Lewisham budget challenge

[Lewisham]

The Council has to find savings worth £85million over the next three years in the face of reduced government spending. What would you do - how you would meet this budget challenge?

What services are important to you and your family? What services do you think are important to the more vulnerable members of the community? Where might you find the savings? Using the online budget simulator you can decide how you would allocate the funding.

To take part, go to [url] http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/bigbudgetchallenge You can also attend your local assembly meeting during September and October to join in a discussion about the Council’s budget. Dates and locations of meetings are here: [url]www.lewisham.gov.uk/localassemblies

And join the discussion on twitter #bigbudgetchallenge

[JRobinson]

I've filled this in, but was a bit miffed that it didn't show that sometimes you can increase funding in an area, and this will, over a few years actually decrease the amount of expenditure needed.
I made lots of suggestions as how to save money, or generate income - solar VP on all council buildings for example - but things like this cost money to set up, and you only see the benefits over several years in the future.
double glazing installed in all council buildings - saves money on the electricity bill in the future, but costs a shed load now.

[Tim Lund]

There was a presentation about this at the Perry Vale Assembly last night.



I'm hardly the only one who's not very keen to play this particular game. Some were for standing up to these central government imposed rules, voting for a party which would do so (UKIP & SWP suggested), others were for raiding capital budgets for supporting these current expenditures. The officer (Robyn Fairman, LB Lewisham Head of Strategy) patiently explain the rules of the game we are in, supported by councillors when the question was overtly political.

I have a fair amount of sympathy for officers and councillors here, but we are still nowhere near being properly informed. My question was whether there was data anywhere - HM Treasury? DCLG? - to show whether particular services here were being delivered well or not, at least in comparison to other boroughs. The big picture here is that much of most current Local Government services are not necessarily best run at the level of Local Authorities. In some cases it may be possible for them to be run better at a lower level - which is what enthusiasts for localism like - but more often, I think, there will be reasonable economies of scale from existing boroughs working together. So the sort of thing I posted about here

Council IT costs - keep your eyes on the prize

That gets us into a whole lot of other questions, such as the role of commercial interests, and the continued relevance of local government at the London Borough level - but let's leave that for now.

To return, the officer said yes, there was this information, and referred me to benchmarking on the CIPFA website. On following up this suggestion, I found the CIPFA Value For Money toolkit ... but it seems I'd have to pay a fair amount to see the numbers



and I'm not sure that I'd be allowed to, as a member of the public, rather than a Local Authority, or member of CIPFA. Even then, I wonder what the licence terms would be.

So, my follow up question for Robyn Fairman is whether she can share the CIPFA Value for Money information which she will be using in formulating proposals for Lewisham's Budget Challenge with us as members of the public.

[hairybuddha]

It's all too easy for Council leaders to blame Central Government. But Lewisham is rotten to the core. Perhaps the following link might contain some data that could help with the budget challenge (£115,000 p.a for a 3 day week anyone?).

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/mayorandcoun ... utive.aspx

[Pally]

U

It's all too easy for Council leaders to blame Central Government. But Lewisham is rotten to the core. Perhaps the following link might contain some data that could help with the budget challenge (£115,000 p.a for a 3 day week anyone?).

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/mayorandcoun ... utive.aspx

Why is it rotten to the core?

[Tim Lund]

HB - I too would be interested too to know you think LB Lewisham is rotten to the core. I'd agree that its CEO is over paid, and I can't see that being part time is going to inspire people working for him; leadership needs commitment. But to say it's rotten to the core I think you should have some evidence to back you up. Saying something is rotten to the core comes close to saying the whole organisation is bad, which is not true. Do you think LB Lewisham is worse than other local authorities? If not, why write things which will antagonise those good hard working officers we do have? Much better to produce evidence, of if you don't have it - as I don't - then ask for it, as I do.

I suspect there are intractable structural problems which make it difficult for local authorities to be well run, but that's really just speculation.

[Pally]

HB - I too would be interested too to know you think LB Lewisham is rotten to the core. I'd agree that its CEO is over paid, and I can't see that being part time is going to inspire people working for him; leadership needs commitment. But to say it's rotten to the core I think you should have some evidence to back you up. Saying something is rotten to the core comes close to saying the whole organisation is bad, which is not true. Do you think LB Lewisham is worse than other local authorities? If not, why write things which will antagonise those good hard working officers we do have? Much better to produce evidence, of if you don't have it - as I don't - then ask for it, as I do.

I suspect there are intractable structural problems which make it difficult for local authorities to be well run, but that's really just speculation.

Good points Tim. Why is Lewisham rotten to the core HB? I have seen no evidence that that is the case

All LAs have good bits and less successful surely. If you start looking at some Lewisham LA inspection reports they suggest a lot of good stuff. (I can't do links as not sure how when on phone)

[Tim Lund]

For reasons it's unnecessary to go into, I was thinking about the challenges facing Local Authorities compared with those for Housing Associations. I don't think they are facing anything like the same level of cuts, and yet their CEOs get paid the same sorts of amounts as Local Authority CEOs, but are responsible for rather less actual spending, and what spending there is is much less diverse. It's hard to bring these points into a clear table, but here are two sources on which I make this claim

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/journals ... _table.pdf

and

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 47953.html

I know if I wanted to go into a career of public service which one my career advisor would be suggesting.

[Pally]

HB - I too would be interested too to know you think LB Lewisham is rotten to the core. I'd agree that its CEO is over paid, and I can't see that being part time is going to inspire people working for him; leadership needs commitment. But to say it's rotten to the core I think you should have some evidence to back you up. Saying something is rotten to the core comes close to saying the whole organisation is bad, which is not true. Do you think LB Lewisham is worse than other local authorities? If not, why write things which will antagonise those good hard working officers we do have? Much better to produce evidence, of if you don't have it - as I don't - then ask for it, as I do.

I suspect there are intractable structural problems which make it difficult for local authorities to be well run, but that's really just speculation.

Good points Tim. Why is Lewisham rotten to the core HB? I have seen no evidence that that is the case

All LAs have good bits and less successful surely. If you start looking at some Lewisham LA inspection reports they suggest a lot of good stuff. (I can't do links as not sure how when on phone)

HB why is Lewisham rotten to the core?

[Tim Lund]

On the Save our Parks! thread

I think sometimes they want to make a statement, by highlighting cuts they know will get the public stirred up and passionate about something they want to keep, I would like to be reassured that they have cut all the waste, ie non council tax payments,over payment on services,etc etc before I would believe them.

It's all political dogs wots it's!

If you had your disposable income cut by a third, what sort of statements do you think you might make?

Re Lewisham council tax collection, I can't find chapter and verse on line, but at the last Perry Vale Assembly this came up, and we got a detailed, convincing explanation of the lengths Lewisham Council does go to collect what it is owed, writing off only a very small amount, when it is evidently no longer cost effective to collect.

Tim, I have, so I feel I can make a statement.

I think a lot of Labour councils try to make a statement against any cuts simply so the residents think Conservative are trying to take money away from areas that they enjoy, and so they will keep voting Labour, which they do! I don't trust Labour with "our" money and never will, this comes from someone who first vote ever was for Harold Wilson, while we are on the subject, the farce of Scotland allowing 16 yr old to vote was wrong, when I first voted I followed my parents as many kids do, you don't necessarily know what's what at that age. I digress.

I think the temptation for Labour Councils to blame the Conservatives for their current problems is overwhelming, and sometimes at local Assembly meetings I feel like challenging Labour Councillors when they suggest everything in the garden would be rosy if only we had a Labour government. But I spare my breath, and limit myself to asking for independent data on how well different Council services are performing. Hence:

my follow up question for Robyn Fairman is whether she can share the CIPFA Value for Money information which she will be using in formulating proposals for Lewisham's Budget Challenge with us as members of the public.

So far no answer, and I'm not holding my breath either.

Source here

You may want to present this as a matter of Conservatives being more trustworthy with taxpayers' money, but I'd reserve judgment until I have more evidence. It's why I am more concerned about transparency as a political issue than the old Left / Right polarity, which doesn't really help matters any more than wild assertions that Lewisham is rotten to the core.

[Annie.]

Tim, I was listening with interest, until your last line, shame you spoilt it.

[Pally]

I never did get a reply as to why Lewisham are rotten to the core ....!

[mosy]

I mentioned somewhere that if government public spending cuts simply devolved to local councils to cut services, then Boo Hiss as that itself is another form of tax on income - i.e. pay more in council tax or pay more for "missing" services privately, so it's probably not that relevant which colour party makes up a council as they're all faced with (and have been) the same problem.

It doesn't strike me as perfect that local public views should sway things since it's usually those in need or who aren't vocal that stay silent - i.e. does he who shouts loudest win? Surely council representatives are meant to represent all - isn't that why they're elected?

I refuse to be drawn in, because acquiescence of what to cut is the equivalent of agreeing to government cutbacks just so gov't can say ("fairly", well not lying in the way these things are rolled out) "Hey, didn't we do well".

The budget challenge should be mounted against the government, not council tax payers who've been in "make do and mend" mode too long as it is.

*Rant over*

[Tim Lund]

Tim, I was listening with interest, until your last line, shame you spoilt it.

Sorry Annie. I could have put that more tactfully, but I think the point remains that casting the issue as good Conservatives / bad Labour - or vice versa - doesn't help.

[Annie.]

Actually Tim I think they are all as bad as each other, but I trust Conservatives with my money a fraction more.

I have never really given the lib dems a thought, always thought they were a bit wishy washy, however, I would give them a chance in government now.

[Tim Lund]

I mentioned somewhere that if government public spending cuts simply devolved to local councils to cut services, then Boo Hiss as that itself is another form of tax on income - i.e. pay more in council tax or pay more for "missing" services privately, so it's probably not that relevant which colour party makes up a council as they're all faced with (and have been) the same problem.

One thing we are unlikely to do is have to pay more Council tax - it's very closely controlled by central government, and anyway Councils hate raising it.

We might end up paying more for some services, but not where services are things which can't easily be charged for, such as well maintained pavements, parks etc. Where the people are identifiably receiving the services, but don't have the money to pay for them - adult and children's social care - then that won't get paid for and so happen either. I agree that the political colours don't make that much difference, but that doesn't mean we couldn't decide how to vote on some other grounds, does it?

It doesn't strike me as perfect that local public views should sway things since it's usually those in need or who aren't vocal that stay silent - i.e. does he who shouts loudest win? Surely council representatives are meant to represent all - isn't that why they're elected?

I sympathise with you here, and I feel a bit embarrassed when I make a noise advocating some particular spending priority. That's why I come out with arguments such as this for why parks should be a priority - because they are there for everyone.

It's hard to compare intensity of your passion for pubs with my commitment to parks - they are both rather subjective. But I would argue that parks deliver the greater public benefit. They are open to all, not just those with enough money to buy a drink, and they are also open to sections of society who will not go into pubs, for religious reasons, or because they are children, or caring for children. Spending time in parks does not have the adverse health effects of consuming alcohol, and provides the opportunity for all sorts of positively healthy activities, as well as just being there, either on your own, in your own mental privacy, or socialising with friends. So I just do not accept the moral equivalence of parks and pubs.

Source here

and also here

I just want to live in a fair and open society, where properly qualified people, subject to the control of democratically elected representatives, can make appropriate decisions for people as a whole, and not be driven around by the whim of an articulate minority.

For me the public is everyone, with effort taken to make sure everyone's interest, including that of the inarticulate, is given equal weight. In contrast, the community is what you hear if you just listen. It's much easier for local politicians to do this, and they get a good sense of what (a few) people really want. Council representatives are meant to represent all, but it's hardly surprising if they take the easier option, especially if those with the articulate voices are also more likely to vote, and influence opinion.

[mosy]

@ Tim Lund. I agree with you that some things would simply be irrevocably lost or gone for good, as things once cut are rarely reinstated by a change of power which silently gladly thanks the last lot for putting money into the coffers.

It might not be surprising that councillors (you suggest) take an easy route of following a "popular" voice (<- see avoiding Latin), but it doesn't excuse them from not tackling the real problem (as I see it) of the government giving them less than amounts to a hill of beans to build a Mount Everest with.

You might settle for councillors determining cuts when nothing (or what some deem as essential services) is even left to cut, I just choose (from my armchair) not to agree with a top-down philosophy until they get their house in order. By that, I don't mean MPs and civil servants' top level salaries/pensions and expenses, I mean wastage that could be avoided on pointless and meaningless - you name it - statistical studies or surveys, some seemingly designed to do little more than "prove" their case, especially in the run up to an election. (Edit: I was too hasty as my other "thing" is too much expensive outsourcing and lack of inhouse skills. Might start a Pub thread on that.).

I can't do a pubs v. parks argument because each to his own, but neither is really the top priority I'd shout about if allowed only one item.

[Tim Lund]

I mean wastage that could be avoided on pointless and meaningless - you name it - statistical studies or surveys, some seemingly designed to do little more than "prove" their case

So what do you do about statistics? If there's a government policy, which statistics support, and they come out with the figures to show it is well evidence based, do you just dismiss such efforts to give people the facts as "seemingly designed to do little more than "prove" their case?"

How in your world could governments justify anything they do?

[mosy]

By statistical studies and surveys, I mean the sort that leads to yet another rehash of NHS procedures, curriculums(sp?) in schools being rehashed almost non-stop, which often results in even more form filling. It's been a standing joke on TV for years that a copy says "I'm not gonna nick you, the paperwork would take too long", so the police "service" as well. I.e. wise utilisation both of Whitehall and actual resources? Matter of opinion bearing in mind that a government will always find the money if it wants to, but a council can't.

Statistics as a subject is really a side track since it is use of available funds under discussion. You might say that my introducing the government's own spending is a side track and if so, I apologise.

[Eagle]

I would be interested if they are still wasting money on staff for , gender or race discrimination , or for that matter any other kind,


Lewisham used to be infamous for that.