OurKingdom is running a short series of posts looking at various aspects of local government - you can read the series in full here.
Amelia Cookson (London, Local Government Information Unit): Though it goes against every grain of my being, I think that it might be true: things really are getting better. Well, maybe not with the economy. And the climate might be a write-off. But for the first time in a long time, local government is on the up.
Let's make a distinction, first off, between the word on the street, and the received wisdom of those who speak the language of politics and government. It takes time for changes in government to sink through into public consciousness. You can still hear people talk about the DHSS - now already on a second name change. Any sea change in local government may need a decade to translate into public perception.
But in the world of government, <!--more-->there is already something close to agreement that local government is "the best performing part of government." Oft cited, little understood, the Audit Commission's inspection system is used for the league table of council performance. And though the Treasury issued an edict demanding that the inspection system become harder, councils have continued to rise to the top of ratings. The system is deeply flawed, but it is a test nonetheless, and a test that councils are excelling at. The National Audit Office's new system of inspecting Whitehall departments was much kinder, and several Departments still got a pasting.
At the same time, talk of devolution, though easily scorned, really has brought changes. They may be small, but they are creating momentum. George Jones may despair of local partnerships, but they are drifting towards accountability. It is now uncontroversial to talk of the council as first among equals and the accountable body in the local area - entirely right in a democratic system. Local Area Agreements may still be impenetrable to the public, but they are becoming increasingly penetrable for politicians. And if we believe in democracy then this is a perfectly legitimate way of improving transparency. Partners now consider political priorities as key building blocks to local strategies. Politicians take a lead in partnerships, and scrutiny powers have been given over other public bodies with some history of being cavalier about accounting for their movements.
And for both partnerships and performance management, there has been a quiet revolution in top down bureaucracy. Slowly but surely, the patchwork quilt of targets and plans, grants and guidance, is becoming clearer, simpler and much, much smaller - opening the door to local innovation.
There is still a hurdle, a major one, but one which will be overcome: Sir Michael Lyons called it the "sense of powerfulness in local government." Local government has been a victim, whether it deserved it or not is not for today. But it need not feel itself a victim any longer. If performance can improve, the public will respect it again, one day. If central government can release the reins a little, it will release them a lot, one day. Local government just needs to see that horizon and raise its chin a bit. Look up, there's a better day coming.
Comments
Amelia, you may be suffering from the “Pollyanna Complex” but I won’t hold that against you. I am afraid I can’t recognise local government being “on the up”.
Local government has never been more centrally commanded than it is at the moment. There has never been so many central government “initiatives” that require Councils to make the correct choice from a list of choices; that is, the choice that has the central government money attached to it.
“Let’s make a distinction, first off, between the word on the street, and the received wisdom of those who speak the language of politics and government”. We the people are so sorry that we are thick in the head and don’t understand what is going on. We don’t understand all these complex organisations that have been set up for our benefit, we just pay for them.
“Local government is “the best performing part of government.” Did you mean the least bad part of government? The Audit Commission and the National Audit Office - both organisations that have a problem keeping a track on their own employee’s expense accounts – have a vested interest in keeping the taxpayers money-go-round expanding. Nobody gets the sack with a bad report, just re-organised.
Local government has no power to change anything another QUANGO is doing, “scrutiny” is a joke, and it changes little, just like our Westminster Parliament.
The power is where the money is, always has been, always will be. Until local government raises the vast majority of its money locally, it will continue to be the local operating division of central government and obey its diktats. When it does, you may find that local Councillors may be reluctant to pay for LAAs; MAAs; LSPs etc; and, the £2.8 million they are paying to likes of the LGIU.
Amelia
I am not an expert on local government; for instance I wouldn't know what a "Local Area Agreement" was if it fell on me.
However, I do belong to a campaign group extolling the virtues of bottom up, citizen driven governance.
Within that context, I only have one question/comment to put with regard to your article.
Who controls the funding?
Does the optimistic picture you paint extend to a realisation in the heady atmosphere of Whitehall, that the strength of local government, in terms of its relevance to ordinary people, can be calculated in direct proportion to its fiscal independance.
When we see the sacrosanct concept of tax raising revenues being devolved to more localised levels on the government's mainstream agenda, I will begin to share your mood of general optimism. Until that "sea change" in central government thinking happens, the rest of your dialogue is simply wishful thinking (and I am being sympathetic to your message - many others here will no doubt treat it with utter derision).
I'm not suggesting the situation is ideal, or that there aren't serious problems to be addressed, our centralised system being one of them.
And I'm not saying people who don't work in government can't understand it, but you will be arguing long and hard to convince me that most people do. Not because they are thick, but because they have other interests, and because our system is monumentally complex. I don't understand banking, but why should I? That's someone else's job.
But I will not be swayed on this basic point: sometimes things do get better. Painfully slowly, and agonisingly tortuously, but the path is up. And if anyone is serious about improving what we have, they will be far more successful if they can see the opportunities (no matter how small) and build on them. Local government has been held back by negativity. If it sits around waiting for an overnight revolution, nothing will ever change. And if it keeps critisizing instead of doing it will reinforce the cycle that keeps it subservient to whitehall and westminster.
Post new comment