Could localism solve our local economic woes?, A new dawn for public service. Options

[On the edge]

Over the past few years I've become more and more convinced that some service provisions, particularly the de facto monopolies are best provided in the public sector.

Ironically, nationalisation was the Tory choice in the 1920s and 30s. The public bodies set up then, are still well regarded. That's the BBC, CEB (National grid), London Transport, Cable and Wireless, etc. On top of that, in most big towns, there was a broadly successful municipal provision for gas, electricity, water and in Hull even telecoms.

The Labour government at the end of the 1940s continued this trend, but consolidated and centralised at the same time. In effect local control of this was lost, and monopoly elephantine organisations took over.

So, would it not be of benefit if we could revive this arrangement, perhaps in a modified format? Having local control of these trading monopolies would inevitably bring a new self managed income stream. It would also necessarily mean the introduction of a more effective and focussed management. The CEO would certainly have to earn his keep. Certainly, in the case of electricity, sustainable generation would be a far better proposition on the basis of wholly networks, interconnected by a national grid.

So imagine a Unitary Council, with a number of real and demonstrably necessary jobs to do and broad financial control over its own destiny. Would that work better than what pertains today?

[user23]

Is this the kind of thing you're talking about?

[On the edge]

Is this the kind of thing you're talking about?

Yes, but that's just a start. For electricity, I'd like to see physical ownership and management of the local wires network.

I've just seen the link you put up,about BT and Cornwall CC on broadband. Again, another example. There are quite a few other innovative and cost effective ways of delivering rural broadband other than the bear hug from BT. Arguably, BT with its de facto monopoly control of its network is behaving in exactly the same way as the old 1945 nationalisations.

One of the best examples I've seen is Birmingham, who have used this approach to motor ahead with social housing. Birmingham of course is very proud of its municipal trading roots.

[user23]

Yes, but that's just a start. For electricity, I'd like to see physical ownership and management of the local wires network.

I've just seen the link you put up,about BT and Cornwall CC on broadband. Again, another example. There are quite a few other innovative and cost effective ways of delivering rural broadband other than the bear hug from BT. Arguably, BT with its de facto monopoly control of its network is behaving in exactly the same way as the old 1945 nationalisations.

One of the best examples I've seen is Birmingham, who have used this approach to motor ahead with social housing. Birmingham of course is very proud of its municipal trading roots.

The link I put up about BT and Cornwall Council was about BT running IT, human resources and other services for the council, not broadband.

Birmingham is another example of a supposedly poor outsourcing deal, with Capita alleged to be making millions from providing public services.

[On the edge]

The link I put up about BT and Cornwall Council was about BT running IT, human resources and other services for the council, not broadband.

Birmingham is another example of a supposedly poor outsourcing deal, with Capita alleged to be making millions from providing public services.

Oh, sorry, just a quick scan.

The Birmingham thing was a housing development, not an IT project. Capita gives IT generally a bad name! Just to make it clear, what I am trying to propose is not outsourcing, having the Council itself doing.

I wholly agree, outsourcing is generally pointless, as we've seen time and again. Take waste; before outsourcing, we paid for y bin men, x lorries a few supervisors and some staff at Market Street. After outsourcing,I suspect we pay for the same, plus, one way or another, an amount to cover the outsourcers profit and executive costs. So, if it is cheaper , someone is paying - either us through some other fees, or the front line staff in lower wages.

[Sherlock]

Also worth noting that, when services are outsourced to foreign companies (as is the case with French owned Veolia) profits are sent offshore.

Even when public services are less efficient than the private sector - and having worked for many years in both sectors, latterly the private sector, I can assure you that there are often huge inefficiencies buried under those profits - remuneration paid to public sector employees stays and is spent or invested, to a large extent, here in the UK.

Our disastrous Chancellor, meanwhile, is perfectly happy to outsource nuclear power station construction to the People's Republics of China and France rather than invest in developing our own capability. Utterly insane.

[user23]

Oh, sorry, just a quick scan.

The Birmingham thing was a housing development, not an IT project. Capita gives IT generally a bad name! Just to make it clear, what I am trying to propose is not outsourcing, having the Council itself doing.

I wholly agree, outsourcing is generally pointless, as we've seen time and again. Take waste; before outsourcing, we paid for y bin men, x lorries a few supervisors and some staff at Market Street. After outsourcing,I suspect we pay for the same, plus, one way or another, an amount to cover the outsourcers profit and executive costs. So, if it is cheaper , someone is paying - either us through some other fees, or the front line staff in lower wages.

In these days of online crowsourcing and crowdfunding, smaller projects could be financed an run by the community. Potentially it could just take a few people who knew how to use the online tools to do this, to make it happen.

[Simon Kirby]

In these days of online crowsourcing and crowdfunding, smaller projects could be financed an run by the community. Potentially it could just take a few people who knew how to use the online tools to do this, to make it happen.

It would depend on the service, but my experience of trying to run the Newbury allotment service is that Newbury Town Council are incredibly hostile to the prospect of losing any of their service empire, to the extent that six years on from being evicted over a dispute involving £5 of unlawfully levied rent I am still not allowed another allotment. So the idea of the community adopting local government services is far from simple.

[Simon Kirby]

One aspect of local services which is better handled by the private sector is financial management. Take for example the cafe in the park. The Conservative administration say that the cafe project will be cancelled if the business plan suggests that any of the build cost will fall on the precept-payer, and that's very good to hear, but a fair bit of public money has already been spent having plans drawn up and getting planning permission and as best as I can judge the precept payer will end up paying for most of the cost of the £500,000 loan from the Public Works Loan Board - that's more than £40,000 annually, and when you see that they currently take just £2,500 in rent it's difficult to see how a little ice cream business is going to afford a 1600% increase in rent, and I would really have expected the business plan to have been worked out before anything had been spent. Now in local government that kind of financial planning is fine, because you just dump the cost on the tax-payer and deflect any public criticism, but it's much harder in the private sector to get away with that.

[user23]

It would depend on the service, but my experience of trying to run the Newbury allotment service is that Newbury Town Council are incredibly hostile to the prospect of losing any of their service empire, to the extent that six years on from being evicted over a dispute involving £5 of unlawfully levied rent I am still not allowed another allotment. So the idea of the community adopting local government services is far from simple.

I'm not talking about adopting a service. It looks like there'll be number of public services ceasing soon because there's isn't enough money though taxation to run them. If there's a demand for these services then perhaps a different funding model could work?

[TallDarkAndHands...]

The link I put up about BT and Cornwall Council was about BT running IT, human resources and other services for the council, not broadband.

Birmingham is another example of a supposedly poor outsourcing deal, with Capita alleged to be making millions from providing public services.

Capita would "streamline" WBC staff. That's for sure. You'd work twice the hours for the same or less pay.

[On the edge]

I'm not talking about adopting a service. It looks like there'll be number of public services ceasing soon because there's isn't enough money though taxation to run them. If there's a demand for these services then perhaps a different funding model could work?

That's part of the issue. If we had Councillors and Executives more willing to look at and facilitate innovative ways of delivering the process, the savings could be better applied elsewhere.. Allotments are a good example. If they were wholly self managed, the Council would still be able to collect the same revenue, but it would collect from one body - saving the resource heavy task of collecting from n individuals. Equally, it would free up officer and Councillor time spent 'managing'. Win / win.

[user23]

That's part of the issue. If we had Councillors and Executives more willing to look at and facilitate innovative ways of delivering the process, the savings could be better applied elsewhere.. Allotments are a good example. If they were wholly self managed, the Council would still be able to collect the same revenue, but it would collect from one body - saving the resource heavy task of collecting from n individuals. Equally, it would free up officer and Councillor time spent 'managing'. Win / win.

You're missing the point, it's about the community doing things for themselves, it isn't about blaming Councillors and Executives for not doing enough with less and less cash. The tools exist to crowdfund money, crowdsource skills and resources, collaboratively manage and publicise a project. I wonder if anyone in the community is actively looking at this?

[Andy Capp]

You're missing the point, it's about the community doing things for themselves, it isn't about blaming Councillors and Executives for not doing enough with less and less cash. The tools exist to crowdfund money, crowdsource skills and resources, collaboratively manage and publicise a project. I wonder if anyone in the community is actively looking at this?

That is fine, but the risk is that loads of small stakeholders in individual projects stand to lose big time if something goes wrong: liabilities, etc.

[On the edge]

You're missing the point, it's about the community doing things for themselves, it isn't about blaming Councillors and Executives for not doing enough with less and less cash. The tools exist to crowdfund money, crowdsource skills and resources, collaboratively manage and publicise a project. I wonder if anyone in the community is actively looking at this?

No, I'm not missing the point at all. I've been involved in trying to get several community initiatives off the ground. Round here, it was stifled by political interference. The best example of the point well missed is the Control Tower at Greenham Project.

Funding is a very interesting point too. You've made the case for alternative funding where the community decides to deliver a service the Council has had to cease. As we are still paying the same amount in taxes and community charges, in effect, we'd be paying double. I wholly agree this point needs to be addressed by Government, but 'cut's' should be two way! Otherwise I'm paying for something I don't get, miss-elling is the usual term.