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!
|