Don’t just whine – refine!

by | Apr 4, 2011 | Articles, Section: Web exclusive | 0 comments

Eric Pickles appears to have all of local government in his sights. His department’s policies range from the central diktat (raising weekly bin collections to the status of an inalienable human right) to a brand of localism which ignores the legitimate role that local councillors play in their communities. Pickles has given councils more power, removing many of the ring-fences which proliferated around Labour’s local government grants. However, 28 per cent spending cuts mean that this freedom is a little like the freedom for everyone to eat at the Ritz – it’s more theoretical than real.

Yet, while all of local government is in his sights, it is Labour councils that are right in the cross-hairs. At Tory spring conference he thundered: “Labour councils are cutting frontline services and axing support for local charities. It’s a lot easier than embracing transparency and better procurement. They can just blame someone else”. Of course this is nonsense. My own council was the first in London to publish every expense over £500; try finding that information on the DCLG website. Labour councils across the country are sharing services – given the cuts, it’s sometimes the only way to keep the services going. 

But it would be a monumental mistake for our councillors to fall into the Pickles honeytrap of simply whining about the cuts without looking to reduce the effects of those cuts on the most vulnerable. We can do that only by reforming public services where the poorest are no longer served by them. We have to tell the stories of those who benefit from our policies, but we shouldn’t assume that they will always benefit. Yes, the cuts are appalling and we must campaign against them politically – there were plenty of Labour councillors marching on the 26 March. But, to show that we are the party of strong public services for all, we mustn’t limit ourselves to campaigning. We must innovate.

Take children’s centres – one of the best things we did in government. Whenever the Telegraph or Mail drone on about the inevitable waste of all public spending, we need utter only two words in reply: ‘Sure Start’. However, that doesn’t mean that children’s centres always reach out to the poorest or most vulnerable communities in the way that they should. I have in mind two children’s centres in my borough: both are found in mostly middle class streets, surrounded by fairly challenging estates. Both cater to diverse families speaking nearly 30 different languages. Yet, one reaches out from its base, taking its mobile family centre (based in the back of a bus) to those who need its services the most. The other tailors its services mostly to the middle-class parents who advocate perfectly reasonably, but very loudly, for their children. In this area, the fetish of localism has meant that the most vulnerable families miss out.

Children’s centres in Waltham Forest are being hit with a 20 per cent cut in funding – taking out nearly £3 million. The poorest families in the second area will be hit the hardest as their provision is already skewed away from them. Pickles’ brand of extreme localism will do nothing for these families – withdrawing funding, and allowing decisions to be taken by the ‘community’ means that those with the loudest voices and sharpest elbows get the most. In truth, this was a problem we should have recognised in government. But rather than simply complaining about a cut to one of Labour’s most cherished legacies, we are reforming the service to make sure that those who need the most get the most. Performance-related funding may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but we are using it to make sure that children’s centres target the most vulnerable families in their area.

Think of it as child poverty triage. As any medic knows, when you enter the scene of an accident, treat the silent ones first and the loud ones last. This is exactly what our performance-related pay is doing – focusing limited funds on the silent families who need help the most. Changing the way we do things isn’t sexy, and it doesn’t satisfy our deeply felt urge to scream at the government. But it does improve lives and it does give the lie to Pickles’ drivel about Labour callously cutting services to make a political point. We cut because we have to; we change because we want to.

Submit a Comment

Don’t just whine – refine!

by | Apr 4, 2011 | Changing to survive | 2 comments

Eric Pickles appears to have all of local government in his sights. His department’s policies range from the central diktat (raising weekly bin collections to the status of an inalienable human right) to a brand of localism which ignores the legitimate role that local councillors play in their communities. Pickles has given councils more power, removing many of the ring-fences which proliferated around Labour’s local government grants. However, 28 per cent spending cuts mean that this freedom is a little like the freedom for everyone to eat at the Ritz – it’s more theoretical than real.

Yet, while all of local government is in his sights, it is Labour councils that are right in the cross-hairs. At Tory spring conference he thundered: ‘Labour councils are cutting frontline services and axing support for local charities. It’s a lot easier than embracing transparency and better procurement. They can just blame someone else’. Of course this is nonsense. My own council was the first in London to publish every expense over £500; try finding that information on the DCLG website. Labour councils across the country are sharing services – given the cuts, it’s sometimes the only way to keep the services going. 

But it would be a monumental mistake for our councillors to fall into the Pickles honeytrap of simply whining about the cuts without looking to reduce the effects of those cuts on the most vulnerable. We can do that only by reforming public services where the poorest are no longer served by them. We have to tell the stories of those who benefit from our policies, but we shouldn’t assume that they will always benefit. Yes, the cuts are appalling and we must campaign against them politically – there were plenty of Labour councillors marching on the 26 March. But, to show that we are the party of strong public services for all, we mustn’t limit ourselves to campaigning. We must innovate.

Take children’s centres – one of the best things we did in government. Whenever the Telegraph or Mail drone on about the inevitable waste of all public spending, we need utter only two words in reply: ‘Sure Start’. However, that doesn’t mean that children’s centres always reach out to the poorest or most vulnerable communities in the way that they should. I have in mind two children’s centres in my borough: both are found in mostly middle class streets, surrounded by fairly challenging estates. Both cater to diverse families speaking nearly 30 different languages. Yet, one reaches out from its base, taking its mobile family centre (based in the back of a bus) to those who need its services the most. The other tailors its services mostly to the middle-class parents who advocate perfectly reasonably, but very loudly, for their children. In this area, the fetish of localism has meant that the most vulnerable families miss out.

Children’s centres in Waltham Forest are being hit with a 20 per cent cut in funding – taking out nearly £3 million. The poorest families in the second area will be hit the hardest as their provision is already skewed away from them. Pickles’ brand of extreme localism will do nothing for these families – withdrawing funding, and allowing decisions to be taken by the ‘community’ means that those with the loudest voices and sharpest elbows get the most. In truth, this was a problem we should have recognised in government. But rather than simply complaining about a cut to one of Labour’s most cherished legacies, we are reforming the service to make sure that those who need the most get the most. Performance-related funding may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but we are using it to make sure that children’s centres target the most vulnerable families in their area.

Think of it as child poverty triage. As any medic knows, when you enter the scene of an accident, treat the silent ones first and the loud ones last. This is exactly what our performance-related pay is doing – focusing limited funds on the silent families who need help the most. Changing the way we do things isn’t sexy, and it doesn’t satisfy our deeply felt urge to scream at the government. But it does improve lives and it does give the lie to Pickles’ drivel about Labour callously cutting services to make a political point. We cut because we have to; we change because we want to.

 

 

Photo: Victoria Peckham

2 Comments

  1. Saima Mahmud on April 5, 2011 at 10:02 am

    You speak a lot of sense, Mark. The ‘child poverty triage’ idea sounds like a good one. Very interesting article.

  2. Andrew Lock on April 5, 2011 at 5:42 pm

    Excellent article Mark. The Tories present us as not caring how precious resources are spent. Sure Start is one of the finest examples of our principles in action – something we have been far too quiet about when in power. Now faced with the Coalition cuts, we need to march but we also need to have an alternative that shows we are the ones that care about efficiency and making public services work for the people who don’t have sharp middle class elbows.

Submit a Comment