Category Archives: Politics

Government, Politics, Scotland, Society, Technology

Digital interfacing must be embraced by public sector

PUBLIC SECTOR

Digital Interfacing

Digital interfacing within the public sector would allow public bodies to greatly cut costs while providing efficient services. With budgets constrained like never before, politicians must now embrace and incorporate digital platforming into the public sector.

Intro: Digital platforming would help public bodies to provide efficient services by cutting costs.

Over the last 10 to 15 years digital platforms like Google, Amazon and Twitter have been utilised by almost everyone to such an extent that they have disrupted our daily lives.

Part of that disruption has been negative. How many people have you seen looking at their mobile phones when they should have been paying more attention to the world around them? Predominately, however, the disruption caused by the digital era has been positive. Digital technologies clearly deliver a benefit – if they didn’t we wouldn’t use them to the extent that we do.

Consider Airbnb, the digital platform that allows users to make a fast and cheap way of booking accommodation. This interface has three million listings across 65,000 destinations. It’s fast and cheap because it provides a digital link between hosts and guests and removes the need for an intermediary.

These platforms offer ways to receive a service: users identify with the platform rather than the organisation. They are also orientated and focused on customer need as witnessed through the design and delivery of the service.

They also establish trust by offering value that increases with the breadth of services offered and the number of users registered. Most importantly, they remove unnecessary waste and duplication, eliminating tasks, activities, intermediaries and sometimes even whole organisations out of the service.

These radically changing business models have had far reaching implications for the workforce and they will continue to do so. That’s been illustrated through Uber’s impact on local taxi firms and the complexity of protecting workers’ rights and tax revenues in the ‘gig economy’.

In the public sector, digital developments have provided a route to delivering better quality for less cost. Addressing ever-increasing demand of services with reduced budgets is here to stay. NHS Scotland recently created the TURAS platform, one which is geared to support education and training of healthcare workers. It automates processes and allows clinicians to self-serve on training and education material. The net effect has been a cut in administrative overheads.

Government to citizen services need to follow this lead. Public bodies and the services they provide must move to become technology related businesses. Whilst Registers of Scotland have made good progress in this direction, the vast bulk of the Scottish public sector requires wholesale transformation. Substantial changes are needed that will require careful thinking about the right purpose, strategy, culture and structure.

The public sector in Scotland will also need a specific focus on balancing the face-to-face contact needed for some services and by making provision for those people not digitally connected. This will need new investment in connectivity and infrastructure.

Such challenges should not be used as an excuse to avoid embracing digital. Public Sector bodies should be specifically focused on removing unnecessary tasks and activities that might well lead to the closure of entire business units. This must happen where they no longer have a role in delivering services to citizens.

Politicians in Scotland should be bold in realising the changes that are now needed. They could remove some of the barriers around legislation and by promoting partnership with the private sector.

 

Standard
Climate Change, Donald Trump, Economic, Environment, Global warming, Government, Politics, United Nations, United States

Anger as Donald Trump pulls US out of climate deal

PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT

US President Donald Trump announces his decision that the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement.

The world’s consensus on fighting global warming was shattered this week as Donald Trump said he was pulling the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

In an address from the Rose Garden at the White House, the President said he would seek to renegotiate terms that are ‘fair to the United States.’

The move has caused an international outcry, with a string of figures from Barack Obama to EU leaders speaking out against the controversial decision.

Mr Trump said the Paris accord was ‘a self-inflicted major economic wound’ and argued his decision was based on a desire to put America first.

The 2015 deal has killed American jobs, would cost billions of dollars, and put the US at a huge disadvantage to the rest of the world, Mr Trump said.

He said: ‘In order to fulfil my solemn duty to the United States and its citizens, the US will withdraw from the Paris climate accord, but begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States.’

The Paris accord ‘is very unfair at the highest level to the United States,’ the President added.

Signed by 195 countries, the Paris Agreement commits nations to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide to stop the world overheating. By limiting global temperatures to no more than 2C above pre-industrial times, it is hoped it will stop heatwaves, droughts, rising sea levels, crop failures and storms.

But the President questioned the impact of the deal. He said he ‘represents the citizens of Pittsburgh not Paris’, said it was ‘time to make America great again,’ and that he would make full use of America’s ‘abundant energy reserves’.

He said he ‘cares deeply about the environment’ and the US would remain ‘the cleanest country on earth’.

But the Paris Agreement ‘hamstrings’ the US and has led to other countries ‘laughing at the US’.

Mr Trump said: ‘The Paris accord would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risk, and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world.’

He said that there are millions of citizens out of work in the US, ‘yet under the Paris accord billions of dollars that ought to be invested right here in America will be sent to the very countries that have taken our factories and jobs away from us’. Under the terms of the accord, a deal could take at least three years – lasting until November 2020 – the same month Mr Trump is up for re-election.

Only Nicaragua and Syria have failed to sign up to the agreement and all the major industrialised nations, except for Russia, have ratified it. China and the EU have also affirmed their commitment to deeper action.

Former president Mr Obama, who signed the US up to the deal, said in a statement: ‘Even in the absence of American leadership, even as this administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future, I’m confident that our states, cities and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help to protect for future generations the one planet we’ve got.’

The EU’s commissioner for climate change, Miguel Arias Canete, said: ‘Today is a sad day for the global community, as a key partner turns its back on the fight against climate change. The EU deeply regrets the unilateral decision by the Trump administration.’

UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said the decision was a ‘disappointment for global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote global security’.

French President Emmanuel Macron made a five-minute phone call to Mr Trump following his announcement. Mr Macron is believed to have said nothing was renegotiable with regard to the Paris accord. The United States and France will continue to work together, but not on the subject of the climate.

Italy, France and Germany dismissed the President’s suggestion that the global pact could be revised. In a joint statement, they said: ‘We firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated, since it is a vital instrument for our planet.’

Greenpeace UK has reacted with anger. The environmental organisation said: ‘The government that launched the Apollo space programme and help found the UN has turned its back on science and international co-operation.’

Continue reading →

Standard
Government, Politics, Scotland

General Election: Jeremy Corbyn, pragmatism and progressive politics

LABOUR PARTY

Jeremy Corvyn

Jeremy Corbyn has ruled out an alliance with the Scottish National Party if there is a hung parliament following the general election. His stance could change if he finds himself in the position of forming a government.

Intro: Jeremy Corbyn insists he will not do a deal with the Scottish National Party at Westminster. But, if there is a hung parliament, circumstances should dictate that he reconsiders. Pragmatism may have to override principle.

Politics has a habit of delivering the unexpected. But sometimes, particularly in the current political climate, we should be ready to apply pragmatism as a means of moving forward.

Anyone who has followed the long political career of Jeremy Corbyn will not have been overly surprised at his remarks concerning the possibility of striking a deal at Westminster with the Scottish National Party following the general election.

Mr Corbyn reiterated that there will be ‘no deals’ and ‘no alliance’. He has given an almost steadfast pledge that he is not willing to consider Nicola Sturgeon’s overtures.

Politically, of course, it is perfectly understandable why the Labour leader has maintained his position. By ruling out any alliance with the SNP, he is giving potential Labour voters in Scotland good reason to back his own party. Were he to have signalled the possibility of doing a deal, that proportion of the electorate would likely go against their instincts. Politics is not about giving rivals an advantage to your own detriment.

Mr Corbyn, a hard left-leaning socialist, is a man of principle who has remained true to his ideals for decades. Some within his party perceive that as damaging stubbornness, but it remains universally fundamental to his vision of politics.

But waging election battles and governing are worlds apart. With all opinion polls cutting Theresa May’s lead, there is every chance that Mr Corbyn could find himself in a position where he could be required to form a government with the support of the SNP. If that scenario did come to pass, he would be invited to take a different path to the one he has been advocating up until now.

If he were to reject that, the Conservatives would be returned to power and Labour voters would never forgive him for not removing a government that has caused them great hardship. Austerity has reduced many to seek desperate help from food banks, with many unable to make ends meet. Idealism during the election campaign is fine and well, but he has not been in this position before. If the Labour leader wishes to take the mantle of power, he will likely have to adopt a much more pragmatic approach.

Such an alliance with the SNP would raise other issues. A second independence referendum in Scotland would become a prerequisite and condition of agreeing to do a deal with Labour. The SNP would be expected to pursue progressive policies in any alliance, so it wouldn’t just be a dilemma for Mr Corbyn. Any reversal of promises made by Ms Sturgeon would likely lead to the SNP facing a torrent of criticism.

Political history matters, too, particularly in relation to the mistakes of the past. The SNP have surely learnt the lessons of what transpired after it failed to back Labour in 1979.

Standard