The public has still not grasped the implications of 25-35% spending cuts for public services. It's time for councils to open the books and launch local information campaigns that engage local citizens
I am constantly surprised (even horrified) when speaking to supposedly well-informed people by their lack of understanding about the implications of further public expenditure cuts and the government’s ‘welfare reforms’. As far as I can fathom, this is at best ‘optimism’ and at worst ‘naivety’ based on a fundamental lack of understanding of the depth of the cuts yet to come, or a false expectation that such cuts will simply eliminate waste or fall on marginal services that have little or no impact on communities and the wider economy.
And if one takes into account the level of media coverage on the cuts so far, those being planned, the government’s medium and long term spending plans and the lack of economic growth, I am at a loss to find a rational explanation for this very surprising state of affairs.
I suppose there are several reasons for this ‘optimism’. The media and ministers, all too often, continue to use words like ‘waste’, ‘inefficiencies and efficiencies’, ‘overpaid bureaucrats’ and similar ill-defined phrases which suggest that core services can be sustained if only the public sector simply was better managed (with fewer managers of course!).
However, the degree to which the 2010 spending review cuts have not yet been implemented is much underplayed, and the level of sophistication of commentary on these scheduled cuts is generally pitiful. Truly, there is a real and genuine failure to understand the consequences of cutting budgets by 25–35% plus, or of the so-called ‘welfare reforms’.
Of course, there have been many examples of politicians, council leaders, professional bodies, trade unions, charities, analysts and commentators forecasting what the cuts will mean for their beneficiaries, members, specific services and communities. Sadly, these forecasts have all too often been dismissed by the apologists for the cuts as being alarmist and inaccurate – the view being that they will only materialise as a result of poor management or self-protectionism or because of politically motivated actions by councils and others. Such interpretations are, for the most part, deeply unhelpful – and misleading.
Given the state of the public finances and in particular the implications for local government and other local services, I suggest that it is about time that local authorities and their representative bodies instigate proactive local information programmes and debates on the future shape of public services and community well-being.
Such programmes and debates should be informed by forecasts of projected financial cuts for the local authority, the local NHS, police and the wider public sector; the implications of the government’s ‘welfare reforms’ for local residents, households and communities; and the prospects for the local economy. They need to be spelt out in easily understood tangible ways and not as remote abstract statistics.
Surely, it is also time for local authorities to identify the implications and prospects for specific neighbourhoods too, given the inevitable variations between them. It would seem that poorer communities are bearing the brunt of many of the cuts and welfare changes.
Based on the principles of the former ‘Total Place’ and the contemporary ‘whole place’ community budgets, this approach can only be enhanced by calculating the total public sector resources available within a local authority area as a precursor to considering how best to manage the budget pressures and reductions on this wider canvas.
Further, there must surely be opportunities to consider the wider economic and social capacity available through the business and voluntary community sectors.
These ‘information programmes’ should be the basis for better-informed, local debates about the options for managing the public sector with far less money. Such debates will ideally include the local voluntary and community sector, the local social sector, local businesses, trade unions, academics, service users and residents. These debates need to encompass benchmarks and ideas from other places.
Participation in or the organisation of such local public expenditure debates should not be seen as an acceptance of government macroeconomic policy. Rather, there must be a realisation that there is a local collective interest in and responsibility for promoting and defending the well-being of local economies, communities and residents.
Indeed, these local debates, identification of options and their implications should help inform and shape the national policy debate. Understanding the human costs of cuts needs to be a much more powerful influence on such policy debate than a heated exchange about sterile financial statistics. It could drive change in national policy.
If this idea is to work, it will require bold political leadership. It will need to be led by council leaders, elected mayors and councillors. It will require that all local public agencies willingly participate and open up their finances to scrutiny. And it will require the local voluntary and community sector, the local social sector, local businesses and trade unions to be willing to contribute their expertise, experience and ideas.
All participants should be willing to be challenged, to challenge themselves, share information and ideas, cede power and explore radical ideas.
Radical ideas and new ways of working cannot be avoided when major cuts are being made to public service budgets. Some services will be stopped. Some will be delivered in radically different ways. Citizens are going to have to take on new responsibilities and have new relationships with the public sector and public service providers. There will be new roles for the voluntary community sector, social businesses and businesses - and new forms of collaboration between these sectors.
In localities there must, surely, potentially be scope for some consensus on these matters and more importantly, agreement on key issues such as employment standards for people employed in public services; procurement and supply chain standards; eligibility for services; and critical social, economic and environment outcomes for the area. Indeed, the pursuit of these outcomes and standards should shape the behaviours of all the local players.
The idea of informed public deliberations on the use of public resources and making budget cuts may be idealistic but the absence of such debate is deeply damaging and will, in my opinion, further undermine democratic credibility, public confidence in politicians and public sector managers, and mean that sensible and practical solutions are missed.
I am not arguing for this approach to replace or undermine real political choice and political decisions taken by political leaders for local people. Rather, it should underpin local political leadership and not diminish it. Final decisions must always rest firmly with political leaders but a more honest and informed public debate (which we do not currently have) surely means they can make such decisions with greater confidence and more information. Public authorisation of these decisions can only be helpful to politicians and the public.
The coming years are going to be tough and challenging for communities and people who live in them. Decision makers need to understand these challenges and to explore the means of defending communities and residents from wrong decisions whilst acknowledging that the current government’s public expenditure, economic and welfare policies will inevitably lead to hardship and a rowing back of public service provision and the role of the state.
However sophisticated the consultation and decision-making processes, the reality is that more money is not going to be put into the system; and if specific service areas are protected local government in particular is going to face massive further cuts.
However, this is no reason to avoid a more informed and inclusive debate at the local and national levels. It’s time for a more honest, more open and more inclusive debate about choices; and for the public to understand the results of current national policies.
