The foundations of localism

February 18, 2010 by
Filed under: Public policy 

Ministers are digesting the results of the Total Place pilots, 13 schemes around England which explored in depth how public money is spent locally on a particular set of outcomes. It seems that the pilots have found scope for major savings as a result, first, of the simple exercise of analysing why things are being done and whether they achieve any purpose and, second, by much greater inter-agency collaboration – for example, recognising the savings that can be made on health and social care costs by investing more earlier to help people stay in their own homes.

The results of the pilots will go towards yet another Government public service strategy (the fifth in three years) which will emerge around the time of the budget. If there is to be any chance of a disengaged and sceptical public noticing a new approach, it will have to be very bold. And so, yet again, the debate is on in Whitehall between the devolutionists and the centralists.

Of course, all the party leaders have pledged to remove power from the centre yet none so far have engaged properly with the implications such an approach would have for Whitehall, Westminster and the public at large. This means the fine words have very little credibility.

If this is to change, Whitehall needs to undertake a piece of work which has, to my knowledge, never previously been commissioned. Instead of another review of whether power should be devolved, or of what the next grudging incremental step might be, Number Ten needs to commission research which starts from the assumption of radical devolution and then explores with rigour and realism what is involved in making this happen.

What does a post devolution Whitehall look like? How does accountability in Westminster happen if most service outcomes are determined at the local level? How can the media be educated to accept that ministers cannot be held responsible for devolved outcomes? If local politicians are to have more power, how should local accountability be strengthened?  How can we – without undermining the core strategy – address the social and legal issues arising from people getting different services depending on where they live? (By the way, one of the myths used by those opposed to devolved power is that people get the same outcomes in centralised services. They don’t. It just that differences result from bureaucratic and professional discretion and differential performance rather than choices made through democratic processes.)
 
If this piece of work was undertaken it might slightly increase the chances of Labour’s new strategy being taken seriously. But even if it did nothing to change the likely outcome of the election it would be a valuable resource for an incoming Government. And, given the apparently limited impact that Conservative blunders (and haven’t there been a lot!) and the Brown media offensive are having on the polls, legacy may be all the current inhabitants of Number Ten have to comfort themselves.

Share

No related posts.

Tags: ,

Comments

5 Comments on The foundations of localism

  1. Fake Fan Base on Thu, 18th Feb 2010 12:31 pm

    2. It seems to be a critical juncture for localism and empowerment right now so your suggestion is a good one. The Conservatives have probably helped this debate along.

    I wonder at what stage a Royal Commission might be valueable in making visible many of the aspect sof central-local relations together so that the public and others can start to understand it.

  2. Matt on Fri, 19th Feb 2010 12:40 pm

    3. This is a really bloody excellent post!

    I especially like the point that centralised services already produce variable outcomes for different localities. It’s a postcode lottery whichever way you do things… So, the question is how you deal with that, and ancillary but important considerations of democratic engagement.

  3. henry on Fri, 19th Feb 2010 6:07 pm

    4. Great post- makes sense and is a piece of work you could actually envisage (or hope) being done. I wonder if total place might lay the foundations adn start to change minds- if the evidence is that, given the opportunity to work counter-intuitively and/or collaboratively, the results are positive and encouraging.

    would be interesting to see how total place would play out in a rolling format – where TP areas could reallocate the savings they identify without having to pass them up or see their budgets cut accordingly. Under this model preventative spending and long-term planning would be massively rewarding for localities. But the alternative is a narrow version that loses the ethic of leadership& values, and is just about looking for efficiencies in the short term.

  4. Angus Bearn on Tue, 23rd Feb 2010 6:24 pm

    5. One of the principle arguments for re-centralising the ‘neighbourhood’ model of service delivery at Tower Hamlets in the 90′s was precisely the variability of local services. All pants, of course. Anyone who has so much as used a plumbing firm knows that the service you receive depends on WHO comes round. So the offices with good managers continued to give a good service… Business has broken its teeth trying to achieve uniformity, when mostly we just want a friendly, helpful service which leaves us feeling important. Or at least no more unimportant than the next guy. So why this obsession with uniformity? (That’s uniformity, not uniforms, a different blog) By definition, it clips the wings of the most able amongst us – exactly those who need to be set free to develop surprisingly good services. No doubt the casualty departments of the [edited] and [edited] hospitals have similar outcomes in terms of published targets. But one is beautifully serene and caring, the other an abbatoir. It is not about central or local. It is about us. Why do we keep missing the personal when we talk about public services?

  5. Catryn on Wed, 24th Feb 2010 12:21 am

    6. Excellent piece. I’m watching Total Place with great anticipation and given the pilots submitted their final reports to government on Friday (19th) I hope to see some more on the blog relating to this initiative.

    Devolution, in its various guises, is attracting a great deal of debate at the moment. In relation to each, I entirely agree that the debate cannot be moved on until we thoroughly consider the ‘view from the other side’. But to keep to local devolution, one necessary facet of a rigorous exploration must be the professionalisation of local politics. If local politicians are to have more power should local politics become a genuine career opportunity with fair remuneration? I certainly see this as an important issue, not least because it provides a means of encouraging young, talented people into local politics.
    Furthermore, a transfer of power in itself is insufficient. A radical review of local governance structures would also be useful- how about elected mayors with the power to appoint expert advisors/ directors as in the German system?

    As for devolution at the national level, there are changes on the Welsh horizon, the perpetual progressive discussions in Scotland and the re-emergence of the ‘English question’. It seems that the tide of change is both necessary and inevitable and neither layer of devolution should be considered in isolation. this leaves us plenty of interesting questions- not least about citizenship and identity!

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!