The decline of partnership working

Too often however this partnership can deteriorate when recognised roles are changed. 

In some cases of course, some chief officers exercise too much power, especially if the leader is weak or politically constrained. But more often problems arise when politicians ignore professional advice; or, worse still, seek to manage operational matters themselves.

 

At national level, there have been incidents of tension between some ministers and their officials for many years.

 

We all have experience of good and constructive meetings with ministers who work well with their officials and operate in partnership with them.

 

We know too that some senior politicians have seen officials as a constraint, incompetent, or even politically obstructive. And we will all also have experience of meetings where officials have been treated with contempt. 

 

I remember one highly ambitious (but long since gone) Labour junior minister, newly installed in his very grand office in Whitehall and resplendent in an investment banker’s uniform of striped shirt and red braces, reading the Financial Times and completely ignoring his officials, who were sitting nervously awaiting the next move from their minister.

 

Worse still, and reflecting a developing attitude in both central and local government, was the comment I heard from a senior Conservative minister addressing (what he thought) was an audience of his own party’s councillors. His statement was startling:

 

‘If you’re in a Labour authority, get rid of Labour; if you’re in a LibDem authority, get rid of the LibDems; and if you’re in a Conservative authority, get rid of the officers’.

 

Party politics are fair enough; but to see officers as oppositional players in the political arena is inappropriate and unfair. 

 

And it leads to ministers and elected members believing they can do things better themselves (and save money at the same time).

 

This usually leads to problems. We have all witnessed what so often happens when members take direct control of an operational function: it leads to decisions made for short-term political expediency based on a simplistic approach of ‘something must be done’. This runs dangerously against the principle of objective strategic thinking based on officer advice.

 

Both central and local government in this country have always relied on a highly professional and politically neutral officer structure, which is sensitive to politicians’ policy objectives and which can provide structural continuity as political power changes hands.

 

There has been a slow decline in this tradition of partnership and clearly-defined roles for several years; but that decline and deterioration is now accelerating quickly, especially in local government.

 

It needs to be stopped; not to retain outdated traditions and ways of working, but because local government needs a professional superstructure as the core element of its organisations.

 

Elected members must of course always have control of the organisations they lead; but there needs to be a clear distinction between political strategy and operational management. The axiomatic phrases ‘a matter for members’ and ‘let managers manage’ are heard all too rarely in local government today.

 

There is a pressing need to reaffirm proper organisational relationships in our democratic institutions, and particularly in local government. 

 

At present, regulation and guidance are fragmented and limited: the Local Government Ombudsman has considerable powers, but they are primarily related to failures of administration; the long-gone Standards Board for England provided standards for conduct, but only for individual councillors; the old IDeA (Improvement and Development Agency) provided good practice and developmental work with both councillors and officers, but had no regulatory powers. 

 

There is a need now for a fresh initiative, with DCLG working with the local government associations to establish a new Code of Practice on member/officer relationships, perhaps overseen by a new Commissioner for Local Government, incorporating the limited supervisory and regulatory functions of the existing bodies and with the task of reasserting proper professional relationships in local government.  

 

The idea of a new quango, and the related statutory guidance or regulation, will not of course command the support of the present Government; but the concept needs to be considered for the future equilibrium of local government.