The coalition government is now taking shape. And, as far as local government is concerned, this is, in theory, some of what it has always wished for – the abolition of CAA and a range of associated sets of national inspections, targets and other measures – but with some of the toughest settlements in leaders’ and chief executives’ lives. As one of our most prominent chief executives put it to me a week or so ago, ‘It’s now all about how we take cost out’.

Voters are not ready for the age of austerity. In contrast, the Treasury is spooked by sovereign debt crises across Europe, and it is true that public spending as a percentage of GDP is now higher than in Italy, Japan, and Germany, to but name a few. In 1997, it was lower than in all these places.

Yet, the public remain divided and uncertain over what needs to happen on public finances. Over the last year, the proportion of people who agree that we need to cut spending because of the size of our national debt has risen from 39% to 54% now. But four out of 10 voters still disagree (39%).

Much more attractive to most people is the kind of cuts made last week – two out of three voters believe efficiency savings can balance the books without damaging services (64%), but the first £6bn of cuts was just a toe in the water.

The public won’t notice the end of CAA, although they might begin to observe cuts at the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), and to Building Schools for the Future (BSF).

We won’t know the gritty reality until the emergency Budget on 22 June sets the spending envelope, and then the CSR (Comprehensive Spending Review) of the autumn.

But it is not going to be pretty. Local government itself comes a long way down most people’s list of what should be protected from cuts – although education and care of the elderly are seen as priorities.

The huge challenge will be how local government makes cuts in less vital but highly-visible services which do far more than education and social services for local ‘feel good’ factors. Parks, roads and street cleaning have more impact on how people feel about where they live than do the services that absorb most of the money, and which will be most protected.

Still, at present, most people feel the coalition will be good for Britain (59%), but are less sure about whether it will be good for them personally (45%).

The difficulty is that although most agree that Labour tried to do too much and that individuals need to take more responsibility (64%), half are fearful that this government will do too little in future (50%).

So, how does one deal with the public? In the councils we are working with on this, there are some clear steps. First, those which have to cut their cost base need to have a frank conversation with their partners and activists and local opinion-formers about the choices.

The first thing they will ask is whether councils have already taken out as much cost internally as is sensible – and not just what they see as sensible, but matching what best in class have achieved. Having started with those who they see most often, they will be better prepared for what comes next.

Second, as we begin to shape the parameters of the new world of public spending, we need to have a public debate. This may become easier, as the Government is about to start having a similar debate with the public at large, with a potentially-huge communications campaign in the offing. While the media may ridicule it, it will help set the political weather for what comes next. In an age of transparency, why not let the ‘armchair auditors’ as one secretary of state calls them, have a look at the precise amounts spent on individual services, and ask them what they would do? Build an online tool which lets people see for themselves the real parameters councils operate in and the implications of moving money from one area to another, or cutting it all together. Show how there are few easy choices. Publicise it in the local media.

Although most residents won’t come and take part in any online exercise, done well, more than enough will to give an idea of how trade-offs could work – and provide evidence of public opinion.

Remember that among the heaviest users of public services – working class pensioners – only 15% are online, so local authorities must be careful to check that they have reached out to enough of those who don’t come forward. Third, despite the need to cut discretionary spending of all types, councils must make sure they are clearly communicating how they have consulted and arrived at the difficult decisions which have to be made.

They can, of course, blame the bankers. Nick Clegg got his first surge in the election campaign by doing precisely that, and authorities can also, depending on local politics, blame the Government too. Everyone else will be doing the same in due course.

Councils must remember, the very act of consulting openly, widely and effectively, will itself get them some grudging credit, if they are prepared to stay the course.

Read Ron Heifetz’s Leadership Without Easy Answers. As a young opinion pollster, I was always amazed by how many people disapproved of ex-PM Margaret Thatcher’s policies, but still voted for her because ‘she’s a strong leader’, and how many people supported [ex-London mayor] Ken Livingstone, despite disliking some things he did, ‘because you know what he stands for’.

The Ipsos Social Research Institute’s latest international study shows that in the western world, the only countries where local government is more popular than in Britain are those where more people feel they can influence local decisions.

Given the decisions local government now needs to take, now is the time to give them that influence – or tell them why you disagree. Heifetz’s Leadership Without Easy Answers.

Ben Page is chief executive of Ipsos MORI