This post is one of a series of reflections on the Right to Control Trailblazer work in Essex over the last few months. For an overview of the work, and an introduction to this post, please see the opening post of this series.

I've been surprised throughout the Trailblazer process by how little policy is spoken of. My perception is that people delivering services 'on the ground' think of policy happening elsewhere; in some cases, people think that policy doesn't affect them.

This strikes me as worrying, for 4 reasons.

The first is what it means for people's motivations. I think it is vital that people delivering a public service understand the "why?" as much as the "how?". If they have a framework within which they can understand their role, the purpose of the work they do, and the expectations that are required of them, then they are more likely to positively contribute to the delivery of that service. Policy is a vital part of creating that framework, so to think that it's something that happens elsewhere is to undermine one of the foundations for the success of service delivery or reform.

Not engaging in policy discussions means potentially missing out on service transformation. Engaging with what a policy is seeking to achieve is engaging with changing at every level the way a service is approached, delivered, and ultimately what the service is there to achieve. To take one example: you can think of adult social care as meeting the day to day needs of disabled and older people. Or you can think of adult social care as the means by which people, irrespective of age or impairment, can live independent and fulfilling lives. Without an eye on the policy, the potential for transformation is compromised.

The third reason is that not engaging with policy means focusing too much on process. It is easier for people to talk about things they know and to make small improvements to the stuff they do already. By not discussing and debating the policy approach (the "why?") it becomes easy to concentrate on the comfort of the "how?".

The final reason for worrying about a lack of policy discussion is that it exacerbates the central 'versus' local tension. This seems to me to be most pertinent in the opposite way to that we'd normally expect: at the level of central government. If local public agencies don't engage in the policy discussion then there could be a tendency at the centre to disengage from the implementation of that policy. This is unhelpful in several ways, not least of which is a potential lack of feedback about whether or not the policy is right, or ways in which the centre can act to facilitate successful implementation.

This post is one of a series of reflections on the Right to Control Trailblazer work in Essex over the last few months. For an overview of the work, and an introduction to this post, please see the opening post of this series.

The Right to Control Trailblazer learnt from one of the significant problems with the Individual Budget pilots and is looking to ensure there is a solid regulatory basis for the Trailblazers to start from. Indeed, dedicated Regulations for the Trailblazers will be in place before the Trailblazers begin delivery to the public later this year.

One significant challenge is aligning services in which some agencies have statutory obligations (such as adult social care) and others only discretionary choices (such as the Disabled Facilities Grant) - something the Regulations won't change. The concern here is that the statutory obligation trumps everything else - not just discretionary choices, but also a potentially innovative way of doing things.

It would be my argument that a Trailblazer is, by definition, the place for such innovations to be tested. To this end, any Regulations don't just have to be restrictive in the sense they limit what can be done. For me, they can also be enabling in order to give local agencies the chance to test if something works better than it does at present.

Without wishing to attract accusations of taking this blog too deeply up its own back passage, I feel compelled to admit that the on-and-off debate about whether a full-on techie life can help or hinder happy immersion in the world around us has led me into potentially dubious territory (regular readers - hi Mum! - will know that this follows on from a piece I wrote a while back, and Rich's more recent account of his own personal journey here).

By this I mean I'm beginning to suspect that the answer to all life's ills - from smoking, eating and drinking too much to (for all I know) the crisis in the Middle East and global pandemics - comes down to a slippery but seductive concept called... mindfulness.

I'm going out on a limb here because I honestly don't really know what mindfulness actually is. And I'm nervous because, as a committed rationalist, I have an in-built fear of anything that sounds or smells like it was thought up anywhere near a mountaintop by men and women in excessively baggy or too little clothing.

As far as I can tell from what little I've read, mindfulness is all about living in the here-and-now rather than in the future or the past, which sounds trite but when you actually realise this involves completely stopping focusing at all on goals and objectives is, frankly, terrifying.

One of the most interesting pieces I've come across so far in my quest to learn more is this, from the authors of The Mindful Manifesto, which I found appealing because it deals head on with the intersection between mindfulness and science.

Anyhow, I have no more to offer at this stage because there's no more I know! But if any of the more wonky of you out there are still feeling sceptical, just remember this: Geoff Mulgan, one-time top advisor to Blair, now director of the Young Foundation, and one of the few people to be mentioned in only positive terms in Alastair Campbell's diaries, trained as a Buddhist monk in Sri Lanka. I shit you not.