Time to Tweet, that’s where the audience is going

LGcomms is the professional body for council communicators and their annual ‘Academy’ is taking place in Nottingham this week. The event would hopefully pass the Pickles ‘value’ test with a £99 daily fee allowing 300 delegates to hear 60 speakers from organisations as diverse as the CLG and Global Radio over three days with an agenda covering public services, council communications and opinion research.

Star of the show to date has been the BBC’s Sophie Brendel who unmasked the mysteries of social media by explaining that “being social” means getting the tone, speed and siting of online communication correct. That means engaging in a way that is informal, fast and succinct; things that local government has not always shown an ability to deliver. There are some outstanding examples of councils engaging in social media – Coventry’s 15,000-strong Facebook site for example, but they are few and far between.

To really develop a credible presence in social media requires an acceptance that responses to tweeted criticisms of your authority should be delivered in around an hour. A real challenge when many councils take a day to sign off a press release. It means listening and monitoring and then responding in a language that connects with the audience and reassures the bloggers who are increasingly important opinion formers.

Unless we contribute to the online debate we will lose contact with our citizens. Earlier in the day, Martyn Lewis, the former TV presenter had pointed out that as few as five million were still watching daily network television news, while up to 30 million consumed news online. And tweeted rumour and half truths about government can take hold and become accepted fact and by the time online chatter becomes press and broadcast reports, it is too late to influence the story.   

Another take on the value of digital media was offered by Chris Quigley, from Delib, who ran the government’s impressive online “Your Freedom” initiative last summer to generate public ideas for legislation and the “Spending challenge” allowing citizens to submit ways that government could reduce waste. Quigley reports that each website had around 500,000 visitors, but the Spending Challenge generated 43,000 ideas compared to only 15,000 proposals for ‘Your Freedom’.

The total cost of both projects was £25,000. Or around 45p per idea. The problem is that is appears that few ideas have been implemented and up to a million people might be wondering whether the government took their contribution seriously. There is simply no point in engaging people unless you can definitively show that their ideas have been considered, and acted upon, or rejected with good reason. As we approach local consultations which may well lead to service reductions, we need to remember to engage, but then report back with speed and honesty.   

Can the Local Government Association exist without Birmingham?

The news that Birmingham City Council has decided to give notice to the LGA should give all the contenders for the Chairmanship of the Association pause for thought.

Many of the councils who are set to leave are sensible, thoughtful authorities and represent all shades of political opinion. Their resignations could be an indication of the start of a significant number of withdrawals.

I think that the LGA faces two challenges. First, people don’t really know what it stands for. Second, it has not changed in the face of unprecedented political challenges.

The whole world of government has changed in the last twelve months; from an era of plenty to one of austerity and from a philosophy of Big Government to Big Society. From one party to coalition government. And no one can be sure yet how communities, families and individuals as the full impact of these changes settles in the year ahead. The perceived failure of the LGA to move quickly and nimbly to support authorities well and lobby government effectively over this period is behind much of the member disillusion. Despite the much quoted line that local government is the ‘most efficient in the public sector’ the public believe that councils are making a meal of the cuts, and could provide better value for money.

In response to this, there are some indications that the LGA recognises that this will have to be a summer of change. The election of chairman, expected appointment of a new Chief Executive and national conference at the end of June represent a series of real tests for the Association, or LG Group as it now styles itself.

There have been practical moves such as the significant reduction in subscriptions. There are, at Smith Square redundancies and cuts that have rationalised the organisation, though not before time.  But the real test will come next month when I would hope to see the LGA promising to do less, better with a few clear priorities rather than the dozen old and meandering goals set out in 2010. 

The choice of Chief Executive is also critical. Another local government Chief Executive is not the answer. Look at membership organizations that have flourished in this decade. Matthew Taylor revitalising the RSA for example. Local government needs figures who provide the inspiration and example to make people think differently,

The new offer should be as sharp and credible as that offered by any significant organisation. It should put great service and value for money at the heart of everything the LGA and local authorities do. It must champion best practice and where necessary censure poor delivery. And it should be a group that people want to join. Changing the rules from a notice period of one year to a notice of three months, as a sign that a confident LGA will be judged by how well it performs, rather than whether it can hang onto memberships for 12 months in the hope that something, like an election changes minds.   

The alternative to the LGA is probably even worse and will would mean reverting revert back to warfare between counties, districts, mets with govt just dividing and ruling. Govt itself would recognise that there is role for a united body that provided constructive opposition when and where appropriate.

Finally, There is also an onus on all of the political parties to put forward the best and brightest to serve - not just those given it to keep them happy and for a trip to London. A local government group cannot exist without Birmingham, but it is time for people to come to the aid of the cause of representing local government.

More needs to be done to slash local government red tape

We’ve heard plenty from government about their desire to slash costs and their hatred of unnecessary process. Everyone on the frontline knows that this is the case. We estimate that needless bureaucracy and red tape costs Westminster Council almost £1million a year – enough to cover the salaries of 26 teachers, 28 social workers or 44 street cleaners.

Successive governments have imposed centralised targets and endless guidance. We have to provide Whitehall with more than 2,500 separate pieces of data on everything from noise, planning and pollution to food safety, rubbish collection and parking

While the coalition government has made some important strides in abolishing quangos and freeing local government from Whitehall diktats it needs to go further and faster to improve the delivery of local services and free councils from centralised control.

For example, our submission to the Localism Bill noted that we currently have to provide 156 returns to central government (19 of which are new), supported by 466 specific indicators.  This doesn’t include measures or returns requirement by governmental sub-contractors, third party agents, quangos or voluntary sector providers.

While local authorities need to do their part and reduce the burdens they impose on individuals, families and communities, we would like to see real tangible action from the government in freeing councils from red tape.

These are ten regulations that we think should be reformed or scrapped:

1) The requirement for individual councillors to register as “data controllers” is unnecessary and costs money - £35 fee per councillor.

2) The requirement to publish public notices in local newspapers. For example, this costs Westminster £100,000 per year despite the fact that our local papers are read by a tiny fraction of our residents. The notices could more cost effectively be placed on the internet

3) Regulations for dismissing employees are excessively bureaucratic. Councils are faced with an excessive number of claims for unfair dismissal in employment tribunals – often in situations where the ex-employee’s performance or behaviour was clearly below the standard required.

4) The entire FOI process needs to be removed. While it right that we are open and transparent it also requires massive resources to administer to the timescales and requirements as set out by legislation.

5) Personal Health Social Economic Education should be taken off the national curriculum. This should be left to schools to decide.

6) The “School Workforce Census” return is a statutory requirement focusing on staff data for teachers and support staff with contracts or Service Agreements of one month or greater.  We believe this census should be scrapped.

7) The requirement in the Local Government (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 prevents cabinet members discussing a key decision with officers present within 28 days of that decision being taken. This causes unnecessary delays and serves no useful purpose.

8) Where a looked after child is placed with a long term foster carer on the presumption that it is a permanent arrangement, the government should end the requirement for annual inspections. There should only be an inspection if there is some evidence of difficulty.

9) Councils are required to meet the social care needs of people with no recourse to public funds, such as failed asylum seekers and failed habitual residents.  This requirement shouldn’t be placed on local authority adult social care services but should be dealt with at a national level.

10) The duty to secure that each children’s centre is within the remit of an advisory board is overly prescriptive.  Governance arrangements for children’s centres should be a matter for local determination.