What is it about Eric Pickles and rubbish? The other week, he was laying into the Audit Commission, claiming it was ordering councils to impose fortnightly bin collections, an allegation strenuously denied by the commission.
This week, he directed his ire at council publications, saying in a Sunday newspaper they were ‘weekly town hall Pravdas’, and councils ought to focus on ‘providing regular rubbish collections’.
The subject of rubbish is very important to the public. In many cases, it is the only service people associate with their council. It is especially important in districts, such as the one covering Mr Pickles’ constituency.
But does it merit quite so much of his attention as secretary of state?
His intervention, however, raises a wider question, which is the extent he needs to be telling councils what to do on an almost parochial basis, when he is apparently an ardent advocate of localism. Most councils make their own minds up about weekly or fortnightly bin collections, depending on their local circumstances, and do not need Mr Pickles to tell them about how to pick up rubbish.
Nor do they need Mr Pickles to tell them in what format to issue information to their public. In some areas, the local media is vibrant. In other areas, not. In my borough, the local media is dire, and its circulation patchy, and the Conservative-run council feels obliged to produce a quarterly magazine to tell residents what it is doing.
In all cases, the council bankrolls its local media through advertising, in particular, statutory notices, a particularly futile hangover from the past. Statutory notices are a waste of taxpayers’ money but a good source of income to local newspapers. Is that good or bad?
But the point is that Mr Pickles has a very big job trying to ensure his department isn’t cut to ribbons and in ensuring that local government, of which he is a great defender, is able to handle the forthcoming cuts without slashing services.
In the scheme of things, fortnightly bin collections and council newspapers, while handy headline-generators when in Opposition, are small potatoes for a secretary of state.
Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ
Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
The Budget
In the end, having been softened up with a bombardment of carefully-spun scare stories, most council managers and members will have found this week’s Budget not a million miles adrift from what they expected.
A public sector pay freeze to save £3.3bn by 2014/15 was always on the cards, although the cut-off figure of £21,000 was more generous than the much-trailed £18,000. A review of public sector pensions was also expected, although once again, some commentators predicted that the final salary aspect might be stopped forthwith. Efforts to address the disproportionate impact of public sector jobs in certain regions will be modestly addressed by a regional growth fund for capital projects. A proposal to freeze council tax, while hardly squaring with the localist agenda of leaving councils to decide their priorities, has also been predicted, although whether it is wise is another matter.
Even the stiff headline figure of a 25% cut across non-protected departments over the next four years is not hugely at variance with what finance directors have already been factoring in from next year. It represents an extra 5% of real cuts ‘implied’ by the March Budget.
One chief executive said to me last week: ‘What really matters is just knowing what we have to deal with, so we can plan.’
But the real challenge comes in the autumn when the Spending Review is announced, supposedly on 20 October, and councils then get an idea of their own individual budgets. The question is: How will they react? Will they protect frontline services and cull back offices and share overheads? Or will they cut out all discretionary services and fall back on their core businesses? The challenge will not only be for them but for the coalition government. For if services bear the brunt, you can be sure the blame will be shifted upwards to ministers.
There is also a real prospect that the services councils jettison will be those earmarked for a greater role in Cameron’s ‘Big society’ idea. Already many of the area grants that were axed for this year were for community projects.
One voluntary sector chief recently told me councils were beginning to squeeze the contracts his society held with him. Ministers’claims that localism means devolving down to communities will ring hollow if they have no money to run anything.
The easy target for saving money will be for the ‘soft’ projects, those aimed at the poor, disabled, unemployed, and problem families, leaving budgets for ‘core’ services such as potholes, refuse, adult care, schools or children’s services as protected as possible.
The public must also be involved, not as passive recipients of services but as active participants in deciding priorities and understanding the true costs councils face, from electricity bills to cleaning up after litter-louts or pursuing anti-social neighbours.
Dealing with the next spending round will most likely be a mix of all these responses, salami-slicing costs, cutting back offices, getting the public to demand less and help more, sharing overheads, rethinking roles, culling middle management.
But we are not there yet. This week’s Budget is only the start of a long journey into a radically-different landscape
A public sector pay freeze to save £3.3bn by 2014/15 was always on the cards, although the cut-off figure of £21,000 was more generous than the much-trailed £18,000. A review of public sector pensions was also expected, although once again, some commentators predicted that the final salary aspect might be stopped forthwith. Efforts to address the disproportionate impact of public sector jobs in certain regions will be modestly addressed by a regional growth fund for capital projects. A proposal to freeze council tax, while hardly squaring with the localist agenda of leaving councils to decide their priorities, has also been predicted, although whether it is wise is another matter.
Even the stiff headline figure of a 25% cut across non-protected departments over the next four years is not hugely at variance with what finance directors have already been factoring in from next year. It represents an extra 5% of real cuts ‘implied’ by the March Budget.
One chief executive said to me last week: ‘What really matters is just knowing what we have to deal with, so we can plan.’
But the real challenge comes in the autumn when the Spending Review is announced, supposedly on 20 October, and councils then get an idea of their own individual budgets. The question is: How will they react? Will they protect frontline services and cull back offices and share overheads? Or will they cut out all discretionary services and fall back on their core businesses? The challenge will not only be for them but for the coalition government. For if services bear the brunt, you can be sure the blame will be shifted upwards to ministers.
There is also a real prospect that the services councils jettison will be those earmarked for a greater role in Cameron’s ‘Big society’ idea. Already many of the area grants that were axed for this year were for community projects.
One voluntary sector chief recently told me councils were beginning to squeeze the contracts his society held with him. Ministers’claims that localism means devolving down to communities will ring hollow if they have no money to run anything.
The easy target for saving money will be for the ‘soft’ projects, those aimed at the poor, disabled, unemployed, and problem families, leaving budgets for ‘core’ services such as potholes, refuse, adult care, schools or children’s services as protected as possible.
The public must also be involved, not as passive recipients of services but as active participants in deciding priorities and understanding the true costs councils face, from electricity bills to cleaning up after litter-louts or pursuing anti-social neighbours.
Dealing with the next spending round will most likely be a mix of all these responses, salami-slicing costs, cutting back offices, getting the public to demand less and help more, sharing overheads, rethinking roles, culling middle management.
But we are not there yet. This week’s Budget is only the start of a long journey into a radically-different landscape
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
The impact of the Budget…
Finance directors will be advised to make the most of the weekend, judging by the artillery bombardment coming out of the coalition government’s spin machine.
A combination of dire warnings about how the state of the public finances is even worse than predicted, coupled with rubbishing of public sector pay, pensions and ‘waste’, suggests next week’s Budget will not be exactly sparing of local government.
But the pre-Budget propaganda barrage has been entirely predictable. Any new government will want to push as much blame on to its predecessor. And headline-grabbing assaults on public sector ‘fat cats’ are guaranteed headlines, a bit like warming up the audience before a Roman gladiators’ circus. Nor are there any surprises that local government may get a tough deal. If the coalition intends ring-fencing the NHS, education and defence, then it must turn to local services.
Councils will get through the next difficult months as they have done on numerous occasions previously. The tide of fat cat coverage will turn as householders suddenly rediscover their liking for well-maintained streets, decent residential care for their aged parents, well-stocked libraries and manicured parks. In the short term, councils will manage the downturn in revenue spend.
But of equal importance is the long-term scenario. So-called salami-slicing may deal with the 2011/12 budget, but what of the following years? In his article this week on page 16, the ex-chairman of London Councils, Sir Merrick Cockell, gives his view that having 33 London boroughs all producing their own services is no longer sustainable. Even apart from the procurement benefit of economies of scale, the costs alone will dictate more mergers.
So far, the new administration at the CLG has dealt with the ‘low hanging fruit’ of change – scrapping quangos, getting rid of the Standards Board, dropping spatial strategies and housing targets. It has yet to apply itself to the more complex and medium-term strategy of how to deliver the same public services on less against the rising costs of demographic change. Next week’s Budget will provide that stimulus, one, as Sir Merrick has displayed, is already being seriously examined within local government itself.
A combination of dire warnings about how the state of the public finances is even worse than predicted, coupled with rubbishing of public sector pay, pensions and ‘waste’, suggests next week’s Budget will not be exactly sparing of local government.
But the pre-Budget propaganda barrage has been entirely predictable. Any new government will want to push as much blame on to its predecessor. And headline-grabbing assaults on public sector ‘fat cats’ are guaranteed headlines, a bit like warming up the audience before a Roman gladiators’ circus. Nor are there any surprises that local government may get a tough deal. If the coalition intends ring-fencing the NHS, education and defence, then it must turn to local services.
Councils will get through the next difficult months as they have done on numerous occasions previously. The tide of fat cat coverage will turn as householders suddenly rediscover their liking for well-maintained streets, decent residential care for their aged parents, well-stocked libraries and manicured parks. In the short term, councils will manage the downturn in revenue spend.
But of equal importance is the long-term scenario. So-called salami-slicing may deal with the 2011/12 budget, but what of the following years? In his article this week on page 16, the ex-chairman of London Councils, Sir Merrick Cockell, gives his view that having 33 London boroughs all producing their own services is no longer sustainable. Even apart from the procurement benefit of economies of scale, the costs alone will dictate more mergers.
So far, the new administration at the CLG has dealt with the ‘low hanging fruit’ of change – scrapping quangos, getting rid of the Standards Board, dropping spatial strategies and housing targets. It has yet to apply itself to the more complex and medium-term strategy of how to deliver the same public services on less against the rising costs of demographic change. Next week’s Budget will provide that stimulus, one, as Sir Merrick has displayed, is already being seriously examined within local government itself.
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
Don’t blame the workforce
As far as I recall Henry V, about to lead his troops over the top before Agincourt against impossible odds, did not tell them first: ‘You’re a useless, indolent shower, overpaid and underworked and a drain on the taxpayer.’
Henry V understood the power of staff motivation, something which so far has eluded this month-old Government. Public sector staff did not cause the recession. They certainly did well from the good years but then so did the private sector.
But now after the feast comes the reckoning, as David Cameron reminded us this week. And in the scale of its challenge, managing huge spending cuts will be an Agincourt for public sector staff. Many of them will not survive the process. They will be required to deal with impossible odds of reduced budgets and high public expectations. Yet without their motivation the task of transformation, of doing much more on less, of sharing services and breaking down silos will be infinitely harder. Having ministers slag them off for daring to be public sector employees is hardly helpful. Indeed it makes sound business sense to ensure staff are motivated when the going gets tough – they are the very people who will help the organisation get through.
CIPFA’s chief executive Steve Freer, hardly a union mouthpiece, has voiced similar concerns. In The MJ this week (p14) he expresses dismay that ‘unhelpful rhetoric’ will demoralise ‘precisely the people who need to be at the top of their game to manage the delivery of cuts as sensitively as possible.’ He asks: ‘Far from beating up public servants, would it not be much smarter for the Government to be pitching for their co-operation?’
Local government and public sector staff and managers are part of the solution, not the problem. Downgrading their value in order to persuade the public that they are merely a drain on the taxpayer is a cynical and ultimately short-sighted tactic. Ministers should re-read up on Henry V and learn that motivating workforces just when the challenges are greatest is much more constructive than demoralising them.
Henry V understood the power of staff motivation, something which so far has eluded this month-old Government. Public sector staff did not cause the recession. They certainly did well from the good years but then so did the private sector.
But now after the feast comes the reckoning, as David Cameron reminded us this week. And in the scale of its challenge, managing huge spending cuts will be an Agincourt for public sector staff. Many of them will not survive the process. They will be required to deal with impossible odds of reduced budgets and high public expectations. Yet without their motivation the task of transformation, of doing much more on less, of sharing services and breaking down silos will be infinitely harder. Having ministers slag them off for daring to be public sector employees is hardly helpful. Indeed it makes sound business sense to ensure staff are motivated when the going gets tough – they are the very people who will help the organisation get through.
CIPFA’s chief executive Steve Freer, hardly a union mouthpiece, has voiced similar concerns. In The MJ this week (p14) he expresses dismay that ‘unhelpful rhetoric’ will demoralise ‘precisely the people who need to be at the top of their game to manage the delivery of cuts as sensitively as possible.’ He asks: ‘Far from beating up public servants, would it not be much smarter for the Government to be pitching for their co-operation?’
Local government and public sector staff and managers are part of the solution, not the problem. Downgrading their value in order to persuade the public that they are merely a drain on the taxpayer is a cynical and ultimately short-sighted tactic. Ministers should re-read up on Henry V and learn that motivating workforces just when the challenges are greatest is much more constructive than demoralising them.
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
Commission in the firing line
Last weekend’s Audit Commission-bashing by Messrs Pickles and Maude provided much entertainment for those who have been on the receiving end of caustic inspection verdicts. But did it provide much light?
The commission came in for a lashing on two grounds. The first was criticism of spending highlighted in its accounts on staff training and various away-days. The second was over the salary of £240,000 – including pension costs – offered to the successor to Steve Bundred, the recently-departed chief executive. The latter issue was always going to be problematic. Trying to stick to a salary package for the next chief lower than several of the commission’s managers would tax the most ingenious HR departments or head-hunter. As for the former, well, this is good knockabout stuff in an age of austerity.
But what does it all mean? There are several interpretations. One is that Messrs Pickles and Maude have taken so many pops at the commission while in Opposition they have forgotten they are now the Government. The second is that they genuinely believe the commission’s days are numbered and it should be wound up, even though the Tory Green Paper a year ago envisaged a new role for it in evaluating the grant-funding regime. Indeed, many insiders have long-believed the commission and the National Audit Office should be merged including the Tory politician who founded it, Lord (Michael) Heseltine.
The third view is that this is a case of new ministers showing they are on the side of local government and against inspectors.
But it is unclear any of these policies have been thought out at this stage. If anything, the weekend bashing was a populist assault on perceived over-endowed public sector pay generally. The block on the commission’s offer to its next chief followed publication of civil service top salaries and a promise to publicise those of council chiefs the end of the year.
In this case, the commission has simply been lumped in with the rest of the so-called ‘fatcats’. It is old-fashioned populism, and there will be a lot more of it, while under the surface, the business of dealing with the real issues will carry on.
Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ
The commission came in for a lashing on two grounds. The first was criticism of spending highlighted in its accounts on staff training and various away-days. The second was over the salary of £240,000 – including pension costs – offered to the successor to Steve Bundred, the recently-departed chief executive. The latter issue was always going to be problematic. Trying to stick to a salary package for the next chief lower than several of the commission’s managers would tax the most ingenious HR departments or head-hunter. As for the former, well, this is good knockabout stuff in an age of austerity.
But what does it all mean? There are several interpretations. One is that Messrs Pickles and Maude have taken so many pops at the commission while in Opposition they have forgotten they are now the Government. The second is that they genuinely believe the commission’s days are numbered and it should be wound up, even though the Tory Green Paper a year ago envisaged a new role for it in evaluating the grant-funding regime. Indeed, many insiders have long-believed the commission and the National Audit Office should be merged including the Tory politician who founded it, Lord (Michael) Heseltine.
The third view is that this is a case of new ministers showing they are on the side of local government and against inspectors.
But it is unclear any of these policies have been thought out at this stage. If anything, the weekend bashing was a populist assault on perceived over-endowed public sector pay generally. The block on the commission’s offer to its next chief followed publication of civil service top salaries and a promise to publicise those of council chiefs the end of the year.
In this case, the commission has simply been lumped in with the rest of the so-called ‘fatcats’. It is old-fashioned populism, and there will be a lot more of it, while under the surface, the business of dealing with the real issues will carry on.
Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
Don’t stick with the old models
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
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, 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
