This is a fascinating article.
It is interesting that the reporting of politics and indeed the view of the opposition is often inevitably short term (how could it be otherwise), with suggestions that the government has spent a lot of money with few outcomes. The reality is that whole scale change and investment would not impact on services straight away, how could it?
If Cameron becomes the next (but one) Prime Minister, at first he will probably take credit for reforms that are seeping through now, and as he starts to initiate changes at first they will be welcomed, but inevitably he will be castigated for non-achievement.
This has been the lot of government after government, but it does mean there is no long term view, there is no sense of seeing tasks through, too much of the business of government is about change for the sake of change, without a process of consolidation, review or genuine debate about long term planning.
This is an increasing issue given 24hr news programmes

Gareth Young, Redditch, Worcs, United Kingdom

Barber is thought to have coined the phrase ‘ standards not structures’‘ so beloved of Blairs first administration, now repeated somewhat surprisingly by the Tory education team. At some point along the way though they decided after all that structures are important, and realised that increased investment though necessary is not sufficient in itself to improve performance . So the Government began freeing up the supply side in education but late in the day. Where Barber and his political masters failed was in creating a transformative culture throughout public services in which those responsible for delivery understood what was required of them, bought into the idea and were incentivised to deliver. Indeed few would argue that real contestability currently exists in the supply side . Certainly not in education and children’s services. So, Barber left behind a mixed legacy.

patrick watson, london, united kingdom

The mention of a "Delivery Unit" reminds me that such ideas are ultimately self-destructive. Ideas like this crop up all the time in business. They aim to promote some good, or restrain some harm, and to begin with, they work, but over time some people learn to game the system, and others come to confuse meeting numeric goals with successful performance.

So from an initial good idea - have goals and measure results - comes the spin doctor who dresses up bad outcomes as good, who announces spending three times, who slips out bad news on 9/11, who confuses increased spending with better service.

I call this the "system fallacy"; the notion that a structure by itself can improve delivery, when in the end it is down to the performance of the individual or the team.

jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/US