Stop Cutting Costs Everywhere: The Single Systemic Fix for Britain’s Spending Crisis

 

Stop Cutting Costs Everywhere: The Single Systemic Fix for Britain’s Spending Crisis

For busy readers, here is the cure: The chronic financial instability of low income and high expenditure can be resolved immediately by abandoning the policy of forcing all government departments to cut costs equally. Instead, the government must adopt a scientific, single-focus strategy: Identify the one or two critical bottlenecks (constraints) that prevent the state from delivering mandated services (public value), and flood only those bottlenecks with resources.

This may require accepting that non-critical departments operate at "inefficient" local levels, but the overall system output—the public value delivered for every pound spent—will rise dramatically, closing the fiscal gap without punitive tax hikes or abandoning social mandates. This is a breakthrough solution, not a compromise.

---

The Problem: A Vicious Cycle of Waste

The UK faces a chronic fiscal imbalance where government expenditure currently exceeds 45% of GDP, vastly outpacing the historical taxation ceiling of 37-38% of GDP . Our political discourse is trapped in a constant conflict: parties argue over whether to raise taxes (deemed economically capped) or to slash essential services (Welfare, Health, Education) .

This oscillation between high social demand and the imperative to cut budgets is not a reflection of ineptitude, but of a fundamental flaw in how we think about management—a flaw rooted in the belief that efficiency must be pursued everywhere.

The root cause of the recurring financial crisis and the constant failure to meet public mandates lies in this outdated management thinking—the ingrained habit of maximizing "local efficiency" within departmental silos (the "Cost World" paradigm).

In government, this looks like:

1. Universal Cost Cutting: Every department, whether it is a bottleneck or not, is told to reduce its Operating Expense (OE). This is done even though such indiscriminate cuts damage the overall ability of the system to deliver services (Throughput).
2. Focus on Symptoms: When public services fail (e.g., hospital waiting lists balloon, or infrastructure projects stall), the immediate, reactive political response is to treat the symptom by throwing money at the affected area temporarily, but this rarely addresses the underlying cause, leading to the symptom's recurrence.
3. Conflict in Performance: Departments focus on meeting their own budget goals, inadvertently undermining the performance of other critical services because they fail to support the system’s weakest link.

The Breakthrough: Focusing on the Weakest Link

The solution, derived from applying scientific cause-and-effect analysis (known as the Thinking Process) to complex systems, shifts the goal from minimizing cost to maximizing the rate of public value delivered (Throughput).

This strategy is based on the simple common sense observation that every system is like a chain: its overall strength is determined solely by its weakest link (the constraint).

The Four Steps to Fiscal Stability:

1. Identify the Constraint: Locate the one policy, procedure, or specific capacity shortage that currently limits the government's ability to maximize Throughput. In a service-oriented democracy, this is often a policy constraint, such as the hospital discharge policy preventing bed availability, or long administrative processing times preventing infrastructure delivery.
2. Exploit the Constraint: Ensure that this constraint resource operates at maximum efficiency, with no downtime, wasted time, or mistakes.
3. Subordinate Everything Else: Crucially, align all other departments to support the constraint, even if it means non-constraint resources have to idle or operate below their theoretical efficiency. For example, if bureaucratic planning is the bottleneck, the injection is to subordinate all administrative timelines to support the maximum pace the planning department can sustain. Spending money on non-constrained areas (e.g., doubling the capacity of non-bottleneck doctors or teachers) provides almost zero benefit to the overall system output.
4. Elevate Strategically: Only after steps 2 and 3 are maximized should the government invest in increasing the capacity of the constraint itself. This means that the billions currently spent broadly (such as the £181bn on General Welfare or £94bn on Education are redirected and prioritized only toward solutions that demonstrably increase the Throughput of the single bottleneck, creating a massive leverage point.

This approach guarantees that every taxpayer's pound provides the greatest increase in public service delivery possible, enabling the government to fulfill its progressive social mandates without accumulating crippling debt. It replaces constant firefighting—treating symptoms—with strategic action focused on the underlying cause.

---

Decentralized Convergence: Market, Data, and Citizen Injections to Break the Darwin Trap

Decentralized Convergence: Market, Data, and Citizen Injections to Break the Darwin Trap

The alternative approach, rooted in the Theory of Constraints (TOC) logic, is to focus on decentralized, self-reinforcing mechanisms that change the cost/benefit calculation for nations without requiring them to surrender fundamental sovereignty.

Here are three alternative, workable "Injections" designed to overcome the Darwin Trap by leveraging technology, market forces, and internal political dynamics.

Overcoming the Darwin Trap: Three Decentralized Injections

The goal remains to align Individual Rationality with the Global Optimum by making destructive behavior more expensive and cooperative behavior more beneficial, all without a single coercive super-body.

---

Injection 1: The "Digital Earth" Accountability Protocol (DEAP)

This injection addresses the problem of transparency and trust by using decentralized, unassailable data to make non-cooperation globally visible and costly.

• Mechanism: Establish a global, open-source data infrastructure (using technologies like satellite imagery, remote sensing, and potentially distributed ledger technology/blockchain) to autonomously, continuously, and objectively monitor all high-impact global behaviors (e.g., carbon emissions, illegal fishing, deforestation, nuclear material production).

• Logic: Information is Power/Constraint. Currently, powerful nations can hide or dispute their destructive actions. DEAP removes the ability to hide or lie. By making environmental and security data immutable, universally accessible, and independently verifiable, the system forces the cost of non-cooperation to be borne via global reputation, financial risk, and domestic political pressure, rather than by an external enforcement body. A country doesn't "sign up" or "surrender power"; its activities are simply measured and reported as a fact of the physical world.

• How it Works: Any nation, NGO, or commercial entity could use this data to inform their own actions—be it an investor divesting from a polluting nation or citizens organizing against a government whose destructive behavior is now undeniable.

---

Injection 2: The "Trade-Linked" Carbon/Sustainability Tariff (TL-CST)

This injection addresses the problem of economic incentives by turning trade policy into a self-adjusting mechanism that favors global optimization.

• Mechanism: Introduce a standardized, transparent Trade-Linked Carbon/Sustainability Tariff (TL-CST)applied at the border of participating nations. The tariff level is directly tied to the importing nation's established domestic standards and the exporting nation's verified performance (measured by DEAP) on environmental impact and human rights. It's effectively a border adjustment tax that internalizes global externalities.

• Logic: Market Forces Drive Compliance. Instead of an international body enforcing penalties, individual nations (or trade blocs like the EU) use their existing trade sovereignty to create economic pressure. If Nation A fails to meet global standards (high emissions, illegal fishing), its exports to Nation B face a higher tariff. This cost is borne by the exporting nation's producers, who will then pressure their own government for policy change to maintain competitiveness. The system is decentralized and leverages the most powerful constraint: access to global markets.

• How it Works: Nations compete not only on price but also on sustainability performance. The tariff is a financial incentive to clean up or cooperate, making "sacrificing" short-term, destructive growth (Individual Rationality) less profitable than pursuing sustainable growth (Global Optimum).

---

Injection 3: The "Citizen-Sovereignty" Electoral Mechanism (CS-EM)

This injection addresses the problem of political will by introducing a dynamic that allows domestic populations to directly exert pressure on global issues.

• Mechanism: Focus on standardizing and promoting a global electoral practice where elected officials are legally bound to report annually on their government's compliance with self-declared international commitments (e.g., Paris Agreement goals, non-proliferation treaties). Furthermore, promote the inclusion of "Global Commons" referenda or ballot initiatives in national elections, allowing citizens to vote directly on specific, high-stakes global issues.

• Logic: Aligning Domestic Interests. In a democracy, political leaders are constrained by the will of their voters. By formally linking a leader's domestic mandate to their global accountability, this system allows the "global citizen" to exert political pressure through the domestic electoral process. Even in non-democratic nations, making international commitments a formalized report subject to public scrutiny increases the internal political cost for leaders who break promises, as it undermines their domestic legitimacy.

• How it Works: This bypasses the need for super-national coercion by empowering national electoratesto hold their own governments accountable for global commitments, making the "Individual Rationality" of the politician (getting re-elected/staying in power) align with Global Optimum.

Critique of the ONS 2024 Public Sector Management Practices Survey Pilot

🔍 TOC Critique of the ONS 2024 Public Sector Management Practices Survey Pilot

---

🧠 1. What Is the Real System Goal?

The implicit goal of public sector management is to:

Deliver consistent, high-quality public services through effective and adaptive management.

Everything else—KPIs, tech, staff training—should serve this.

---

🚨 2. Identified UDEs (Undesirable Effects)

From the report, we can extract several UDEs:

• management improvements are slow or stalled

• frontline managers lack time and capacity to improve

• high volume of ad hoc, reactive work

• resistance to change and innovation

• admin tasks are delayed or incomplete

• operational pressure dominates strategy

• budget constraints block investment

• automation is underutilized

These are all valid observations, but in TOC terms, they are symptoms, not root causes.

---

🧱 3. Core Error: Mistaking Local Constraints for the System Constraint

The report identifies "barriers" like cost, time, resistance, and capacity—but treats them all as separate, equal obstacles.

From a TOC perspective, this is flawed.

👉 TOC Principle:

Every system has one constraint that determines its performance. Improving anything else won't improve the system unless the constraint is addressed.

In this report, the constraint is assumed to be capacity or funding.

But TOC would dig deeper.

---

🎯 4. What Is the Likely Core Constraint?

TOC suggests the core constraint is not money or time, but:

The reactive, fragmented operating model that prevents time from being allocated to improvement in a protected, systemic way.

In other words:

• Managers could find time or resources if they weren’t constantly fighting fires.

• Admin overload, ad hoc requests, and daily operational chaos consume capacity that could go to improvement.

This is a vicious cycle:

• No time to improve → systems stay broken → firefighting continues → still no time.

---

🔁 5. Circular Logic in the Recommendations

The report says:

“We need to build capacity and make time for managers to improve.”

But this is circular:

• You can’t build capacity without freeing time.

• You can’t free time without fixing the broken processes.

• You can’t fix processes because there’s no time.

So nothing changes.

TOC breaks this loop by identifying the one leverage point that, if resolved, breaks the cycle.

---

⚖️ 6. TOC Conflict Cloud: Why the System Is Stuck

Element	Description
A – Goal	Improve management practices to increase public service effectiveness
B – Need	Maintain operational continuity and responsiveness
C – Need	Dedicate protected time and resources to improve systems
D – Action	Keep responding to ad hoc requests and daily demands (short-term survival)
D′ – Action	Invest time and attention in structured management improvement (long-term gain)

This is the core conflict the report doesn’t surface.

Without dissolving this, no cultural, technological, or financial investment will stick.

---

🔧 7. The Missing Injection

TOC would propose a decisive injection like:

Create “improvement windows” protected by policy, where managers are shielded from ad hoc demands and given authority, tools, and facilitation to improve a local process.

This would:

• Shift the system from reactive to proactive in a focused way

• Create proof points where improvement is real and visible

• Build momentum and cultural trust in improvement

• Require no new funding, just protected time

Until this exists, no training, KPI review, or tech adoption will break the inertia.

---

❌ 8. Why the Report’s Recommendations Won’t Work (TOC View)

Recommendation	TOC Flaw
Strategic investment	Doesn’t solve the constraint—investments will be consumed by firefighting unless system changes first
Capacity building	Adds pressure if time isn’t freed up first; risks frustration
Cultural transformation	Depends on behavior change without removing systemic pressure
Streamlining admin	Helps, but only after root causes of workflow chaos are addressed
Managing ad hoc work	Recognizes the issue but provides no mechanism to stop it
Continued measurement	Important, but measuring broken systems won’t improve them

---

💡 9. Positive TOC-Inspired Reframe

Let’s reimagine this initiative using TOC:

🧭 Injection:

Install Local Process Improvement Sprints, supported centrally but protected from operational noise.

🚦 Necessary Conditions:

• Each team gets 2 hours/week “firewall time” to redesign or fix one process.

• No new tools—just focus on removing rework, duplicate approvals, or handoffs.

• Leadership measures success not by number of projects but permanent reduction in interruptions and measurable local gains.

• HR/central teams act as facilitators—not compliance monitors.

🔄 Positive Loop Created:

• Managers get quick wins → feel ownership → reduce chaos → free more time

• Staff see benefits → reduce resistance → volunteer improvement ideas

• Less firefighting → more improvement → more capacity → improved service

---

📌 Final TOC Summary: Why the ONS Report Won’t Solve the Problem

Problem	TOC View
Focuses on symptoms	Doesn’t isolate the true system constraint
Suggests broad initiatives	Lacks precise injection to break vicious cycle
Treats all barriers equally	No prioritization = no leverage
Depends on capacity growth	Ignores why capacity is trapped in the first place
Misses conflict	No conflict cloud = no clear resolution path

---

🗣️ Final Thought

Big institutions often miss the constraint because they try to fix everything. TOC teaches us that true change begins when we fix the one thing that governs the rest.

Despite its scale and institutional credibility, this report and proposed interventions that are necessary but not sufficient to produce lasting improvement.

Appendix

The "Public Sector Management Practices Survey pilot, UK: 2023" (released by the Office for National Statistics in October 2024) was a groundbreaking initiative. It represented the first time the ONS systematically captured information on management practices specifically within the UK public sector, adapting a survey instrument (the Management and Expectations Survey - MES) previously used for private firms.

Here's a summary of the paper and its key findings, particularly focusing on the identified barriers to improvement:

Summary of the Paper:

The pilot survey aimed to:

• Establish a baseline: Provide an initial measurement of management practices across various UK public sector organizations (excluding local healthcare units for quality reasons).
• Test the survey instrument: Assess the applicability and effectiveness of the existing private sector management practices questionnaire in the public sector context.
• Identify drivers and barriers: Begin to understand what influences management quality and what hinders its improvement in public services.

The survey covered four key dimensions of management practices:

• Continuous improvement: How well organizations monitor and adapt to unexpected situations.
• Key performance indicators (KPIs): How many and how frequently they are reviewed.
• Targets: How targets are set, tracked, and reviewed.
• Employment practices: Processes of promotion, management, and training of employees.

Key Findings:

• Overall Management Score: The average management practice score across the UK public sector was found to be 0.56 (on a scale of 0 to 1), with a median of 0.57. This was generally similar to the private sector average of 0.55 from the MES 2023.
• Sectoral Variation: Police and fire service organizations had the highest median management practice score (0.69), while education organizations had the lowest (0.57).
• Size Matters: Public sector organizations with more employees tended to have higher management practice scores.
• Technology Adoption: Organizations with higher management practice scores were more likely to adopt technology, including artificial intelligence, and viewed automation as a way to deliver work differently.
• Barriers to Improvement: This was a significant focus, and the survey highlighted that only about 19% of public sector organizations reported facing no barriers to improving how they were managed, compared with almost one-third (32%) of private sector organizations.

Identified Barriers to Improvement:

The report specifically highlighted the following as the most common perceived barriers to improving management practices in the public sector:

1. Cost (58% of organizations): This was the most frequently cited barrier. Public sector organizations often face significant budget constraints, making it difficult to allocate resources for management training, process improvements, or the adoption of new technologies that could enhance management practices.
2. Too Little Time (41% of organizations): Managers often feel they lack the dedicated time to think about or implement improvements to their management practices. This is particularly acute in public-facing sectors like education and healthcare, where day-to-day service delivery pressures dominate.
3. Lack of Capacity and Financial Resources: This is closely related to "cost" but extends to the availability of staff to undertake improvement initiatives, or the funding to bring in external expertise. Managers in qualitative research emphasized this, especially in public-facing sectors with high operational demands.
4. Resistance to Change and Unwillingness of Staff to Learn New Things: Mentioned by some managers, this barrier points to cultural or human factors that can impede the adoption of new or improved management practices. Even when organizations are open to change, the pressure to maintain daily productivity can make innovation challenging.
5. Lack of Resource for Administration Work (66% of organizations): While administration tasks are seen as essential, a significant proportion of public sector organizations reported not being able to complete them on time due to a lack of resources. This directly impacts efficiency and the ability to dedicate time to strategic management improvements.
6. Ad Hoc Work Requests (56% of organizations): Frequent, unplanned, or ad hoc requests disrupt workflow and make it difficult for public sector organizations to plan and dedicate time to systematic improvements. This is particularly noted in frontline services like health, education, fire, and police.

Implications and Suggestions:

The findings from this pilot survey implicitly suggest several areas for focus to improve public sector management and, by extension, productivity:

• Strategic Investment: Acknowledge and address the financial and time constraints faced by public sector organizations. This may require more strategic, long-term investment in management development and operational improvement initiatives.
• Capacity Building: Develop programs and resources specifically designed to build the capacity of public sector managers to implement change and improve processes, even amidst daily pressures.
• Cultural Transformation: Work towards fostering a culture that embraces continuous improvement, innovation, and learning within the public sector, addressing resistance to change through effective communication and stakeholder engagement.
• Streamlining Administration: Invest in automation and process streamlining for administrative tasks to free up valuable time and resources for more strategic management activities.
• Addressing Ad Hoc Demands: Examine ways to manage and perhaps reduce the impact of ad hoc work requests, allowing for more predictable planning and execution of improvement efforts.
• Continued Measurement and Benchmarking: The pilot highlights the value of continuing to measure management practices in the public sector to track progress, identify areas of strength and weakness, and allow for benchmarking against both private sector and international public sector organizations.