Assessing the coalition's effect on local government

WITH austerity the order of the day, town hall "fat cats" have proved a soft target for coalition spending cuts.

Larger-than-life Communities Secretary Eric Pickles, though himself a former council leader, seems to take pleasure in cutting local authority grant funding – regularly being the first cabinet minister to reach agreement with Chancellor George Osborne over his department’s (inevitably reduced) budget for the year ahead.

One can understand why cutting council cash might be easier than, say, slashing armed forces support.

While the polls consistently say the economy and the NHS are at the forefront of our minds, few voters if any have been seen marching on No 10 to protect government grants to local councils in recent years.

Councils, it seems, are suffering a trust crisis – almost as unpopular as journalists or estate agents.

But, paradoxically, voters often say their local elected representative works hard and does a good job – and rate the services councils provide, schools, roads and bins, as highly important.

Local authorities have seen their funding slashed repeatedly since 2010, with the North-East’s biggest council, Durham, facing cuts topping £250m by 2019.

Care homes and schools have been closed, leisure and community centres have been handed over to volunteers and management has been slashed.

In January, the Association of North East Councils warned children in care would be the next victims.

And there have been repeated claims that poorer, largely northern, councils have been hit harder than wealthier southern shires. North-East MPs accused the coalition of waging “war on our communities”.

But have services really suffered? In short, have voters noticed any difference?

In particular areas that have, say, lost a leisure centre, the answer might be yes. In others, taxpayers might wonder whether all the funding now cut was ever needed anyway.

One of David Cameron’s big ideas was the Big Society, which seemed to morph into volunteers running services facilities previously provided by the state.

This has worked in some cases – Future Leisure in Coxhoe appears to have made a go of Coxhoe Leisure Centre, which Durham council failed to do, for example.

But success usually depends on the existence of an exceptional team of volunteers blessed with dedication, expertise and time – attributes not always readily available, particularly in more deprived areas one might argue need such services most.

Beyond the headline-making cuts, there are questions over democratic accountability.

If councils face such severe savings targets that they are able to provide those services required by law only, what room is there for politicians of one party or another to set distinctive priorities? And then what is the point of a vote for one or another?

In this scenario, which some claim is already upon us, local councillors are robbed of any real power and council officers become mere functionaries, carrying out the legal duties imposed upon them from Whitehall.

One alternative to this might be to make savings by working better.

An impressive range of efficiencies has already been delivered in the last five years.

But what about merging councils? Should Tees Valley have a single local authority, for example, cutting the need for five chief executives?

County Durham’s district councils were abolished by the last Labour government, in 2009, but it’s hard to see how they would have survived the last five years of falling budgets.

The question of power structures is never far from the top of the agenda.

It is 11 years since the North-East overwhelmingly rejected John Prescott’s offer of an elected regional assembly and people generally don’t like extra layers of politicians.

But the excitement generated by the Scottish independence referendum has triggered a genuinely national debate about devolution.

Richmond’s outgoing MP William Hague was given the job of delivering the Prime Minister’s promise of “English votes for English laws”, but what is the future of combined authorities (CA) – the emerging groups of councils which seem to be the preferred vehicles for localising decision-making of both Labour and the Conservatives?

They have more direct accountability than Local Enterprise Partnerships (Leps), but they are yet to establish their own identity.

Indeed, each CA could well have unique responsibilities. George Osborne has promised Greater Manchester powers over transport, housing, planning and policing, but his offer was dependent on the creation of a directly elected regionwide mayor – something the North-East has baulked at.

This year’s General Election has been called the most uncertain in decades and the future of local government is equally difficult to foresee.

Change, it seems, is the only constant we can predict with any certainty.