The picture is getting clearer

As MPs break up for the summer after the most febrile political 10-week period in at least a decade, is there a picture emerging of the coalition government’s attitude towards local authorities?
Until a couple of weeks ago, I would have said it was confused. But, just as we were trying to make sense of [communities secretary] Eric Pickles’ provocative comments to the LGA conference – and in The MJ – about chief executive non jobs and [housing minister] Grant Shapps’ broadside against councillors’ expenses, up popped the health White Paper.
To those sceptics who believed the Department of Health would never yield an inch to local government, the White Paper was an eye-opener, promising new responsibilities. This was confirmed when Mr Pickles joined health secretary, Andrew Lansley, in an official launch last week, just to emphasise the joint role.
This week, Mr Pickles followed it with a speech to the LGA which, apart from his inadvertent leak about super-mayors in the forthcoming localism Bill, was stuffed with olive branches.
Referring to place-based budgeting, he said he ‘loved the idea’ but not the name, and criticised Total Place for not going far enough. He ended his address with: ‘I absolutely trust local government to deliver.’
Simultaneously, across Parliament Square, a few hundred metres away, decentralisation minister, Greg Clark, was also saying nice things about local government to a think-tank seminar. Indeed, when he was asked by one sceptic in the audience whether or not local government was ‘a large part of the problem’ in blocking community enterprise, he denied it, saying there was ‘a metropolitan snobbery about the idea that local government was resistant to change.’ Actually, he said, it had performed much better than Whitehall.
Both ministers made it plain that councils don’t need to wait to be told what to do by Whitehall or, as Mr Pickles exhorted; ‘Over the summer, just get on and do it.’ Do what is another question.
Many councils might well say, ‘make cuts’ or ‘batten down the hatches’ or ‘lay off staff.’ But at least the ministers have made their message clearer: The ball is in local government’s court. Use it.
Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ

Planning the ‘Big society’

In my London borough resides one of the capital’s few remaining outdoor pools.
Some 25 years ago, it was closed by the council, then reopened for a while by a community group and staffed by volunteers during the decade when apparently, there was ‘no such thing as society’. Then it closed again.
But there is a happy ending to this tale. Earlier this year, it reopened, newly refurbished, and funded by the same council which first closed it.
The moral to this story is that running local amenities is difficult, time-consuming and expensive. They are usually driven by small groups of dedicated, even obsessive residents who share a community of interest.
The question is whether there will be sufficient numbers of such determined people to provide the ‘Big society’ that PM David Cameron believes needs to take off, as spending cuts reduce the local state.
It is certainly true that the public need a sea change in their attitude to just what the local public sector can provide. The discussion earlier this year over whether it was legal under ‘elf and safety’ to shovel snow in front of your house was one example. Residents will have to be prepared to take more responsibility for services traditionally seen as the council’s.
Already, some ‘upper-tier’ authorities are looking at handing branch libraries over to community groups. If social enterprises can take them on, then they should be given the opportunity, when the alternative is closure. They also have a role in cross-cutting areas such as youth justice, youth services, mental health, employment, or leisure.
The paradox is that local area grants, which help develop community enterprises, are the easiest for councils to axe, as indeed they have been doing. And contracts with the voluntary sector are the first to be squeezed in a budget downturn, surely a case of extreme short-sightedness.
Let us not be under any illusion that councils will be able to walk away from services simply because social enterprises have filled part of the gap. The ‘Big society’ will continue to need support, often financial, and if fails, then the council will be left holding the baby.
Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ

Tensions under the surface

The coalition government’s honeymoon stops on 20 October, when the spending review is announced.
Thereafter, the gloves are off and the Government faces its first real test as details of the cuts become clear.
Much depends on the crucial period between now and October, and the extent to which ministers will be able to come to agreement with their political allies currently running most of local government.
The LGA conference in Bournemouth this week is the most important gathering of public sector leaders since the election, and it is not surprising that [communities secretary] Eric Pickles and his team are taking it seriously, with Mr Pickles pointedly regarding it as a party conference.
In turn, the LGA leadership is keen to show that it has the ear of the coalition, and that while there are differences, especially on the schools agenda, these can be ironed out. Both central and local want the relationship to work, not only because they are politically from the same sides, but because the alternative of non-co-operation would be a disaster for them and the public.
But tensions are already clear. The spinning of Mr Pickles’ speech on Tuesday morning with its angle of ‘non jobs’ was hardly conducive to creating positive headlines about local government. LGA chairman Dame Margaret Eaton was obliged in her own speech to ask politicians to ‘stop chasing cheap headlines at our expense.’
In his conference address, Mr Pickles then proceeded to argue that chief executives were superfluous and their jobs could be done by executive leaders, not a necessarily attractive prospect to Tory senior councillors. Many of them will also argue that if the minister is such a localist, he should let them decide their own forms of governance.
The cancellation of Building Schools for the Future projects has also aroused the ire of leaders, and the whole free schools agenda raises questions over the future role of education authorities.
It is inevitable that central/local tensions will exist, as they did when Labour controlled both local and central government. But, with a background of deep spending cuts which could impact disproportionately on councils, these differences – often exacerbated by needlessly provocative comments – need to be removed.
Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ