Like Osborne, local government should seek public input

June 11, 2010


Anna TurleyThe announcement where the £1.166bn savings are to be made in local government is just the first step in tackling the deficit, and local authorities are going to have to undertake some brave conversations with the public in dealing with the repercussions of making these savings.

In seeking wider input into his approach to reducing the budget deficit at national level, the chancellor George Osborne appears to be demonstrating that this coalition government has learnt one of the biggest lessons from the previous administration – namely, not to lose connection with the public in the decisions you make, or you risk their expectations becoming unrealistic, and your achievements never recognised.

While undoubtedly public service standards rose dramatically in the last ten years, the previous government received little recognition of this, as no amount of money invested, or performance-driven assessment, convinced the public that things were getting better.

This government is not only setting our expectations at rock-bottom with talk of “life-changing” cuts but is cleverly seeking our assent and collaboration to undertake what are going to be some of the most painful financial decisions in generations. It is making sure we have all signed the contract before we start to squeal. All in this together?

Legitimacy

Yet it is necessary for the legitimacy of democracy and for a sensible public debate that engaging the public is at the heart of this kind of difficult decision-making, and local government should take heed.

Local Authorities are already going to have to face up to making these difficult decisions, given that our sector will bear one fifth of the overall cuts, and together with the de-ringfencing of budgets, the axe has been put into local government hands whether we want it or not.

So local government should also be smart about how it brings the public with it when it makes those tough decisions, particularly because it is quite likely that the public are not aware how difficult things are going to be.

New research that NLGN has undertaken with Populus for our forthcoming publication Financial Horizons’ will demonstrate that 44% of the public thought local government services would be about the same quality in 18 months as now, and 24% thought that services would be even better. Only 32% thought that service quality would be worse in 18 months time.

Reputation

It will be particularly hard to bring the public with us in this debate, given the poor reputation of local government in the light of incidents such as the Baby Peter case, together with the lack of public understanding about the roles and responsibilities of local authorities, besides collecting bins.

Moreover, despite recent de-ringfencing of some budgets, the overall lack of financial wiggle room for local authorities means there remains limitation in which areas can be merged or sacrificed, and even less freedom in local government’s ability to raise money through other means.

Central government has been at pains to emphasise that cuts should protect frontline services. No-one would deny that there are plenty of savings that could be made through business transformation – through more shared services, better collaboration, reshaping the workforce, and local Total Place approaches.

However, this is still may not be enough in the years ahead, and local authorities need to prepare themselves for difficult decisions in redefining their role and the services they provide. And the public need to be prepared for this.

Yet in discussing the prioritisation of services, and areas for efficiencies, there are several issues that local authorities will have to take heed of, and this is where good local political leadership will ultimately be crucial in making decisions.

Response

The first is how you deal with the ‘tyranny of the majority’. Which is more likely to get a vociferous public response – the closure of a public library or a programme of support for domestic violence victims? Those most in need are often those with less of a voice.

Moreover, most council tax payers see little of where the greatest expenditure in local authority budgets goes. In the course of our research, one county council chief executive made it clear that, after efficiency savings, if the council was forced to make 10% cuts “you then genuinely have a situation where the public can’t see anything that they are getting for their money… only 13,000 adults get adult social care, there are only 800 looked-after children”.

We have to take care that in protecting crucial services for the vulnerable, we don’t lose the consent of the majority.

Much of the important work in the Total Place Pilots also point towards the downstream savings to be made by investment in early intervention and prevention. This will be vital to the long term efficiency and effectiveness of our public services.

Investment

However, this often requires upfront investment, and when priorities are having to be found, acute services are often already overwhelming and more likely to take priority. Preventative work is often less visible and the results longer term. It will difficult to expect this level of sophistication to come out in a public debate.

There is plenty of evidence, though, that with the right sort of engagement, the public will make well-considered decisions. In a recent MORI study, which engaged citizens in the financial challenges facing a local authority, participants at the start of the process wanted expenditure to increase on 21 of the council’s 23 budget options.

By the end of the discussion, it had reduced to 10 options, while the percentage who thought their council provided value for money increased from 26% to 69%.

This kind of consultation can be costly and take time, but will be crucial in bringing the public with us in the difficult times ahead.

Difficult and honest conversations with the public will be tough, but could just lead to a new era of more realistic public expectation, greater trust, and a more mature relationship between the citizen and the state.


Explore More