Title

Jim Brooks looks at how the Conservative Opposition is wooing local government in the run-up to the general election next year. In the autumn sunshine, Brighton provided the perfect backdrop for the SOLACE conference, two weeks ago. One of the high points of the event was a presentation by Philip Hammond MP, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury. He spoke about the Conservatives' preparations for government next year, assuming that they win the general election. Some of what he said was, by way of reassurance, that local government had nothing to fear from a Conservative Government. Those of us who have attended LGA and SOLACE conferences for a long time will remember former prime minister, Tony Blair, and his deputy, John Prescott, appearing at local authority conferences in the run-up to the general election of 1997. They spoke about their approach, particularly towards local government and health. The message was that these key services were safe in a Labour Government's hands. There would be changes, for theirs was a reforming agenda. And there would be challenge. But there would be support, too, and partnership, and mutual respect, for those public service organisations embracing the new agenda, and especially for the high-performing ones. Mr Hammond appeared to have the same brief. For me, there were eerie similarities, but at the same time, important differences, both in style and content. Even Mr Hammond had the good grace to reflect that chief executives might be cynical about many of the messages of support for local government that, as a representative of the major Opposition party, he was bringing to us. He also recognised that some of the messages emanating from Conservative Party HQ were hard ones for a local authority audience. He told us that the Conservatives would offer empowerment of the citizen through greater choice and through the empowerment of local managers. He expressed an underlying trust in local government, and a determination to free-up local councils with a general power of competence, a reduced inspection regime based on a risk assessment, a simplified grant distribution formula, and a reduction in central controls. I can see the rationale for much of this, although I have heard too many promises about the grant distribution formula from too many Government and Opposition spokesmen to get excited about that particular assertion. Local authorities often want to reflect greater sophistication in the model where it suits the locality, or where there is perceived injustice in the operation of the formula. The trouble is that the supporting formulae are so complicated that it is impossible to predict the real impact of marginal changes. Originally, this was partly to do with the way HM Treasury used significance testing statistical techniques. Mr Hammond was suffering from no such folk memories. He said there were some big issues to settle first which would need a top-down approach. Some immediate priorities required radical, centralised action, before the more positive agenda could kick in. Hearts sank around the room as chief executives digested the implications of a public sector pay freeze in 2011, an upper-salary limit of £150,000 in local government, the publication of senior salaries on the Internet, and further restrictions on the final salary pension scheme, including a future cap on individual pensions of £50,000 a year. He said the top 12 cities would be required to hold a ballot to check out support for an elected mayor. This came on the back of rumours that Eric Pickles, chairman of the Conservative Party, was personally telephoning leaders where a chief executive vacancy had occurred to ask them to consider whether they really needed to fill the post (see The MJ. 29 October). The reaction around the conference hall was more about how some of these changes carried a high risk and might fail, rather than any personal sense of financial loss or loss of job security. The Conservative approach we were being asked to recognise was that this seemingly-Draconian approach was an essential first step to tackle the aftermath of the credit crunch, which had caused the worst recession since the Second World War. The UK would have the largest budget deficit in the G20 group next year, and that this would mean the present Government was spending £4 for every £3 in tax revenues. For the Conservatives, cuts in public spending were the only solution. It wasn't clear to me whether or not sufficient reassurances had been given. On the other hand, the messages coming from the existing Government are far from reassuring. In 1996, the-then Government appeared short of ideas and drive, and one key question is whether that is true now. The incoming team gave similar reassurances about local government before the election of 1997. But my own perception is that local government has not been at the centre of government thinking over the last 12 years. There has been a lack of trust and appreciation, and the introduction of an unprecedented regime of external inspection and control. Even when one of our own was invited to give a potential blueprint for a new localism, the resulting Lyons report produced little perceptible change in the Government's outlook. No-one can foretell the future, and it would be unfair to make judgments about an incoming government without the evidence to back it up. But the indications are far from positive, even with the reassurance that things would improve after an initial period of central control. Plus ça change… Jim Brooks is executive director of Sector, and a former chief executive of Poole BC and Hull City Council

Title

WHITEHALL

New broom or the same old brush-off?

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING