I meant that the "new" JUP is only an extension of the "old" rather than
being qualitatively different.
on 19/1/01 10:36 am, Tim Clark at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> I thought the people who think JUP has any 'new' aspect about it were in the
> red corner?
> tim clark
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: stuart.bowman <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 9:49 AM
> Subject: Re: Spicker's return
>
>
>> Yes, I also think these debates should be on the list. Otherwise what's
> the
>> point of the list?
>>
>> Isn't one of the new (or perhaps re-discovered) developments in JUP the
>> scale at which the joined-upness is happening.
>>
>> Much of the new JUP seems to be concerned with attempts to join up policy
>> development within central government. This could be argued to be part of
>> New labour's centralising agenda, bringing individual departments more
>> within the control of the cabinet office and prime minister's office.
>>
>> The JUP of the 80s and 90s, although encouraged (enforced?) by central
>> government, tended to actually happen at the local and regional levels as
>> expressed through, for example, local regeneration partnerships and in the
>> creation of regional government offices.
>>
>> In this sense, the "new" JUP could be said to be about scale, bringing
>> central government into the fold rather than a shift in any other sense.
>>
>> I think this is a blue corner contribution!
>>
>> Stuart Bowman
>> Big Issue in the North Trust
>>
>> on 18/1/01 6:43 pm, Tim Clark at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>
>>> Apologies to those who agree with BarbaraIQBAL but for myself, I believe
>>> this is exactly where these types of 'information exchanges' should take
>>> place- where everyone can see them and potentially use them. If the
>>> messages don't interest you then simply delete them.
>>>
>>> This is a further response to Paul Spicker's reply which I found
>>> stimulating (sorry about the blue corner- I thought about purple and
> pink
>>> but who wants to be pink!).
>>>
>>> I think this debate reflects much on the whole debate about new labour
> and
>>> their approach- the key question being is it really new. I certainly
> don't
>>> think JUP has just popped into existence and has surely fed from
> previous
>>> attempts in this area. However I think we might be in danger of getting
>>> sucked in to dating game on the term.
>>>
>>> I think part of the problem is although they talked about these things
>>> decades ago such goals were never realised and were dropped under the
> new
>>> right's agenda who thought the market could do all the joining so to
>>> speak. While this has not turned out to be reality (one only has to
> look
>>> what deregulation of the power industry has done to california who have
>>> just declared a state-wide state of emergency over the problem), new
>>> labour's desire to realise the goals and benefits of JUP remain as
>>> rhetorical as the talk was back then.
>>>
>>> While I suppose I sort of agree with the blue corner in that JUP is not
>>> new, ie. the concept of a JUP has been encountered before I do think the
>>> context is different and certainly the potential to develop a new policy
>>> model is there for the taking. As a discipline I believe we have learnt
>>> much from the conservative experiements and we can use these lessons to
>>> deepen the concept of JUP beyond just structural joined-upness to add a
>>> political joined-upness as well. Clearly I am not about to try and
> define
>>> this new JUP, thats what debates like this are for, but I think it
> begins
>>> by recognising inclusitivity at all levels.
>>>
>>> To sum up then I guess what is new about JUP is that if we develop
>>> the 'old' concept using our recent experience then this time we have a
>>> chance to succeed- and that would be new.
>>>
>>>
>>> PS. why don't we have a spell checker or something- everyone can see my
>>> terrible (I was going to say abismal) spelling and stuff!
>
|