Title

David Prince warns the LGA not to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to restructuring the local government family. ‘Only ever rebrand in weakness – and don't forfeit core customers.' That's a well-known venture capitalist's advice. And it leaps to mind when reading references to the ‘new LGA' and ‘LGA Group' in the LGA Group Development Strategy, which asserts ‘existing brands will still be maintained and used where they add value for customers'. I'm adding to the family argument which Robert Hill sparked in his article ‘Sorting out the local government family argument' on how the strategy is actually implemented. He rightly warned how the current operational freedoms and accountability of the Leadership Centre could be sacrificed by the new programme board. Councils will suffer even greater losses if the IDeA's distinctive voice becomes muted, and live practical experience becomes distanced through greater centralisation in LGA policy-making. Making what the strategy calls ‘independence with interdependence' happen for the IDeA requires particular subtlety. Keeping the baby in the bathwater could prove tougher than the document's simple assurances about form and function. It's illuminating to read the strategy alongside the IDeA's latest annual report. In his foreword, Sir Simon Milton called on councils to build on recent progress through the three challenges of ruthless focus on their own performance, innovative solutions to society's problems, and selling the benefits of local democracy more effectively to the public. That's surely the right outward-facing context for judging the strategy's inward angst about how the LGA family brigades its functions and adds value for councils. Applying one of its own tests, how far is the LGA currently the authoritative and effective voice of the sector on the issues that matter most? As a critical friend, I'd say: ‘Better, but still not well enough' – not least because of the intractable perception problems of councillors speaking out for councils, often calling for extra resources. Historically, neither the LGA nor its constituent political groups have been sufficiently tough on poor local performance, and this only began changing when general improvements were externally forced. The reputation battle about the extent of recent improvement is far from won in Whitehall or Parliament, and even less with the media and public. With so much still to do, wouldn't it be better to maximise, not risk diminishing, the distinctive skills of the IDeA and other family member organisations? Precisely because of its arm's-length status beyond the political ‘magic circle', the IDeA achieved the hugely-successful peer review programme – a hard-edged but popular part of CPA which delivered politically-aware tough messages plus tailored follow up with political savvy. Visible separation from the mainstream body politic also galvanised the enthusiasm of officers and members for rolling up their sleeves for innovative projects and networks. Don't underestimate the value of IDeA staff and members speaking, as prominently and unrestrictedly as they have, on the platforms of think-tanks and national bodies. By voicing independent data in the language of opinion-formers, policy wonks and commentators, rather than politicians, they have reinforced local government's cause, and demonstrated its rigour. Like other family members, IDeA has been led by inspirational players. Its appointments sent out positive messages, magnetising new external talent to local government's cause and making concrete the LGA's broader political messages. Yes, some changes are needed, and administrative savings are overdue. I agree central services should be restricted to those areas which make a unique contribution. But let's separate the strategic imperative from internal housekeeping. The latter clearly includes the systems improvements necessary for better client information and relationships with individual councils, together with rationalisation of any problematic legal status and governance. With such a demanding external agenda, the LGA can only gain from deploying better the purpose-built bodies it owns. That means its leading politicians should become better at prioritising and commissioning. They should sternly hold family members to stretching targets. But then they should stand back and harvest the contributions to customers at the sharp end – councils, local people and communities. Above all, they need to avoid stifling creativity by fudging management arrangements or dabbling in detail. David Prince is former chief executive of the Standards Board for England

Title

WHITEHALL

Looking after baby

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING