Saturday, 10 January 2009

’You know what this situation calls for..? More executive coaching!’

Balls has ‘a cunning plan’ to fix the seemingly insoluble problem of incompetent social services chiefs:
Mr Balls has ordered that the 150 bosses must take a year-long course to ensure they have the right "skills and experience".
Pardon me, but shouldn’t they have checked that before they were hired…?

If they didn’t, and they haven’t, how about we just get rid of them. Or would that be too easy?
Mr Balls said: "I want to see all future chiefs of local authority children's services gain experience in areas outside their own specialism before they are appointed.

"But I also want to make sure that all directors of children's services have the skills and experience they need.

"I would expect over time for all directors to want to take the leadership programme."
Leadership programme…? Hmm, that sounds like the usual cop-out, jobs-for-the-consultants scheme that has plagued the civil service for decades.

I guess now times are hard, they need to expand into new markets, so what better than local government?
The bosses, who are all paid at least £100,000, includes "executive coaching", as well as individual training and a three-day residential course.
Lovely jubbly, if you are a training consultant with a fat government contract in your sights.

Not sure how it’ll help the next ‘Baby P’ though…

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Getting at least a hundred grand without experience in the field or leadership quality,wow,I want one of those.
Or maybe I should apply for an mp's job,about the same requirments innit.

JuliaM said...

Me too!

Ross said...

What are the odds that the sacked head of Haringey children's services, whose name escapes me, will re-emerge as one of the course instructors?

JuliaM said...

Depressingly good, I'd say. That's if she doesn't get offered another cushy posting in some quango...

James Higham said...

Pardon me, but shouldn’t they have checked that before they were hired…?

If they didn’t, and they haven’t, how about we just get rid of them. Or would that be too easy?

Precisely.

Mark Wadsworth said...

If my new manifesto is "If in doubt, do nothing" then let's apply this to the Baby P case.

1. Patricia Shoesmith was appointed to a stupendously well paid job by the democratically elected council.

2. She fucked up, to put it bluntly, and is now seeking £150k compensation for dismissal.

3. If local voters are bothered, they will vote for one of the other parties, who will appoint somebody not quite so useless and do their damn'dest to fight off her claim and/or slap a precept on the outgoing councillors.

4. If local voters aren't bothered, they will continue to vote for the incumbents. And if they are not bothered, why should I be?

There, that's that fixed.

Umbongo said...

MW

I am a proud payer of excessive council-tax to Haringey. The borough is divided right down the middle: in the West are the prosperous, horribly white middle class (albeit, LibDem-voting) wards: in the East are the not so prosperous, multiethnic client-wards of New Labour. In the last elections Labour barely held on to Haringey (getting a one-seat majority).

However, Haringey Council is a microcosm of the Commons: to gain/retain votes Labour will soak the savers and actual payers of tax, penalise non-Labour voters and throw money and benefits at their clients. There is a real possibility that this will work locally and nationally and that Labour will retain power in both the UK and Haringey.

Sacking Shoesmith is something Labour will spin into a triumph of activism ("Look - we got rid of her!") in the same way that Brown (ably supported - advised? - by the state broadcaster) has spun his ruinous handling of the economy into a triumph ("Only I can ger you out of the mess that the US has got us into and I'm saving the world while I'm doing it").

BTW I think you'll find that surcharging councillors (a la Westminster and Lady Porter) for gross mismanagement or actual criminality or misconduct has been discontinued. After all we can't have public "servants" penalised for serving themselves can we? You'll suggest surcharging ministers for gross incompetence next!

JuliaM said...

"Sacking Shoesmith is something Labour will spin into a triumph of activism"

Well, it'll take awhile for the Tribunal to award her the compensation she's no doubt been promised on the QT, so they are obviously hoping the fuss will have died down by then...