Channel 4's report on Local Councils efforts to save money

Having just watched today's Channel 4 News article on how local councils are taking different approaches towards the cuts demanded of them, it's pretty clear that some frontline services to the public can be safeguarded if only councils make the right choices.

It's easy for councils to blame central government for their cuts. In a way they're right - they get subsidised by them. Even Conservative councils are making pleas for extra cash. But the country has been living beyond its means in quite a spectacular way for a while now (I mean the deficit, not the debt - don't confuse them!). So something has to give. The question is - should it be meals-on-wheels or should it be coordinators and PR employees?

Dorset, Birmingham and Blackpool Councils have shown that there IS a way to safeguard frontline services and simultaneously cut costs. It involves sacrifices made by staff to save money - sharing jobs, taking a few days' unpaid leave, taking pay cuts. The leader of Blackpool council stated on the programme that the idea of pay cuts to save staff jobs was proposed by the staff themselves - much to his surprise. He also said that if they accepted such measures he would take a commensurate pay cut. Obviously he earns more than them, but it's an example that maybe other council leaders could follow.

Contrasted with that on the programme was the attitude of staff at Southampton council who, a UNITE spokesman said, were ready to strike rather than be 'bullied' into accepting pay cuts or unpaid leave - even though the council had told them that the alternative was  being sacked. The Channel 4 interviewer asked him the blindingly obvious question: isn't it better to accept some pay cuts rather than lose your job? No, he said. the Council's proposals were 'blackmail'. No wonder fewer and fewer people take the trade unions seriously.

Of course councils could save plenty by sacking press officers, cheerleading development officers and various other 'non jobs' that Eric Pickles has quite rightly highlighted.  Manchester Council was recently caught spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on sculptures - it turned out that some of it was donated from private sources - but not all of it. Channel 4's Factcheck site casts doubt on the ability of councils to make the sort of savings that Pickles demands. Channel 4's problem is that central government can't define what a 'non job' is. Well of course they can't. The thing about efficiency is that it's intuitive - it relies on common sense. I've worked  for local councils (in London) and I've worked for private companies. The difference is that local councils have a culture of inefficiency and waste which you really have to see to believe. They are also obsessed with their public image and with spinning propaganda to promote themselves amongst their voters. Common sense is thin on the ground in these places.

But can all the efficiencies in the world shield save enough to shield front-line services and also safeguard the employees' jobs? It seems unlikely. No matter how much councils save there will always be services that are compromised. And there needs to be enough honesty to admit that the poorest and most vulnerable will probably bear the brunt of cuts. They tend to rely more on the state and local government than people working in the private sector so cuts to services will hit them harder. Perhaps if central government demands cuts of councils and makes a convincing case for their necessity (which I believe they have in principle, although the practice is still up for debate) they should also look at ways to mitigate the effect on the most vulnerable. Perhaps reform of the tax credit system, savings vehicles or reward for private companies that take up the slack are ideas worth looking into. In an ideal world there would be no cuts to meals-on-wheels and nursing homes.Councils have a duty to try and protect them by being efficient and innovative, and central Government can try and soften the blow by siimilar means.