We really cannot afford to continue as we are. But following a letter from the Public Accounts Committee (correspondence attached below) it is possible to summarise the post-imperial and post war-footing ‘wrong turning’: Separation of policy making and machinery have left a management void.

Evidence and symptoms as already reported are, briefly:

1.     The standard management cycle for strategic planning and management is absent (NAO on p12  HM Treasury Overview  2015-16)                   

The Cabinet is ‘flying blind’ without management information (a consequence of 1 above)
Policy formation and the machinery are kept separate (Clerk of the Public Accounts Committee). A consequence is confusion and inhibition of system design and maintenance. (‘keep out this is political’ but is ‘method’ a policy or machinery? Surely the latter)

2. Perpetual European Accounts failure of audit is attributed to the concept of shared management which leaves accountability in the hands of recipients of public funds. (MEP in published letter in 2008). There is no systematic feedback hence no management cycle
3. The IMF has been criticised for failing to grasp that currency unions require treasur.y and political union or are vastly exposed to debt crises.
4. UK Developing devolution reveals unconsolidated local financial results and uncontrolled debt-creating deficits (under 1, 2 and 4 above) creating the risk in 5. (Scotland has produced £billion pound deficits over two years; Surrey CC reports moving into deficit in the Autumn of 2016). Whole Government Accounts for 2015-16 are overdue.
5. Formal accountability has not yet followed the universal franchise (Surrey and other councillors withhold the Annual Report from voters at elections).

Further anecdotal evidence is all around us. But why is there no sign of awareness at the top of government? Why do they accept 2 above? The solution could commence at the top of the Civil Service and particularly the Treasury. It’s not ‘rocket science’.