Now the dust has settled on the Total Place pilots, until conclusions are aired in the Budget, the next question is, inevitably, ‘what next?’

There are various answers. One is that nothing happens next unless the Government coughs up a few bob for another round of pilots, and councils come rushing to the trough in the time-honoured tradition of only responding to initiatives with cash attached.

An alternative response will come from those councils and their partners which maintain they are already involved in Total Place because they say so, even though their projects were around long before the words ever existed.

Yet a third response comes from those councils and partner agencies who not only grasp the philosophy behind Total Place but are evangelical about it, and are already deep into implementing its principles on the ground, and certainly do not need the Government.

A fourth group, of mainly Conservative councils, will regard Total Place as an interfering New Labour plot, even though they agree wholeheartedly with its aims.

In short, there is no single answer to ‘what happens next’, because while most authorities will claim they are signed up to the principles, in practice, the roll out is extremely mixed. It is also true that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and that while a thousand flowers need not bloom, there will certainly be various paths.

But the real nub of the issue is just how ambitious the public sector should be with Total Place. If the concept is to be a repeat of the shared services debate, trundling along at a snail’s pace and easily prone to be knocked off course because managers and members find it too difficult, then it will be a failure.

If it is just to be a selection of projects, then its potential will be squandered.

If, as Sir Michael Bichard has stated on many occasions, the current system is inefficient and expensive, then Total Place needs to be ambitious, bedded into the corporate psyche and here to stay not for a year or two but for 10 years.

The answer, therefore, is not ‘what next?’ but ‘where do we wish to be in 2020?’

Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ

As the election campaign gets under way, politicians begin writing out blank cheques. Despite the knowledge that public spending is about to hit the buffers, our illustrious leaders continue to make pledges on the assumption that the voters cannot be trusted to be told the truth. The trouble is that most of the blank cheques seem to involve departments other than local government.

Incredibly, the Conservatives, at last weekend’s spring conference in Brighton, were running up huge tabs on future pledges, even as they were promising to get to grips with the deficit ‘from day one’.

During their weekend by the seaside, shadow ministers promised to increase NHS spending in real terms every year through the next parliament, link pensions to earnings, introduce marriage into the tax system, create 4,200 more health visitors for Sure Start, build more prisons to prevent early releases, fund council tax rises of 2.5% for two years, and match the council tax on new housing for six years.

Since it is unlikely the Conservatives will cut defence or law and order, that leaves precious little room for spending cuts – unless local government is to end up picking up the bill for all the excess elsewhere.

When we then add in Gordon Brown’s demand that policing must be protected from cuts, together with the ongoing Personal Care at Home Bill’s fanciful idea that its huge new demands can all be funded by efficiency savings in councils and the NHS, then we have not economics, but freakonomics.

The fact is the maths just doesn’t add up. Either politicians know that and are telling porkies to the voters, or they genuinely believe they can both spend more and spend less at the same time, or they intend to slash the only budget they haven’t identified for growth, namely, local government.

But the BBC’s timely and helpful survey earlier this week into council staffing cuts has reminded voters that the public values its local services. I was interviewed by 15 different BBC radio stations across England about the survey on Monday, and there was clear support and sympathy for councils from normally-sceptical presenters. Politicians will need to think very carefully about singling out local government for an unfair share of cuts.

In my travels, I invariably ask chief executives and council leader what cuts in spending they are budgeting from 2011 onwards for the next three years.

A typical range is 3%-5%. The gloomier ones predict more. But their forecasts are invariably complicated by the extent to which favoured parts of the public sector, such as health and schools, not to mention defence, will escape, leaving the burden to fall on local government.

We know that during an election campaign, politicians who threaten to cut spending on the NHS and schools are turkeys voting for Christmas, so inevitably, their pledges to ring-fence these areas might be taken with a pinch of salt.

However, that shouldn’t mean local government itself must, therefore, make no response. The public get very irate when visible services, including those encompassing the street scene and community safety, are cut, as LGA chief executive, John Ransford, notes in his column.

A new idea  put forward by experts such as Tony Travers is that the fairest way is to freeze all public spending across the board – including pay.

The attraction of this is that it meets the chancellor’s goal of halving the deficit by 2015, without imposing swingeing cuts on parts of the public sector like local government. Indeed, from the latter’s perspective it makes them a winner.

Of course, there are losers, namely that part of the public sector which politicians on the election trail are currently promising to protect, eg, the NHS. On that topic, Audit Commission chief executive, Steve Bundred, has already stated on several occasions that the NHS has been stuffed with cash, has not increased its productivity to match, and should not expect to be spared efficiency savings.

Treasurers would be wise to assume the worst from 2011.

But they might also consider that once the election is out the way, spending cuts may be spread more equitably, and that 0% rather than a cut of 5% might still be an option.

Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ

To residents outside Devon, Suffolk and Norfolk the subject of local government reorganisation is considerably less interesting than watching paint dry. Yet the events of the past week have put into sharp relief the raging political background that now engulfs the Whitehall decision-making process.

The long-running saga of whether there should be unitaries in the three counties ought to have been settled months ago, preferably when the other unitaries were created. Delaying a decision, asking for more consultation, then facing the inevitable judicial reviews and opposition from the Tories was bound, as the election loomed, to make the process even more politically-charged. Indeed, it has now become a battle of wills between opposition parties, with mandarins trying to keep their heads down.

Some weeks ago, shadow local government minister, Bob Neill, told me that ministers were ‘placing civil servants in an invidious position’ by ‘railroading’ through unitary plans so close to an election. Since they were controversial, and his party was pledged to scrap them, ministers should have dropped them, he maintained. His argument appeared to be supported last week, when leaked correspondence between CLG permanent secretary, Peter Housden, and John Denham showed the former expressing concern about the value-for-money case for unitary Norwich and Exeter. Being seen to be sceptical about the decision will do Mr Housden no harm, should Mr Neill and his colleagues win the election.

Yet there is also a strong argument for saying that an outgoing government, especially one facing the likelihood of defeat at the polls, should use its last few months in power to complete as much of its agenda as is practical. The criticism more often levelled at many current ministers is that of paralysis, of inertia, of giving up, a similar criticism made against Tory ministers in the last days of John Major’s Government.

If Labour ministers believe there is a strong unitary case for Norwich and Exeter, and indeed there are plenty of powerful arguments for a unitary system across the board, then they entitled to pursue their case to the end. Their mandate after all only ends when the next election is called.

Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ

Guests at the annual SOLACE dinner tend to like their post-prandial speakers humorous but informative, rather than a gag-a-minute. Talking down to the audience is a definite no-no.

Being boring is a disadvantage, but then SOLACE guests, having sat through umpteen full council meetings, have learned how to pass the time.

Last week’s guest speaker at the annual dinner, the shadow cabinet minister Francis Maude, generally fulfilled the brief, being informative and anecdotal. But, in particular, the focus of his talk was a subject very much on his audience’s mind, namely, what to do with Whitehall.

Indeed, there is nothing better a local government audience likes than hearing that some other part of the public service is due for a roasting, for once. And his passing comment that ‘the civil service is not the enemy’ did not quite square with his observation that government would be smaller – more like a Thatcherite model.

Most observers of governance conclude that the Whitehall machine, although staffed with talented minds, is not fully fit for purpose in the year 2010. Watching reruns of the 30-year old Yes Minister  TV series reminds us how little has changed in  the corridors of power during the intervening years.
In The MJ/Tribal debate on council managers’ experiences of working in Whitehall, (see page 24), there was a clear frustration that the levers of power did not respond, that decision-making was maddeningly-slow, and that the phrase, ‘the buck stops here’, were an alien concept.

In our article on page 19 this week, ex-Number 10 adviser Robert Hill also addresses some of the key weaknesses in Whitehall, and calls for a far greater focus on delivery and cross-departmental collaboration.

The Total Place agenda, if it is to truly make a difference, will necessitate a cultural shift away from departmentalism and a focus on the place, and, in turn, on an enhanced role for local government.
Ultimately, it is down to ministers to be prepared to make the necessary reform. But the record of governments in attempting to recalibrate the levers of power and refocus the mandarins is not great – as Yes Minister so ably reminds us.

Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ

Without sounding too much like Confucius, there are times in political history when ideas and events run together, like a series of streams, until they form a river flowing to the same sea.

One such time has been this week. It began with the national Conservatives laying into the Audit Commission after weekend media allegations that the latter had hired lobbyists to ‘dissuade’ shadow ministers from wanting to scrap the CAA.

The commission denied the claims, but not before shadow communities secretary, Caroline Spelman, had fired off a terse statement saying that ‘we can no longer have confidence in the commission if it has become such a creature of the state.’

This came after the (Conservative-led) LGA late last week produced its own draft paper on the future of inspection which includes replacing the CAA with a strong focus on sector-led peer review.

On Monday the (Conservative-led) London boroughs’ association, London Councils, then issued its own cross-party manifesto, proposing councils to take on far wider responsibilities for other public services, such as Jobcentre Plus, health and welfare. This backs up comments last week by shadow Treasury chief secretary, Philip Hammond.

So, four separate streams, each with a common theme, namely that they propose more powers for local government, less inspection and a reform of the Audit Commission, with an emphasis on peer review and that they bear Conservative fingerprints all over them.

The next question, therefore, is what, if anything, will happen to these ideas should the Conservatives win the next general election? Will they simply wither on the vine as the reality of government takes over? Are they rash promises delivered in the heat of an election campaign? Or are they part of an ideological torrent that has now become unstoppable?

The intellectual argument for reform has been made. Local politicians have said they can deliver the goods. It is up to their national colleagues to ensure they meet their side of the deal.

Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ

With exquisite timing, the New Local Government Network this week issued yet another report extolling the benefits of directly-elected mayors, just at the time when Doncaster – with its elected mayor system – went into political meltdown (again).

But it would be simplistic to claim Doncaster’s problems are associated with one type of governance. The council has long had a history of political controversy and after Donnygate, the mayoral system was brought in precisely to make a new start. Ensuing disputes between the mercurial mayor and the council ended with his departure and the election of the new and current mayor, Peter Davies, from outside the established political system. Mr Davies has, shall we say, his own views on how councils should be run, and how officers should operate, and they are not necessarily in accord with the council’s own members, as we see.

Nor should the saga of Doncaster reflect on the rest of local government, though, of course, it will. For the council’s governance weaknesses are complicated by a cocktail of other performance and political events which have created a perfect storm.

They include an abysmal CAA rating, an appalling court case revealing inadequacies in children’s services, the usual media demands for ‘something to be done,’ the coincidence that one of Doncaster’s MPs happens to be the local government minister, and another, Ed Miliband, is a potential party leader, plus a forthcoming general election.

There is also the reluctance by ministers not to repeat the heavy-handed interference they instigated at Haringey a year ago. In the vacuum, the Audit Commission has ‘volunteered’ to step in with a corporate governance inquiry into Doncaster.

And this is where the local government ‘family’ has failed. It has plenty of able serving and former chiefs and leaders, and a respected tradition in the peer review process. It needs to create a mechanism whereby it can parachute in an external team to ascertain a failing council’s problems and offer solutions. If localism means anything it means local government sorting out its own backyard, not sitting back and waiting for ministers and assorted inspectors to come wading in. After all, we’ve been here before, especially with Doncaster.

Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ

After the snow comes not just the floods but the potholes, and the recriminations over whether there should have been more salt and more gritters and when, exactly, will councils repair the damaged streets.

For the aftermath of the recent bad weather is to focus public attention on the street environment, when council chief executives and politicians have been much more concerned about soaring costs in adult care, looked-after children, landfill taxes and pensions.

Potholes and grit were not exactly top of their lengthening list of budget headaches before Christmas. It’s likely they are now.

And this, of course, causes political as well as budgetary problems. The major cost pressures on council budgets over the next CSR round will be from services which the public generally do not experience.
Most people are not looked-after children, or in care homes, or in the local government pension scheme, or are even aware of swingeing EU landfill taxes.

But all of them use roads and footways, have  bins emptied, and walk past vandalised bus  stops. And if this environment deteriorates, not only do people notice, but they are also likely to make their displeasure known at the next council elections.
Two-thirds of spending is on children’s and adult services, while environmental budgets represent only a small percentage, albeit higher as a proportion of the whole in district councils.

Yet politicians could find themselves balancing budgets but losing seats because all the voters notice is a deterioriating environment. Cabinets will have to decide whether to divert funding from vital, but less visible services, such as adult care into filling potholes. And woe betide any council which runs out of salt next winter!

Not surprisingly, the Opposition is already on the case claiming this week that ministers have ‘ditched’ plans to compensate residents for unemptied bins and unfilled potholes.

As local authorities look to the wider horizons, delivering community leadership, taking on wider responsibilities for their areas, and driving the Total Place agenda, they would be advised to keep an eye on the knitting, as the old phrase goes. Or, in this case, the potholes.

Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ

Kent CC has traditionally been a trailblazer in innovation. It has also ensured its chief executives have been among the best paid in the business. Now it finds itself ahead of the pack again, this time in leading the move into the new hairshirt era of capped top pay.

This week, the county officially announces its search to find a replacement for chief executive Peter Gilroy, except the new post is now called ‘group managing director.’ Furthermore, the salary, in comparison to that of Mr Gilroy’s, has been shaved by some £22,000. At £185,000 it is hardly paltry, and half of that £22,000 would have been taken in tax anyway, but it certainly reverses the recent custom of new posts offering more than was paid to their predecessors. It also puts Kent further down the salary top ladder.

As a Conservative-led county with a general election looming, Kent was bound to show David Cameron it was responding to the public mood, as well as to the public roasting shadow ministers such as Eric Pickles have been giving to their own councils over top salary levels. The salary offered at Kent is just less than George Osborne’s cut-off point of £197,000 at which point permission will need to be given if he becomes chancellor. But it is more than the £150,000 John Denham announced last month as his own cut-off point.

We have always maintained that the publicity over top council salaries was a manufactured red herring and more to do with electioneering. The number quoted is only a small minority of the total. Compared with the enormous salaries at the BBC or the packages at many FE colleges and universities, they are not over-generous. Most district chief executives earn far less than the top 10, in some cases half. Many in local government will argue, with some justification, that it is a convenient way for national politicians of diverting attention away from the expenses scandals. And how do the parties square this centralist diktat over salary levels with their apparent commitment to localism?

But Kent’s new approach, with its unusual title of group MD, suggests there will, nonetheless, be changes. The question is whether this will mean just an adjustment to chiefs’ salaries, a change of name, or a shift in the job role itself.

 Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ

This week’s watering down of the ludicrously-bureaucratic regulations from the Independent Safeguarding Authority concerning adults  helping out in schools and nurseries, hopefully, marks a sea change in government attitudes to its public.

For too long, ministers and civil servants, frequently in knee-jerk response to media outcries, have had a tendency to reach for the statute book to solve often-insoluble challenges concerning human behaviour. Some, such as the banning of smoking in public places or use of mobile phones while driving, are to the public good. Others, including the ISA or new qualification requirements for nursery schools or nurses, are just burdensome.

Local government is frequently both the victim of regulation and the unwilling purveyor of it. The trouble is that governments like to be seen to be proactive, which invariably means bringing in legislation and, in turn, yet more regulation.

Furthermore, every new secretary of state – and Whitehall departments change theirs every two years – wants to leave their own mark, hence more legislation. It is a huge job-creation machine for civil servants. Rather than ministers competing with each other to pack out the timetable, there ought to come a time when the Queen has nothing to announce in the Queen’s Speech.

Local government faces major cuts. But the new age of austerity, from 2010, should also mean less government, fewer ministers – do we really need so many parliamentary under-secretaries? – less legislation, and a bonfire of regulations. Indeed, if the Government and Opposition are serious about reducing Whitehall and curbing quangos, they may have no choice, since the support service to back their legislative programme will be slashed.

Politicians across all parties have already indicated local authorities will bear the brunt of spending cuts. In turn, they must, as ministers, do their bit to reduce their own costs. Local government needs less inspection, and less intervention. It also needs recognition by ministers and the public that the answer to occasional lapses by local authorities does not lie in new inspectorates and even more expensive regulation.

On that note, a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all our readers!

Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ