I welcome the debate about joined up policy, it is very relevant. The
comments made have been thoughtful and interesting - that is partly what
the list is for isn't it?
Can I encourage the contributors to consider putting their ideas into some
short articles for the electronic journal of social issues. This is exactly
the kind of contemporary social issue that we want articles on.
http://www.whb.co.uk/socialissues
The full details of the journals requirements are on the web site.
Thanks
Phil Haynes
Senior Lecturer in Social Policy
Learning Technology Support Officer, Univ of Brighton.
(Production Editor - Social Issues)
> ----------
> From: Tim Clark[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To: Tim Clark
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 6:43 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Spicker's return
>
> 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!
>
|