It is almost impossible for ministers to entertain the idea that, come the next general election, they may not be in government. To do so would be to remove their very reason for existence. For the rest of the machinery of government, however, planning beyond May 2010 becomes complicated by the serious possibility of a change of administration, or ‘election blight'. It is especially problematic if the Opposition is committed to scrapping programmes or legislation currently at the starting blocks. This week, two separate issues directly concerning local government are affected by election blight. One is the plan for new unitaries in Devon, Norfolk and Suffolk. The original target was to set them up in April 2010, but delays, the latest announced this week, mean no decision will be made until next autumn, with start-up now expected in April 2011 (see story opposite). The problem is that Conservatives have stated their opposition to reorganisation, and continue to insist they will block new unitaries, if they can. We will probably never know how feasible a threat this is until a) they win the election and b) they make a decision once in power. This, in turn, means all parties, the Boundary Committee, civil servants, and last but not least all the councils in the three areas under review, living in complete uncertainty right up to summer 2010. The same uncertainty, though with implications for all English councils, applies to the future of the Comprehensive Area Assessment. Again, the Conservatives insist they will scrap it, and since the CAA is set to start later this year, this causes real problems for councils. Do they go through the motions and pretend it isn't there on the basis that a new government will ditch it? Or can the Audit Commission structure the CAA in such a way that a new Cameron administration will decide to retain it? In fact, there is a strong argument for postponing the CAA altogether, not just on these grounds but because of the entire economic scenario. Councils will have enough on their plate without grappling with a new inspection regime. Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ
