91Èȱ¬

Some more on John Prescott. He gets a hard time because of his self-confessed difficulties with the English language, but to be fair to him he's a model of clarity compared to some much more incomprehensible attempts at communication - for example in research which his own officials have commissioned.

Back in March the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (as it then was) responded to a 91Èȱ¬ freedom of information request for copies of unpublished research.

They sent two draft reports on regional assemblies policy which had been commissioned from Salford University. Here is one report's first 'key recommendation':

'Analysis of the strategic fit of policy involves examining regional needs in relation to emerging policy from the centre. It also concerns the central analysis of the tensions between vertical improvement and horizontal integration in terms of the cross-cutting impact of policy and effect of variable commitment between OGDs.'

The reports carry on in much the same way:

'Successful policy making links context and interpretations to organisational problems and the proposed solutions embedded in the policy itself'.

They draw attention to problems caused by officials who are 'internally focused on processual issues', and stress the need for 'varied intelligence being incorporated into policy responses', 'foresight processes', 'the role of interpretive flexibility', and 'a sense of provisional orientation'.

And by the way, 'policy making is often characterised by misalignments and duplication rather than identifying overlaps and interrelationships.'

It sometimes falls to journalists to have to read through apparently impenetrable reports in the search for stories. I have to confess that in this case these reports defeated me, and I gave up. If you fear I might have missed anything interesting, you can check for yourself - the ODPM on their website (now part of the Department for Communities and Local Government).

So what did John Prescott's officials make of all this? The ODPM told the 91Èȱ¬: 'The contract for the research that produced these projects was terminated early in September 2005. ODPM considers parts of the material in these draft reports to be of poor quality in terms of their use of evidence and the style in which they are written.'

But back to the Salford University reports for one last moment of illumination. If you don't know the difference between 'frameworks for action' and 'frameworks in action', all is now explained:

'Frameworks for action refer to those understandings that can be read off from formal policy prescriptions and the intentions of policy-makers in terms of how they anticipate they will transform actions at a distance in different locations. Frameworks in action, on the other hand, are concerned with the practicalities of making policy work in particular local and regional contexts. A failure to understand the relationship between these two frameworks leads to a significant reduction in the effectiveness and efficiency of both policy conception and execution.'

So please don't get them confused again.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?