Today, Michael Fallon, Secretary of State for Defence, insisted that the target for immigration remained "tens of thousands", even when Martha Kearney suggested that with no deadline this was no more than an aspiration. Only a politician would try to argue that was a target. Any business person worth his or her salt would say that a target needs to be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time bound. That's "SMART" for short. Some people substitute other words, but the overall effect is the same.
The Tories' so-called target for immigration was certainly specific and measurable; that is why we know it has not been achieved. It certainly was not achievable, and they knew it when it was set up in the 2010 election, so long as we were in the EU. We can pass on relevancy, because that presupposes you know what the strategic outcome is supposed to be, although if it was simply to reduce immigration then the target is de facto the objective. But it was definitely not time-bound.
On that basis Martha Kearney was right; this is not a target worth speaking of, but it could be an aspiration. You don't need a plan for an aspiration, but you should have one for a target, and one that can be debated and argued over, or agreed upon by politicians and others.
So I conclude that Michael Fallon, and every other politician that sets up targets that are not SMART is a mealy-mouthed wriggling weasel who hopes to persuade the ignorant, and appease the converted while promising to do precisely nothing.
In Michael Fallon's case, as Secretary of State for Defence he should also ask his generals what they think of his definition of a target. I cannot imagine any responsible soldier setting targets for the troops that are not SMART. Imagine what would happen if the general staff issued orders stating that the target was to invade such-and-such a country (God help us, but just a hypothetical example), but without saying when, or where, or even why. That would not be SMART.
No comments:
Post a Comment