Bold political leadership is essential if councils are to make the difficult decisions needed to get through the next few years, says John Tizard
The future looks bleak. Public expenditure cuts will inevitably hit many services, as well as local authorities and their partners.
However, public expectations and demands for services are unlikely to diminish. The pressure is on council leaders and their political colleagues as never before to provide clear, unambiguous leadership.
Many council leaders, senior council officers and chief executives will not have been in leadership positions the last time their authorities faced the prospect, not just of finding modest efficiency savings, but of facing far harder decisions about what services not to continue to provide.
Experience suggests that, come 2011, many local authorities will approach the cliff edge without any long-term strategic ideas and plans. The result will be panic cutting – ‘salami’ slicing across the board, with little or no time to consider the implications for service and community outcomes; freezing posts as they become vacant, rather than service and outcome objectives would dictate; holding back on maintenance and ICT upgrades, with no time to worry about the long-term consequences; and probably, no dialogue with their local strategic partners.
The pressures to come cannot and will not be solved by these tactical approaches. Improved efficiency, while essential, will not be enough. Rather, there must be a need to transform and, in some cases, cease provision of services.
Politics involves making difficult choices, determining priorities, and securing outcomes on behalf of the community and its members. It follows that addressing the expenditure challenge is very much a political process, and must be led by politicians.
And if the politicians fail to rise to this, chief executives will have to provide leadership. In reality though, addressing the budget challenges will be best undertaken through effective CEO-leader partnership working.
Leaders will want to ensure good working relations with their chief executives, but ultimately bold, decisive political leadership which listens, evaluates and, above all, takes action, is required.
I have too often observed that as local authorities and their partners adopt strategic commissioning policies and practices, many leaders and cabinet members see this as a technical exercise and not one for politicians to be involved with. This is a grave mistake, and an abdication of political leadership.
As I wrote in The MJ (‘Will the next big council buzz word be “decommissioning”’, 14 May 2009) local authorities and the wider public sector should be considering decommissioning, applying all the rigors typically associated with ‘commissioning’. And if strategic commissioning requires political leadership, the case is even stronger when it comes to decommissioning.
So, what to do?
If I was still a leader, I would, immediately, be adopting a 10-point action plan. I would:
l want the latest and most accurate projections of available resources and service demands for the next five years, and I would wish to robustly test and challenge these
l rigorously review current expenditure and past financial performance, measured against outcomes, and benchmarked with the best in breed – be this public or any other sector
l wish to talk to my local strategic partners to understand their pressures and plans, and understand how these might impact on the authority
l establish a task group of senior officers and politicians from the authority to consider various scenarios for funding and service development – there will have to be some to meet need and also to ensure that there is excitement in the system – continuation, and decommissioning
l initiate a major public debate and engagement with staff, trade unions, service-users, the local third sector, local businesses, the council’s local strategic partners and its service providers to identify a) the outcomes sought across the authority and community, and prioritise these; b) options and criteria for re-determining the priorities for the limited and declining resources available, including criteria against which to choose to stop doing something, to do it radically differently, or to decommission; c) new ways of doing things to secure greater efficiency and effectiveness; d) areas where expenditure growth will still be essential for political, social, economic and demographic reasons
l promote the total place concept within the LSP. There will be opportunities to find savings and new ways of working across agencies, and it is essential that no one agency takes action which has unintended consequences for another agency. Leaders and their councils must be ready to let go, to trust others, and to work collaboratively
l open discussions with neighbouring authorities on a sub-regional basis to examine what might be achieved through joint working, and encourage the REIP to take an active interest in this agenda
l produce a series of options and proposals including ideas for a) decommissioning and opportunities for participatory budgeting style de-commissioning; b) user charges, where appropriate and equitable; c) greater personalisation where this can be effective; d) new forms of partnership working across public agencies; e) new contractual forms with the third and business sector providers – avoiding lowest-price procurement; f) service areas where local communities may wish to find some of the financial short fall – eg, parish or community council financing these; g) adopting shared services approaches and not being concerned where they are located
l open a further debate with stakeholders, including service-users and staff – and their unions – on the emerging options
l draw up, announce and implement a five-year strategy which protects community wellbeing – recognising that public services deliver public value beyond that experienced by their users – and key public service outcomes for the local place and the local authority, and take political responsibility and accountability for it
This is not rocket science. However, it will not be easy. Leaders will have scars on their backs. They must make some unpopular decisions. They will have to disappoint some vested interests – fellow council members, local political parties, user groups and staff.
So be it. That is what true leadership is all about.
The key is to have a strong and clear political narrative, and to be accountable for this. Council leaders as community leaders will wish to work with their PCTs, the police and other agencies, but this should not preclude showing leadership by challenging and proposing action for them to take as well.
Political management of the ruling group and the local party will not be easy. Leadership requires decision taking, but it also requires dialogue and listening. Council leaders will wish to be mindful of this as they enter this new period of hard decision-making.
The next two years provide an all-too-brief window of opportunity for council leaders to start this process, before the heavy Whitehall clunking fist comes down, slows down, and – in many cases – reverses expenditure growth, come 2011.
The aim must surely be to protect key frontline services and secure the means to deliver the key outcomes, by whatever means or partners – public, private or not-for-profit – necessary.
John Tizard is the director of the Centre for Public Service Partnerships
However, public expectations and demands for services are unlikely to diminish. The pressure is on council leaders and their political colleagues as never before to provide clear, unambiguous leadership.
Many council leaders, senior council officers and chief executives will not have been in leadership positions the last time their authorities faced the prospect, not just of finding modest efficiency savings, but of facing far harder decisions about what services not to continue to provide.
Experience suggests that, come 2011, many local authorities will approach the cliff edge without any long-term strategic ideas and plans. The result will be panic cutting – ‘salami’ slicing across the board, with little or no time to consider the implications for service and community outcomes; freezing posts as they become vacant, rather than service and outcome objectives would dictate; holding back on maintenance and ICT upgrades, with no time to worry about the long-term consequences; and probably, no dialogue with their local strategic partners.
The pressures to come cannot and will not be solved by these tactical approaches. Improved efficiency, while essential, will not be enough. Rather, there must be a need to transform and, in some cases, cease provision of services.
Politics involves making difficult choices, determining priorities, and securing outcomes on behalf of the community and its members. It follows that addressing the expenditure challenge is very much a political process, and must be led by politicians.
And if the politicians fail to rise to this, chief executives will have to provide leadership. In reality though, addressing the budget challenges will be best undertaken through effective CEO-leader partnership working.
Leaders will want to ensure good working relations with their chief executives, but ultimately bold, decisive political leadership which listens, evaluates and, above all, takes action, is required.
I have too often observed that as local authorities and their partners adopt strategic commissioning policies and practices, many leaders and cabinet members see this as a technical exercise and not one for politicians to be involved with. This is a grave mistake, and an abdication of political leadership.
As I wrote in The MJ (‘Will the next big council buzz word be “decommissioning”’, 14 May 2009) local authorities and the wider public sector should be considering decommissioning, applying all the rigors typically associated with ‘commissioning’. And if strategic commissioning requires political leadership, the case is even stronger when it comes to decommissioning.
So, what to do?
If I was still a leader, I would, immediately, be adopting a 10-point action plan. I would:
l want the latest and most accurate projections of available resources and service demands for the next five years, and I would wish to robustly test and challenge these
l rigorously review current expenditure and past financial performance, measured against outcomes, and benchmarked with the best in breed – be this public or any other sector
l wish to talk to my local strategic partners to understand their pressures and plans, and understand how these might impact on the authority
l establish a task group of senior officers and politicians from the authority to consider various scenarios for funding and service development – there will have to be some to meet need and also to ensure that there is excitement in the system – continuation, and decommissioning
l initiate a major public debate and engagement with staff, trade unions, service-users, the local third sector, local businesses, the council’s local strategic partners and its service providers to identify a) the outcomes sought across the authority and community, and prioritise these; b) options and criteria for re-determining the priorities for the limited and declining resources available, including criteria against which to choose to stop doing something, to do it radically differently, or to decommission; c) new ways of doing things to secure greater efficiency and effectiveness; d) areas where expenditure growth will still be essential for political, social, economic and demographic reasons
l promote the total place concept within the LSP. There will be opportunities to find savings and new ways of working across agencies, and it is essential that no one agency takes action which has unintended consequences for another agency. Leaders and their councils must be ready to let go, to trust others, and to work collaboratively
l open discussions with neighbouring authorities on a sub-regional basis to examine what might be achieved through joint working, and encourage the REIP to take an active interest in this agenda
l produce a series of options and proposals including ideas for a) decommissioning and opportunities for participatory budgeting style de-commissioning; b) user charges, where appropriate and equitable; c) greater personalisation where this can be effective; d) new forms of partnership working across public agencies; e) new contractual forms with the third and business sector providers – avoiding lowest-price procurement; f) service areas where local communities may wish to find some of the financial short fall – eg, parish or community council financing these; g) adopting shared services approaches and not being concerned where they are located
l open a further debate with stakeholders, including service-users and staff – and their unions – on the emerging options
l draw up, announce and implement a five-year strategy which protects community wellbeing – recognising that public services deliver public value beyond that experienced by their users – and key public service outcomes for the local place and the local authority, and take political responsibility and accountability for it
This is not rocket science. However, it will not be easy. Leaders will have scars on their backs. They must make some unpopular decisions. They will have to disappoint some vested interests – fellow council members, local political parties, user groups and staff.
So be it. That is what true leadership is all about.
The key is to have a strong and clear political narrative, and to be accountable for this. Council leaders as community leaders will wish to work with their PCTs, the police and other agencies, but this should not preclude showing leadership by challenging and proposing action for them to take as well.
Political management of the ruling group and the local party will not be easy. Leadership requires decision taking, but it also requires dialogue and listening. Council leaders will wish to be mindful of this as they enter this new period of hard decision-making.
The next two years provide an all-too-brief window of opportunity for council leaders to start this process, before the heavy Whitehall clunking fist comes down, slows down, and – in many cases – reverses expenditure growth, come 2011.
The aim must surely be to protect key frontline services and secure the means to deliver the key outcomes, by whatever means or partners – public, private or not-for-profit – necessary.
John Tizard is the director of the Centre for Public Service Partnerships
