As the local government cuts bite, Stephen Weigel suggests councils discard their bulging bags of services in favour of a new, lightweight option – in much the same way as he tackles his holiday packing
Well, the announcements on 22 June have finally been made and, as anticipated from the numerous warnings from the prime minister and others, there aren’t many obvious positive points for local government and the public sector.There has already been a mixed response from both private and public sectors to announcements, each beginning to highlight those which are bad for their sector and not going far enough in the other sector.
While ‘the public sector’ is often described as if it were one large organisation, clearly, for those working in it, there is a large difference in organisation structures, roles, responsibilities, location and funding.
This is also true of local government. And it is this difference of approach and priorities which have led to the concept of localism and choice which, at times, can be seen by some as being eroded by Total Place.
There will be, no doubt, over the following months, leading up to analysis of financial and other impacts on each of our organisations by many media and others, reports and statements setting out the implications of cuts and changes being taken by us individually to remain within budget.
I have been in the public sector for long enough to remember other times of cuts, but nothing will compare to the reductions and challenges ahead. Past methods will probably not work this time, due to the scale and short timescale that will be required to achieve cost reductions.
This time round, many people I come into contact with believe that the public sector is being penalised in having to make drastic cuts when it is the private sector, internationally, which has created this situation. There is also much wider concern about how these cuts will affect businesses and residents.
Some local councils and other organisations will be ‘shielded’ from the drastic immediate impact, either because they have significant reserves or have gained positive action funding under the past government, or even, in some areas, have not really had to remove ‘fat and inefficiency’ until now, due to ongoing government priority funding and investment.
Many will be drawing up strategic and specific lists as advice or best practice for others to consider. In my experience, one of the most difficult tasks is not drawing up proposals and implementing changes, but actually realising practical savings in the timescale set.
How many times have we implemented savings programmes only to find during the project-monitoring stage that targets are not being met? Identifying things we want to continue to do, and those we wish to reduce or discontinue, to realise reductions will be a real challenge. It will be difficult for officers to find enough proposals which get past our policy-makers and public. It will be equally challenging to agree on any to be reduced or discontinued.
One could visualise this as being like packing for a holiday. Picture two or more people with all the things they want to take with them spread out in front of them. Usually, there are far too many items and the debate about what to take and what to leave behind can become indecisive at best, or quite heated – often around why something couldn’t possibly be left behind or just has to be taken. Eventually, a compromise may be reached, and there might be a small reduction in the number of items – but usually, never enough.
In the end, it is the weight limit or size of suitcase which determines what gets left behind. Otherwise, someone will get fined at the airport.
This isn’t dissimilar to having lists of services which need to be reduced or no longer delivered. Unless we painfully impose the equivalent of a weight limit and case size on our organisations, our target outcomes are not likely to be met either, and we may be even penalised for carrying any excess.
Finally, the suitcases are packed and, having complied with weight, size and other restrictions the passengers’ luggage arrives at their destination.
But the weather has changed, and the clothes which have been brought are no longer suitable, or worse still, baggage has been lost and those emergency essentials are nowhere to be found among the hand luggage.
The equivalent of a suitcase and weight limit may be the size of organisation and a vacancy freeze. Both are blunt instruments to achieve target reductions. But we may get to the destination – deadline – and realise the situation has changed, and we have the wrong staff, or not enough of the essential ones we need.
The challenge is getting the decisions on contents – staff and services – right. I can imagine there will be lots of decisions which are the equivalent of taking the wrong things, or lost luggage with missing essentials.
While we would be compensated for a lost suitcase, or not mind having the wrong clothes because it’s great to be on holiday, on our next journey, we are unlikely to be compensated, or bear the outcomes in quite the same way.
Stephen Weigel is chief executive of Tandridge DC
