Showing posts with label services. Show all posts
Showing posts with label services. Show all posts

Monday, 11 June 2012

It's not good that three out of ten people aren't satisfied with their local council is it?

****

This level of customer dissatisfaction in the private sector would lead to the sacking or directors, headline sin the business pages and angry words all round. And the survey reveals the public's low opinions of their council:

Opinions regarding council efficiency have also seen an improvement, rising to 52% satisfaction since June last year. 

The report here seems almost celebratory - nearly half the public think councils are inefficient! And there's more:


The survey found a 6% drop in the number of Britons content with the work done to keep residents informed of council services since 2010, a figure which now lies at 54%.

Similarly, the LG Insight Populus poll found that 45% of residents believe their council take account of public opinion during the decision making process, a figure that has fallen by 2% since 2010. 


So there you go council folks - much of the public think you're doing a pretty poor job. Yet no-one is castigating councils - calling for resignations, restructures of abolition - for being considered so ineffective.

....



Monday, 7 February 2011

How the self-appointed enforcers of the big state are killing Big Society at birth

I want to agree with Julian Dobson. I really do.  For most of the time he understands what Big Society is about. But then he goes and spoils it:

We are already starting to see a big society gathering momentum in response to the cuts. It is coming from campaigns against library closures, to save schemes like Bookstart, to persuade giant corporations to pay their taxes.

This isn’t Big Society. This isn’t reclaiming the independence of communities. This isn’t progress towards a mutual, co-operative, voluntary society. It is instead a sad reminiscence – people campaigning for government from somewhere else, for others to pay for that government. It is almost a repeat of the squadristi enforcing the laws, running the trains and manning the tax offices – because “if the government won’t do it, then we will.”

The worrying thing in all this isn’t the upsurge in activism – we should welcome that – but that this is activism in defence of the state. UK Uncut and others have become the self-appointed enforcers of big government – and are tearing down any hope of a ‘Big Society’ since that revolts against the over mighty state they support.

Liberating society from the constricting, suffocating comfort blanket of centralised state direction was never going to be easy. But advocates of local action like Julian – with their talk of moving “from a centralised, controlling big society to a distributed, cooperative society” – diverge from that objective when they speak of what government should do:

The message to government, meanwhile, is that it’s time to stop lecturing us about your vision of a big society and start engaging on our territory. Come and talk to the public servants who are being made redundant. Speak to the service users who are losing facilities they rely on. Listen to the people who are struggling to make ends meet, worrying about debt, who don’t know what future their children will have.

How will listening to groups who have the simple objective of stopping government withdrawing from provision so community can take over make a Big Society happen? Do people like Julian not appreciate that while community activists, charities and organisers bemoan the cuts, the private service sector – firms like SERCO, Carillion and A4e – are seeing opportunity?

Where are the groups talking to local government about how youth services can be transferred to voluntary sector provision, how community groups can manage libraries, how regulatory services like planning and pollution control can be delivered by social enterprise? Why are activists sitting in shops rather than taking over libraries? How are individual people – those who want something to happen in their street, their village, their back yard – being supported by experienced activists to get on and do that thing rather than being pointed at mere protest?

I am disappointed – cross that destruction from UK Uncut has pushed aside construction from Big Society. That the only solution activists can think of is to yell at government – to hold out the begging bowl, to tug a little harder at the benevolent trouser leg of the state and to tie ourselves ever more tightly to nanny’s apron strings.

There was a time when I hoped that Big Society would give these people the permission to act positively – to build societies fitted to localities, to take control of our places again and to grow out of the need for the grand schemes of centralised government.

It seems I was wrong. Activists want the central, controlling state – which means having the Big Society killed at its birth.

....

Friday, 25 June 2010

Could we save some of the cost of local government by scrapping most of it?

****

Once upon a time local government was a pretty straightforward activity. What happened was that local residents and local business paid a tax based (rather loosely) on property value to a City or Town Hall and, in return received a set of services and amenities. Roads, parks, playgrounds, libraries and public halls were provided, bins were emptied, streets were swept and council housing was there for the less well paid. Big councils – Counties and County Boroughs provided schools and delivered support to the indigent in one way of another. It was all good and fine and, as we know, there wasn’t much poverty or any of that dread deprivation to get in the way.

Most councils saw themselves in a matter-of-fact way – there wasn’t a lot of pointless party political posturing getting in the way of the sound business of providing services to the local community in return for the rates. People who worked at the council were ever so slightly dull – either clerkly sorts in sombre grey suits, chaps in uniforms with napoleon complexes or solid blokes with dirty hands from planting flower beds, shovelling rubbish or digging the roads.

But something changed – not only was poverty rediscovered and less wealthy folks ‘problematised’ (as those sociologists like to say) but central government discovered the deep joy of making up rules and regulation for councils to implement. The first of these – the Local Authority Social Services Act of 1970 – ostensibly pulled together existing services but, in truth, acting to create an engine of endless, self-sustaining social intervention. Each tragic case – from Maria Colwell through Kennedy MacFarlane to Victoria ClimbiĆ© and ‘Baby P’ – resulted in an extension of the rules, a further collection of ‘experts’ and more meetings, more bureaucracy. It is with a degree of tragic inevitability that there will be a future tragedy, a future review of enquiry and future changes, improvements and extensions to supposed ‘child protection’ regulation.

On top of creating the monster of social services came other bureaucratisations masquerading and ‘professionalising’ service. Greater ‘strategic planning’ powers were granted, councils took on a bigger role in the administration of a burgeoning welfare system and given these new powers many councils no longer saw their role as that boring one of serving the local resident and the local business but a much grander role of social engineering. Improvement, betterment – the grandiose process of municipal pseudo-socialism where not a thing happens in the town without the professionals at the – now renamed – civic centre having at least a figure and preferably an arm up to the elbow firmly there embedded.

Where once there was a ‘town clerk’ sprung up a ‘chief executive’. And with such a grand title came other grandly titled roles – the Head of Parks transmuted into ‘Strategic Director, Leisure’ and the ‘City Solicitor’ became ‘Director of Legal Services’. Each of these grand, important people required oppos – folk to carry the bags. And so we found a new generation of ‘Assistant Directors’ – and below them those folk actually doing the work, ‘Heads of Service’. And across all of this came the support roles – each position requires at least on ‘personal assistant’ and every function (no matter how small) requires a policy team.

Something had to be done and, as ever, Tony Blair was up for the job! In a massive change the old system was swept away – and alongside all those important, professional management jobs we now have the professional councillor. Gone were the days when the local solicitor, businessman, retired schoolteacher or trade union steward put themselves forward for the council – aiming to serve not to climb up some career ladder sustained by payment from the public purse. Those old councillors were respected – on occasion admired – for their sense of service. We looked up to them as men and women of substance in the community – people who made decisions. Today the local councillor – paid a stipend from the public purse – is seen as just another little part in the bureaucratic cog. For some – the grand, important leaders of political groups – the pay is pretty good these days (as are the opportunities for trips out, jollies and boondoggles). Such folk are the elite of the new professional councillor – trained, with job descriptions, working to KPIs and penning annual reports.

And, my dear reader, do you think you get a better service from your council as a result of all this professionalisation? Are your local councillors – assuming you’ve the first idea who they are – vastly better than those of times past? And has the result been a more effective, less costly, higher quality set of services? Of course not – we have replaced the delivery of service with the bureaucratisation of efficiency with the result being less good services delivered more expensively and less accountably. Where councillors – plus the ordinary council worker going about his or her ordinary day job - once provided all the community engagement needed we now spend millions scraping at the surface of engagement. And failing.

Local councils are now unwieldy, ineffective, badly focused and over-bureaucratic. They do too much and achieve too little. They cost more than ever before yet are less popular than at any point in history. People no longer make the link between electing a councillor and the local services they receive. Instead they see powerless – even useless – councillors lined up against a vast horde of faceless, badly suited bureaucrats speaking a strange language that almost entirely fails to explain why the streets are swept as well as in the past, why there’s no park keeper and why the council tax spirals ever upwards.

The experiment of municipal vastness has failed – we do not get better services (and they certainly ain’t cheaper) from bigger local councils. Big councils need breaking up – services should be owned, operated and delivered at a human scale again with local folk involved in designing and running them. We don’t need an Assistant Director, Cleansing (or whatever) to organise the sweeping of streets in Cullingworth – just a bloke with a trolley and a broom who knows the area and cares a little. We don’t need a vast anonymous office filled with clerks to run the local primary – treat it like any small business and it will thrive, Above all we don’t need rooms full of planners, policy officers, strategists and professional whatever they are – these are now an intolerable burden on the public who just want ordinary, simple services delivered like they used to be delivered.

The solution? Maybe we should shut down all top tier local authorities, abolish the unnecessary education bureaucracy, hand over social services to health authorities and create small, accountable community councils that can deliver the simple, straightforward services local folk want from their Council?

....

Sunday, 21 March 2010

Gordon: you've had your photo op - now make sure these men can vote

The revelation that British troops serving in Afghanistan are unlikely to be able to vote in the forthcoming General Election represents an appalling failure on behalf of this Labour Government. When they changed the law in 2001 requiring annual registration (and also opening up postal voting to scandal and abuse) over 100,000 serving soldiers, airmen and sailors dropped off the register.

This needs sorting. But this suggests it won't:

A recent strawpoll on the British Army Rumour Service, an unofficial military website, found that 57% of those canvassed planned to vote Tory, compared with 7% who said they would back Labour.


After all Mr Brown won't be wanting 50,000 or so Tory votes from service men and women now, would he?

....

Wednesday, 20 January 2010

The Theory of Competitive Government

***

In one of his more that usually stupid comments our Prime Minister said this:

"We're the Government doing the most for the people of this country."

Unlike all the other Governments in the country who aren’t doing nearly as much.

However, this got me to thinking. Why not have competitive government – it works for everything else. Rather than just the one Government with all the power, we could have an open market – any group can set up a government, raise taxes and deliver services but they do so in competition with others.

Tricky I know and we’d end up with a new government to mediate the disputes between the various governments – and so on like the proverbial fleas on a dog’s back. We need some central authority to administer the laws and prevent arbitrary seizure of property. And that authority must be under popular control so as to prevent it become itself arbitrary.

However, the principle underlying the admirable “free schools” ideas could – and in my view should – be translated into the genuinely competitive delivery of government services. If it is right for schools to break free from bureaucracy, the same must apply to health, to waste management, to social services…to the police. The great reforms of the 1945 Labour government created a producer bureaucracy that is no longer suited to today.

A major change is possible in government – delivering through voluntary choice and the decisions of individuals the rapid improvements in service quality, care and cost-effectiveness that bureaucratic fiat can no longer deliver. A truly radical government will start the transformation by handing over power and control to neighbourhoods, to communities of interest and to the creators and innovators now stifled by the dead hand of our centralised state.

...