The true test of LB Lewisham

[Tim Lund]

Today, I happened to come across this on Lewisham's Mayoral system of governance:

the true test of the new political system will be whether the tenant with the broken window, the library user wanting longer opening hours, or the dog walker wanting a graffiti-free park, will notice any difference

Ten years later, is anyone checking up? My guess is that in some areas things have improved, but others not. Obviously, the fair comparison is not so much between now and then, but relative to improvement or deterioration in comparable boroughs which have not gone for a directly elected Mayoral system.

I strongly suspect that no one is checking. This was as much as admitted by Aileen Buckton when in response to a question of mine at a Sydenham Assembly, she said that Lewisham did not know where its strengths and weaknesses were, so all they could do was to cut 25% across all departments, instead of investing in efficient departments as Lewisham pooled services with other boroughs, and concentrate the cuts in poorly performing departments. It also tallies with the now defunct Audit Commission who distinguished Lewisham with a Green Flag for its innovative approach to community engagement, or some such language, with nothing said about results. I think by this they meant exciting experiments with things like ... directly elected Mayors, the Young Mayor, and maybe even our Local Assemblies.

I was thinking of this at a recent meeting of the London Forum of Civic Societies, at which Tony Travers spoke about the Localism Bill, which is coming our way. In response to a question about the sorts of initiatives in the Localism Bill - which include more directly elected Mayors - he said it was a generally recognised problem that policy makers are forever coming up with initiatives - and doubtless advancing their careers - and no one ever looks at the outcomes. The public sector equivalent of reckless City traders blowing up their employers' balance sheets, and moving on to another job with their bonuses safely banked.

If there is anyone checking up in Lewisham, it should be the members of our Public Accounts Select Committee. I wonder if any of them could comment?

[Tim Lund]

Looks like the results are in

[Tim Lund]

Looks like the results are in

Well done Tim, you've managed to take good news and slant it as bad news. The figures are good, but they apply less to us in Lewisham than anyone else!

In the context of Lewisham, which is where we are, I think it takes more effort to slant this as positive. As a Londoner and Brit, I'm feeling quite positive.

[Tim Lund]

It's worth looking at how people react to general criticisms of organisations, such as this here of LB Lewisham. It's not a way to make friends, because LB Lewisham, as I'd guess any local authority in a developed country such as the UK, delivers a range of services for which we should all be grateful. It will be staffed by officers, and led by Councillors, who are normal decent people who live their lives wanting to make a positive difference for their community. Lewisham is not failing, and it is not difficult to find good news stories illustrating the good things that LB Lewisham does. It is harder to find stories of where it does fail, in the first instance because there will be many fewer of them, but also because institutionally, LB Lewisham will not want attention to be drawn to them. Community activists such as myself will be reluctant to suggest there might be a generic problem with Lewisham, because if you want to get things done, it helps to have good relations with officers and Councillors.

This is why it is good to have completely independent reports such as this. I've not had a chance to look into its methodology, but I'm sure it will depend on a few value judgements which could be challenged, but it is accepted by the World Bank, which gives it some credibility. As such, it's an example of what I wrote about in the OP of the thread Whitehall, City Hall, Localism and The Renaissance of Bogotà

2. Regular, independent assessments of the quality of public services

There is an independent private sector organisation which does regular credible surveys of satisfaction with different public services, and their reports are major stories in the local media. Council officers care very much about who well they are seen to be doing. Compare to this post of mine on the 'Campaigning for Ken'thread.

It's not that Lewisham officers and Councillors aren't good people, and I'd say that, thanks to their real world experience, they will be doing a better job than any could who challenge them politically - as I commented on here

One of the more depressing meetings I went to in 2010 was a Lewisham Mayoral hustings, which persuaded me it would be best to vote for "Sir" Steve. With the possible exception of the Conservative candidate, who wasn't really taking it seriously, he was the only one who betrayed any awareness of what leading a local government would involve. What the Green and Lib Dem candidates said could have been generated by a more or less sophisticated word processor rearranging what their activists were hearing on the doorsetps

The problem is not with the people, it's with the structure.

With reference to the point quoted from the Whitehall, City Hall ... thread, another part of the problem is the lack of local media where survey results such as this would be major stories. It is good, at least, that we have this Forum.

[Tim Lund]

Goldsmiths journalism department has a project, East London Lines, which I think is meant to provide training for students for the brave new on line media world. Its reporters are encouraged by Lewisham Council, and they can normally be relied upon not to ask too many difficult questions. An example is this piece, published last month.

ELL joins a day in the life of the Mayor of Lewisham



Picture Jo Abbas
Source East London Lines

From which we learn, without explanantion as to what that was all about, that he's been to Afghanistan

he talks about the security briefings he encountered before going to Afghanistan which made him rethink his own personal safety and the way in which people respond to events.

Not that he was comparing life in the borough with Afghanistan he hastened to add: “I don’t want to say that Lewisham is the most dangerous criminal place because it isn’t.

By the end it feels there is a cry for help coming from someone who'd once dreamt of being a fearless investigative reporter, before going to Goldsmiths:

I can’t help but wonder if the Mayor’s ‘real’ tasks are mundane as he makes out to be, and, if what I’ve been exposed to today, from the tree planting to the civilized lunch, was designed to give me the least useful insight into what life as the Mayor is really like.

[Tim Lund]

Does anyone know anyone with a subscription to "the UK’s leading weekly magazine for council chief executives and their teams of decision-makers in local authorities and allied sectors"? I want to know how Lewisham's CEO judges organisational success



Also - anyone know when and why the Mayor was in Afghanistan?

Just thought I'd offer readers of this Forum some light relief from worrying about pavement parkers, licencing issues and the positioning of traffic lights

[stuart]

Also - anyone know when and why the Mayor was in Afghanistan?

Why do you ask? Surely Afganistan's major problem is one of governence. That is both national and local and western nations are anxious to pour in as much expertise and advice as possible. Given that their local leadership is more likely to to be authoritarian than consensual an executive mayor is more likely to be a fit than a councillor. The UK has very few of these and even fewer with the experience of office as the Lewisham Mayor.

So a logical choice if it helping to get them back up to speed. Or do you think he went for the sun, beach and cocktails?

Stuart

PS I assume he went with the support our Lib Dem/Conservative Government. If so, nice to see the coalition stepping out across the political divide. I guess the obvious alternative Ken would have been a step too far for them!

[Tim Lund]

Also - anyone know when and why the Mayor was in Afghanistan?

Why do you ask? Surely Afganistan's major problem is one of governence. That is both national and local and western nations are anxious to pour in as much expertise and advice as possible. Given that their local leadership is more likely to to be authoritarian than consensual an executive mayor is more likely to be a fit than a councillor. The UK has very few of these and even fewer with the experience of office as the Lewisham Mayor.

So a logical choice if it helping to get them back up to speed. Or do you think he went for the sun, beach and cocktails?

It would be a logical choice if Lewisham is a model of good local governance. My suspicion is that Lewisham has ticked the box in the DCLA for 'model local government' ever since the bright new dawn of New Labour when the article linked to in the OP was written, and that's why he would have gone. Careers and reputations will have been built on this view, but there appears to be a complete lack of objective evidence to support it. Perhaps an example of Blairite faith based policy making?

For the sake of balance, I can't say I have evidence to say Lewisham performs poorly on balance, and in some areas I think I can say it does well - but this would just be anecdotal, small sample size evidence. All anyone should want is openness and objectivity.

Also - does having an executive Mayor here in Lewisham fit us also, in the way you suggest it would fit Afghanistan, where "local leadership is more likely to to be authoritarian than consensual"?

[stuart]

It would be a logical choice if Lewisham is a model of good local governance.

Is it not compared to Kabul?

Or are their streets less potholed, less street crime and have more libraries than you can shake a stick at?
If you are going to send a UK executive Mayor to Afganistan you haven't much choice. I guess some of those would decline, or have it declined for them by their families.

Is there something itching you about Steve?

Stuart

[Eagle]

I agree questions need to be asked. Why oh why was our Lord Mayor of Lewisham in Kabul.

How much did it cost.

Mr B is NOT responsible for British foreign or defence policy.

I am staggered by this waste of tax payers money. I wonder what the Daily Mail would make of it.

[Tim Lund]

It would be a logical choice if Lewisham is a model of good local governance.

Is it not compared to Kabul?
Or are their streets less potholed, less street crime and have more libraries than you can shake a stick at?
If you are going to send a UK exceutive Mayor to Afganistan you haven't much choice. I guess some of those would decline, or have it declined for them by their families.

Is there some itching you about Steve?

Stuart

Nothing itching me about Steve - I've written before that I think he was the best of the bunch on offer at our last Mayoral election.

The comparison is with other UK local government leaders, as you imply, and suggest there might not actually be much choice. But it would be interesting to know if this was the case, and if not, how the choice was made.

I assume he went with the support our Lib Dem/Conservative Government. If so, nice to see the coalition stepping out across the political divide.

I doubt if this was a party political question - as I wrote previously, I suspect it was just a matter of a Whitehall picking a usual suspect, and not something to trouble those with party political sensitivities. Further (anecdotal) evidence for this view is how our CEO is trotted out to lecture civil servants on public sector governance, but leaves his audience baffled and bemused. My fear is that, within the overall framework of UK government, he and the Mayor are drifting off into a world of evidence-lite pontification.

[stuart]

I am staggered by this waste of tax payers money.

Not more worried about the billions we spent helping to create the problem? Some may say it is our duty to try and clear up the mess. Even the most optimistic would conceed that at best its incredibly hard, the rest its just impossible.

I have no idea of the itinery or the funding - or issues arising from having the Lewisham's Head Honcho MIA for a wweek or two.

Some may think that a benefit

This is a topic based on ignorance bouncing on our prejudices (yes me included). Perhaps it is best left to the Daily Mail who, I'm sure, can do a better hatchet job than us. So I'm out of here ...

Stuart

[Tim Lund]

I agree questions need to be asked. Why oh why was our Lord Mayor of Lewisham in Kabul.

How much did it cost.

Mr B is NOT responsible for British foreign or defence policy.

I am staggered by this waste of tax payers money. I wonder what the Daily Mail would make of it.

Perhaps a more interesting question is why our local deadwood press are uninterested

[Tim Lund]

This is a topic based on ignorance bouncing on our prejudices (yes me included). Perhaps it is best left to the Daily Mail who, I'm sure, can do a better hatchet job than us. So I'm out of here ...

Stuart

So why not join me in asking for more evidence about how Lewisham is performing relative to other UK local authorities, taking into account relevant economic and social contexts? Isn't that what a FRSS would normally do?

[Eagle]

How much did this trip cost? What possible justification was there for it.

[Tim Lund]

How much did this trip cost? What possible justification was there for it.

I admit that I am also interested to know this, but I suspect it will have been Whitehall picking up the tab, with the only cost to LB Lewisham citizens being not having our Mayor on hand for however long he was away. But we also get by with a part time CEO, at no discernible loss.

[Eagle]

If Whitehall paid we are still paying for it and a complete waste of money.

[stuart]

So why not join me in asking for more evidence about how Lewisham is performing relative to other UK local authorities, taking into account relevant economic and social contexts? Isn't that what a FRSS would normally do?

I said the delivery performance relevance was Lewisham to Kabul (or whatever place he was visiting) not to the few other Mayor led UK local authorities.

More importantly I said this:

This is a topic based on ignorance bouncing on our prejudices (yes me included). Perhaps it is best left to the Daily Mail who, I'm sure, can do a better hatchet job than us. So I'm out of here ...

I mean it this time as I really don't have anything useful to add to this topic and there are many other more useful things I could be doing.

Stuart

[Eagle]

One thing perhaps The Mayor of Kabul could have advised Mr B was how to deal with 24 hour drinkers . Maybe they would have a few useful ideas we could implement

[Tim Lund]

More importantly I said this:

This is a topic based on ignorance bouncing on our prejudices (yes me included). Perhaps it is best left to the Daily Mail who, I'm sure, can do a better hatchet job than us. So I'm out of here ...

I mean it this time as I really don't have anything useful to add to this topic and there are many other more useful things I could be doing.

Stuart

I mean it too when I write that I don't have evidence to say Lewisham is on balance a poorly performing borough. I really don't think I have prejudices in this; I have suspicions, but suspicions are there to be tested with evidence. They would only be prejudices if I asserted them as fact without evidence.

I don't want a hatchet job on Lewisham - I want evidence on which it can be fairly judged, and I certainly wouldn't trust the Daily Mail to do this. I too probably have better things to do with my time, but I cannot see what the problem is with agreeing with my position here.