Freedom to Lead

Posted December 2, 2009 * Comments(0)

Opening the recent LGA Group Improvement and Improvement conference Cllr David Parsons evidenced the cost to the local public sector of reporting to central government.  In Leicestershire, the county which David leads, 92 staff spend their time keeping government up to date on 3,000 performance indicators at a cost of £7 million a year.  The need to reduce these costs, and shift the emphasis of performance reporting from central government to local people, sit at the heart of the LGA campaign Freedom to Lead.

 

Directly or indirectly, much of the discussion at the conference connected with the Freedom to Lead debate, a debate made more immediate by the imminence of the general election. 

 

At one end of the spectrum was Cllr Stephen Greenhalgh, the Leader of Hammersmith & Fulham.  In his contribution he argued for removal of central government performance indicators with locally determined priorities agreed with the local population taking absolute priority.  If a council broke the contract with the local population it would be judged accordingly at the election.

 

At the other end of the spectrum, and nearer the status quo, were Christine Gilbert, OFsted’s Chief Inspector, and Gareth Davies, Managing Director of Local Government for the Audit Commission, who positioned their organisations as champions of public service consumers.

 

While the cost of the existing performance industry is hideously high there are strong reasons to suggest that some elements of a national framework need to be sustained.

 

The first is that any government will have national policy priorities which it will want implement using the local public sector.  These priorities for various reasons are not necessarily shared by every council and any government will use direct and indirect policy levers to see them implemented. 

 

The second is funding.  While there is general agreement that it would be better for local accountability if more income was raised locally it is inconceivable that the heavy lifting associated with funding local service delivery will not continue to be managed by central government as part of a national framework. Perversely, for those of us who want greater devolution, the more you devolve function the greater the need for a national funding framework.  

 

The third is a combination of the “post-code lottery” and the fear of failure.  With national funding comes a degree of minimum standards set by the national funders and with funding comes a degree of national responsibility for the success of the service provided.  The combination means that central government of which ever colour will not be able to step completely out of the picture when it comes to failing councils.

 

Finally, and this is a difficult one for those of us who advocate greater localism, councils have thrived on a degree of like for like comparison and while there is a diminishing return from star ratings and league tables, they have been significant factor in local government’s strong record of improvement. 

 

So Freedom to Lead feels like a re-invention of the national performance framework rather than its abolition.  There is a huge amount which can be achieved to reduce the costs in Leicestershire by simplification, realignment and delegation.  As important we need to build a system that directly contributes to the longer term outcomes we are trying to achieve, in particular the sharing of problems, innovative solutions developed across service delivery partners, and partnership working.

 

 

 

 

No More Surrogates

Posted October 19, 2009 * Comments(0)

The “Daily Mail” test is often used by people working in the public sector as a surrogate for public opinion.  If you want to warn someone about the reputational consequences of doing something you say “what would the Daily Mail make of it”. 

 

More powerful than any regulator, the Daily Mail can line national politicians of all parties in a national campaign on issues which in any sane world would be left to local decision making and discretion.

 

Last week’s demonstration of the new campaigning power of social media was particularly interesting because it was the number one arbitrator of public opinion which got brought to heel.   Jan Moir’s article on the death of Boyzone Stephen Gateley offended millions including those like me who hadn’t even read it (nice echoes of the Mail campaign against the Russell Brand/Jonathan Ross show). The resulting Twitter explosion and advertiser pressure had the paper reaching for its reverse gear.

 

Just as interesting was the collapse of the extraordinary efforts Trafigura was making to block reporting of its report on the dumping of waste in the Ivory Coast.  This extended to gagging the fact that the Guardian had been gagged  and attempting to prevent parliamentary reporters revealing the fact that this gagging order had been discussed in parliament. Such crude attempts to stifle discussion are hard to maintain in “twitterverse” and once the Guardian revealed the fact that it hadn’t been able to report on parliamentary proceedings the explosion through social media had Trafigura’s advisors, like the Daily Mail, reaching for their reverse gear.

 

Finding real rather than surrogate measures of public opinion has always been central to what good local government tries to do and the best are already using the latest Web 2 techniques to achieve this.  The response to the Jan Moir article and the collapse of Trafigura’s attempt to stifle reporting should provide further encouragement as to what can achieved.