Last night’s council meeting passed off without major incident. I spoke twice. once on a motion about improving the Great Northern line into Moorgate & Kings Cross’ Labour were calling for increases to train frequencies and having London Overground run services on the lines. I took a more realistic line as there is unlikely to be any money available to  do any of that. It would be nice if we could get Oyster pre-pay running and if the ticket offices were open more often and if the ticket machines worked more often.

In the second part of the meeting I spoke on the opposition policy item which was not really a policy item at all but a call for public services to be protected from cuts. Below is the text of my speech.

This policy item (and I use the word policy advisedly) is a blank canvass. There is very little anyone can disagree with. I would like to have seen some ideas from the labour party that we could discuss and debate.

We face a fundamental problem. Less money coming in and yet a growing need to serve. We are being asked to do more with less or at least do the same with less. However as future shape acknowledges this is not a viable option unless we can make what we do more efficient, however this is only part of the story. Future shape concentrates on efficiency but neglects effectiveness.  Of course, there is no clear path set out explaining exactly how to go about it. This is particularly true given that the challenges that we are facing are interlinked and complex: when budgets are being squeezed, how do you make the investment that you would like to?

I believe that there is a fundamental problem at the heart of this conundrum. If we look back to 1997 many of us had high hopes that the incoming Labour government would be radically different from the failed tory government. What we actually got though was nothing more than a change of management. The actual objectives of the labour government were not in the end radically different from what went before. The promise to the electorate was that thing would be better managed, less wasteful etc etc. In reality we all know that this did not happen, and it did not happen because Labour were too concerned about process and proving that their processes worked than looking at what those processes delivered.

We see it locally. We have all sat looking at the pages and pages of key performance indicators with their traffic light indicators. Many of those kpi’s were centrally imposed. And when we looked and there was plenty of green we were tempted to think, well that’s ok then we are hitting our targets. There was very little actual analysis as to whether the target was sensible or desirable or whether it actually made a jot of difference to our residents. The one thing that Future shape does acknowledge is that carrying on like that is not sustainable and actually not desirable. But what future shape lacks is a vision for where we want to go. Future shape only looks at the bottom line and the only thing that counts towards the bottom line is money. Future shape acknowledges that we have a problem but is far too vague about how we solve it.

The tories have a problem. Most of their members and supporters don’t need the majority of council services. If they can get the bins emptied and the roads repaired and their planning application dealt with promptly then most tory supporters are going to be happy. Services such as resident wardens are not an issue for them. They can afford to go private. And actually if of you look at the decision to remove wardens from sheltered accommodation then again we see the triumph of process over proper evaluation of need. The cut to wardens does not save that much money but it does separate housing from care. Very convenient for the bean counters, very neat and tidy, very conservative but in reality not what the users of the service either want or need.. In fact it’s the exact opposite.

In order to get anywhere with reforming our services we need to know what we are actually trying to achieve and why we want to do it. The fact that central government says we have to do something or collect certain statistics is not good enough. We need to challenge this. Officers will always do what the latest government circular tells them to. It’s their job and we shouldn’t criticise them for that, That is what happens when there is little or no political leadership. We should be challenging central government and we should be making sure that our local priorities get precedence.

Now what can we do practically. The report to cabinet entitled ‘responding to recession’ makes some positive suggestions especially in relation to skills and training, however I would add the following suggestions.

1. The bottom line is not simply about the balance sheet. When we procure services we need the best people doing the job and we need them to be local where ever possible. Our people are our assets too.
2. We need to keep money in the local economy, which again means buying locally, spending money locally.
3. We can also use our procurement decisions to support local businesses, as is happening in Islington. The authority there is introducing a new procurement code that supports the use of local suppliers, where available. I welcome the fact that Barnet as Camden are now paying their local suppliers within 10 days rather than 30.
4. Divert reserves to fund credit unions, or to banks and building societies to enable them to offer loans to local business’s to put credit into the local enconomy.
5. Go green, not because it’s trendy or fashionable but because it’s the right thing to do and it can save us money. Make sure the lights are turned off in council offices, make sure the heating is not on when we don’t need it. Reduce, re-use & recycle. We all know the phrase. Let’s make it a reality. What about a target to cut our energy consumption? What about making sure our buildings are as energy efficient as we can make them.
6. Use waste land. In Camden they are using waste land on their estates for people to grow food. What are we doing?

We can deliver more for less but we need a clear vision about what we need to deliver and how best to deliver it. This is not about process it is about vision and a clear understanding of what people need. Let’s not assume. Let’s ask them.

And if you are looking for a maxim by which to operate then you can do a lot worse than heed the words of Gladstone who said.

“Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.”