Total Place appears to be the phrase which dare not speak its name, judging by its absence in the coalition government ‘manifesto’ last week, and by its similar non-appearance in the Osborne/Laws first round of cuts and the Queen’s Speech this week.
But its presence is undoubtedly there, under the surface, and it remains as relevant now as it was 12 months ago. If, as we are constantly reminded, we are to make the biggest public sector cuts in living memory, then transformation rather than salami-slicing has to be the reponse, and Total Place is at its core.
The local government sector certainly regards it as relevant. A week after the new CLG ministerial team was confirmed, the first event looking at the next steps for Total Place occurred.
A second was organised earlier this week, under the auspices of the Leadership Centre. Feedback from the events was that as a ‘brand’, Total Place is likely to be renamed, but as a concept, will continue, assuming a) local government pursues it energetically, and b) it matches the new coalition priorities.
There are, however, some early concerns that Total Place – or its successor – still appears in Whitehall to be seen as a CLG matter, when its real impact has to be cross-sector. Ring-fencing health and school budgets is hardly likely to encourage them to adopt a Total Place philosophy either.
For example, the CLG has a minister, Greg Clark (see interview on page 6), responsible for decentralisation. This is the only minister with such a title across Whitehall, even though any discussion of cross-sector working invariably involves criticism of the centralised NHS or Work and Pensions, or the Home Office. It was Lord Bichard at last week’s Total Place event who remarked that we would end up with the worst of both worlds if we merely ‘decentralised in silos.’
The pooling of resources around outcomes has to be an objective, however long-term, of all public sector managers, despite the obstacles, such as culture, funding regimes and lack of standardised terms and conditions. But the new government must not make it even harder by persisting with the old models.
Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ
Wednesday 26 May 2010
Wednesday 19 May 2010
The new team gets to work
So the state of the public deficit is worse than expected, according to the incoming Treasury ministerial team.
Well, what a surprise. As sure as night follows day, it was inevitable that accusations of Labour ‘extravagance’ would emerge once the new government had its feet under the desk. And it all makes sensible politics – blame the predecessors for the bad news you are about to announce. A new government only gets this one chance, and it wants to milk it.
And there is nothing unusual about Liam Byrne’s outgoing joke to his successor that the Treasury cupboard is bare. The same message was left by outgoing Tory chancellor, Reginald Maudling, to his successor, Jim Callaghan, when Labour ended 13 years of Conservative rule in 1964.
More importantly, is how local government will fare in the inevitable slashing of departmental spending over the next few weeks, up to and including the June emergency Budget. The fact that Labour did well in the local elections paradoxically makes it easier for the coalition government to wield the axe. It was always going to be problematic for Mr Cameron to reward his foot soldiers in the shires, until 6 May, overwhelmingly dominating local government, by cutting their budgets. Now that Labour has made inroads back into its traditional heartlands in London and the mets, his government may be less concerned about the impact of its spending reductions.
Much also depends on the new ministerial team at the CLG. First, they are all experienced in local government as well as holding the shadow brief. Bob Neill, in particular, like Nick Raynsford in 1997, is a knowledgeable advocate of the sector. Unlike Mr Raynsford, who was banished initially to being construction minister, Mr Neill has been given his brief from day one, which is promising.
However, the new government may also be less keen about its devolution pledges. The scale of Labour’s fightback on 6 May, while predicted because of high turnout, nonetheless came as a surprise. The prospect of the coalition government now eagerly devolving powers to its political opponents becomes less believable.
Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ
Well, what a surprise. As sure as night follows day, it was inevitable that accusations of Labour ‘extravagance’ would emerge once the new government had its feet under the desk. And it all makes sensible politics – blame the predecessors for the bad news you are about to announce. A new government only gets this one chance, and it wants to milk it.
And there is nothing unusual about Liam Byrne’s outgoing joke to his successor that the Treasury cupboard is bare. The same message was left by outgoing Tory chancellor, Reginald Maudling, to his successor, Jim Callaghan, when Labour ended 13 years of Conservative rule in 1964.
More importantly, is how local government will fare in the inevitable slashing of departmental spending over the next few weeks, up to and including the June emergency Budget. The fact that Labour did well in the local elections paradoxically makes it easier for the coalition government to wield the axe. It was always going to be problematic for Mr Cameron to reward his foot soldiers in the shires, until 6 May, overwhelmingly dominating local government, by cutting their budgets. Now that Labour has made inroads back into its traditional heartlands in London and the mets, his government may be less concerned about the impact of its spending reductions.
Much also depends on the new ministerial team at the CLG. First, they are all experienced in local government as well as holding the shadow brief. Bob Neill, in particular, like Nick Raynsford in 1997, is a knowledgeable advocate of the sector. Unlike Mr Raynsford, who was banished initially to being construction minister, Mr Neill has been given his brief from day one, which is promising.
However, the new government may also be less keen about its devolution pledges. The scale of Labour’s fightback on 6 May, while predicted because of high turnout, nonetheless came as a surprise. The prospect of the coalition government now eagerly devolving powers to its political opponents becomes less believable.
Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ
Wednesday 5 May 2010
Time to fasten the safety belts
Industrial-strength seat belts need to be ordered for all local government managers from next week, ready to face the biggest roller-coaster ride of their careers.
Their challenges are not only in tackling the long-awaited spending cuts but also its consequences, such as maintaining morale when staff are being reduced, dealing with a public angry at the loss of some of their cherished services, and protecting the good brand name of their council under fire from local media and opposition councillors.
The question is, how prepared council managers and staff are for the downturn, and whether the public are ready for the impact on their services. Certainly, the election campaign has cast little light on the issue.
As the recent Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS)’ study showed, all politicians have been telling porkies about what they intend to do with the public finances, promising on the one hand, to slash billions off spending, while on the other, maintain frontline services. While cynics have long ago dismissed ‘efficiency’ savings as a smokescreen to confuse the voter, politicians continue to infer that cuts will come from the back office rather than the front, and that, therefore, the imminent fiscal ‘adjustment’ will be tough but bearable. The voters, however, have certainly had ample warning from studies such as the IFS and in the media that this is anything but the case – assuming they choose to give them attention.
Either way, local government managers will find themselves squeezed between a rock and a hard place. An incoming chancellor is almost certain to claim the finances are worse than envisaged, blame his or her predecessor, and impose swingeing spending cuts and tax rises in an emergency Budget. Council managers will be dealing with internal budgetary challenges along with external hostility to ‘de-commissioning.’ Unions, striking over pay and redundancies, will add to the picture of disintegrating services.
But local government has grown used to dealing with declining budgets – tackling ever-rising demand has always been its remit, and it has beaten all other parts of the public sector over efficiency savings. It will rise to the challenge.
Their challenges are not only in tackling the long-awaited spending cuts but also its consequences, such as maintaining morale when staff are being reduced, dealing with a public angry at the loss of some of their cherished services, and protecting the good brand name of their council under fire from local media and opposition councillors.
The question is, how prepared council managers and staff are for the downturn, and whether the public are ready for the impact on their services. Certainly, the election campaign has cast little light on the issue.
As the recent Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS)’ study showed, all politicians have been telling porkies about what they intend to do with the public finances, promising on the one hand, to slash billions off spending, while on the other, maintain frontline services. While cynics have long ago dismissed ‘efficiency’ savings as a smokescreen to confuse the voter, politicians continue to infer that cuts will come from the back office rather than the front, and that, therefore, the imminent fiscal ‘adjustment’ will be tough but bearable. The voters, however, have certainly had ample warning from studies such as the IFS and in the media that this is anything but the case – assuming they choose to give them attention.
Either way, local government managers will find themselves squeezed between a rock and a hard place. An incoming chancellor is almost certain to claim the finances are worse than envisaged, blame his or her predecessor, and impose swingeing spending cuts and tax rises in an emergency Budget. Council managers will be dealing with internal budgetary challenges along with external hostility to ‘de-commissioning.’ Unions, striking over pay and redundancies, will add to the picture of disintegrating services.
But local government has grown used to dealing with declining budgets – tackling ever-rising demand has always been its remit, and it has beaten all other parts of the public sector over efficiency savings. It will rise to the challenge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
