanities

Call it a retrospective if you like, I am wondering where the ‘e’ in government has worked for me in 2003 and I’m casting my mind back on the old year for evidence of a smooth and painless experience. But I can’t find one.

Together with my Christmas cards – am I allowed to call them that anymore? – is a reprimand from the VAT office. My quarterly payment was six days late and my knuckles are being firmly rapped.



If you look back to an earlier column, you will find me telling you I’m receiving red warning letters from the VAT man because the system can’t yet cope with my habit of paying electronically and on time. In December, I took the advice of my local VAT inspector and instructed Barclays Bank to issue a transfer on the 3rd December, three days before the VAT payment deadline. This proved to have been a bad idea. Barclays might have debited my account immediately but it took another six days to credit the funds to Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise, because a weekend lay in the way, leaving me up the creek without the proverbial paddle.

Surely, this whole ‘e’ thing is supposed to make life simpler for business but all I’m seeing is a steady increase in red tape and complexity and more single points of failure coming in my direction. This leads to a consensus among my business friends that building any new IT service company today is not worth the stress and effort involved in dealing with different government departments and regulations.

Meanwhile, while an expensive and mushrooming bureaucracy is crushing domestic productivity and innovation in the belief that the right mix of technology and taxation hold the solution to the gross inefficiencies of the public sector. Through the lens of the Soham tragedy we can see that the collision between the criminal justice system and technology has given us speed cameras and CCTV but very little else to be proud of. Having outsourced any job, which does not involve carrying a truncheon or wearing a pointed helmet, a Metropolitan Police survey last year found that no cases whatsoever, zero per cent, was information about a conviction entered on the Police National Computer within the necessary twenty-eight days and yet parking, congestion charge or speeding fine can be issued within hours. Our policing, it appears, remains at the mercy of private-sector incompetents, the usual suspects responsible for large and expensive public sector failures in other vital areas of government.

December’s fourth UK Online Annual Report, tells us that eGovernment is a great success and we can expect more “Automation and integration of back office functions”. “Public sector internal administration”, we are told,” Should be standardised and made self-service". These are grand words but let’s face it, we are surrounded if not suffocated by examples of expensive failure in the most vital, mission critical areas of our society, health, taxation, education, transport, criminal justice, child support, social services, the list is endless. Technology might hold the answer but like the railways, once you start outsourcing the responsibilities you find the trains no longer run on time, the tracks are not maintained properly and many of the businesses involved don’t even manage to achieve the lowest common denominator of service, even with the billions of pounds of taxpayer funded technology at their disposal.

As we reach the end of 2003 I wonder if we are being consumed by our own ‘Bonfire of the Vanities’. What if the public private partnership and a great deal of the ‘e’ in government is generating more expense and failure than we are prepared to admit and how much longer can we carry on before the wheels really start to fall off the public sector? Or maybe I’m wrong and December’s UK Online Report is a shining example of better chemistry through eGovernment. You tell me

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Civilisational Data Mining

It’s a new expression I haven’t heard before. ‘Civilisational data mining.’

Let me start by putting it in some context. Every character, you or I have typed into the Google search engine or Facebook over the last decade, means something, to someone or perhaps ‘something,’ if it’s an algorithm.


In May 2014, journalists revealed that the United States National Security Agency, the NSA, was recording and archiving every single cell-phone conversation that took place in the Bahamas. In the process they managed to transform a significant proportion of a society’s day to day interactions into unstructured data; valuable information which can of course be analysed, correlated and transformed for whatever purpose the intelligence agency deems fit.

And today, I read that a GOP-hired data company in the United States has ‘leaked’ personal information, preferences and voting intentions on… wait for it… 198 million US citizens.

Within another decade or so, the cost of sequencing the human genome …

The Nature of Nurture?

Recently, I found myself in a fascinating four-way Twitter exchange, with Professor Adam Rutherford and two other science-minded friends The subject, frequently regarded as a delicate one, genetics and whether there could exist an unknown but contributory genetic factor(s) or influences in determining what we broadly understand or misunderstand as human intelligence.

I won’t discuss this subject in any great detail here, being completely unqualified to do so, but I’ll point you at the document we were discussing, and Rutherford’s excellent new book, ‘A Brief History of Everyone.”

What had sparked my own interest was the story of my own grandfather, Edmond Greville; unless you are an expert on the history of French cinema, you are unlikely to have ever hear of him but he still enjoys an almost cult-like following for his work, half a century after his death.

I've been enjoying the series "Genius" on National Geographic about the life of Albert Einstein. The four of us ha…
The Mandate of Heaven

eGov Monitor Version

“Parliament”, said my distinguished friend “has always leaked like a sieve”.

I’m researching the thorny issue of ‘Confidence in Public Sector Computing’ and we were discussing the dangers presented by the Internet. In his opinion, information security is an oxymoron, which has no place being discussed in a Parliament built upon the uninterrupted flow of information of every kind, from the politically sensitive to the most salacious and mundane.

With the threat of war hanging over us, I asked if MPs should be more aware of the risks that surround this new communications medium? More importantly, shouldn’t the same policies and precautions that any business might use to protect itself and its staff, be available to MPs?

What concerns me is that my well-respected friend mostly considers security in terms of guns, gates and guards. He now uses the Internet almost as much as he uses the telephone and the Fax machine and yet the growing collective t…