On efficient farming (and driverless tractors)

This really does matter (although it will cause palpitations in all the locavores, organic food nuts and pseudo-environmentalists):

Globally, therefore, adoption of American farming techniques could increase agricultural productivity so much that a landmass the size of India could be returned to nature, without compromising the food supply to our apparently “peaking” global population – the world’s population is likely to peak at 8.7 billion in 2055 and then start to decline. Last, but not least, tens of millions of agricultural laborers in Africa and Asia will be freed from back-breaking labor, migrate to the cities and create wealth in other ways.

If you are truly concerned about the future of humanity in general, and hunger, poverty and equality in particular, forget about The Hunger Games and embrace the driverless tractor instead.

Absolutely. The problem is that the wealthy do-gooders of the developed West are intent on destroying agricultural efficiency in a mad belief that this results in both a healthier world and a planet saved. Since neither of these things are true, it's time we recognised the benefits of industrial agriculture.

...

Quote of the day - on the accountability of the NHS

****

In Christian Niemietz's 'Diagnosis: Overrated' is this observation:

The idea that the NHS is run by ‘the people’, as a joint endeavour, is a romantic fantasy. The NHS is an elite project, and this could not be otherwise. Collective choice is not a substitute for individual choice and ‘voice’ is not a substitute for ‘exit’. The illusory ‘accountability’ mediated through the political process cannot come anywhere near the accountability of a marketplace, or of a properly designed quasi-market setting, in which providers stand and fall with the choices consumers make, and depend on them for their very economic survival.

Anyone with experience of the NHS's sclerotic organisation will know this to be absolutely true.

....

It's not good that three out of ten people aren't satisfied with their local council is it?

****

This level of customer dissatisfaction in the private sector would lead to the sacking or directors, headline sin the business pages and angry words all round. And the survey reveals the public's low opinions of their council:

Opinions regarding council efficiency have also seen an improvement, rising to 52% satisfaction since June last year. 

The report here seems almost celebratory - nearly half the public think councils are inefficient! And there's more:

The survey found a 6% drop in the number of Britons content with the work done to keep residents informed of council services since 2010, a figure which now lies at 54%.

Similarly, the LG Insight Populus poll found that 45% of residents believe their council take account of public opinion during the decision making process, a figure that has fallen by 2% since 2010. 

So there you go council folks - much of the public think you're doing a pretty poor job. Yet no-one is castigating councils - calling for resignations, restructures of abolition - for being considered so ineffective.

....

Smaller police forces - an excellent suggestion

I have long argued that, right at the heart of our policing problems is the obsession with efficiency and the associated drive towards ever large police forces. So it is excellent news to see that Reform Scotland (a think tank) is arguing that, rather than a single Scottish police service there should be police forces covering each local authority:

The report said local forces would help improve public confidence in the police and accountability. 

'Instead of one police chief accountable to central government, we want police chiefs accountable to local communities,' said report author, Alison Payne.  'We believe that the Scottish government is moving in the wrong direction with its plans to centralise policing,' she added.

'While we agree with the need for greater centralisation and collaboration on specialist policing, we would argue that this should be done alongside greater devolution of local policing, creating proper national and local police bodies, which could address both national and local problems.'

Combined with directly elected commissioners and greater transparency this approach would give us more accountable, more effective policing - the police might even get back to being a genuine community service again, you never know!

....

I want my government to be local, approachable and effective - not merely "efficient"

I recall Arnold Moore, the Managing Director of Knightsbridge Furniture Productions, explaining to me about BS5750 (for young folk that's ISO9000). It was roughly like this:

"You see Simon, I have to have BS5750 because I sell to hospitals. It means I can make good or bad furniture - but whichever it is is do it consistently."

I was reminded of this occasion by an item (I can't credit mutual back-slapping with the term "debate") on this morning's Today programme between Sir Michael Bichard and Prof Tony Travers from the LSE. The discussion was supposedly about "localism" (which presumably is why the BBC had a former Whitehall civil servant and a big government academic to comment) but focuses mostly on a strange beast called "Total Place". This wondrous innovation excites all the bureaucrats but is just another sad little attempt to join up the activities of different government "agencies" at the local level.

And the focus? you've guessed it - greater "efficiency". The same driver that created big national quangos, huge distant "unitary" authorities and the commoditisation of local services. The aim is to "deliver" those services very efficiently - a task that is achieved at the cost of any personality, variety or local interest. So-called "community consultation" replaces the ability of the ordinary resident to actually speak with someone who actually delivers the service that person wants to receive.

What we've lost in this drive for efficiency is a sense that services have to be effective - to aim to give to the resident what that resident actually wants from their government. We're told we should be pleased when a rubbish collection service gets an 80% satisfaction rating! That's one out of every five people who are not happy? If these services faced competition they would really struggle on those performance levels - regardless of their financial or operational efficiency (much of which as connoisseurs of the "Gershon Efficiencies" will know is fiction).

For all its hype "Total Place" is just an add on to LAAs, CAAs and all the recent paraphernalia of "joined-up" government. And the truth? Until we allow local control of decision-making across these areas - which means local control of police, health and environment - we will not get effective services. What we will get is an endless set of initiatives driven by cod efficiency and centre-focused bureaucratic culture.

A I've said before the real test of "localism" is when government gives local institutions back to the people. I'll believe the fat cats of central government's pontificating about "localism" when this happens and not before.