It would seem that there will be no respite from the cuts to public expenditure for some years to come, irrespective of the general election result in May 2015, and local government in particular faces still further significant cuts to its central government grant. Consequently, communities and those who live and work in them will inevitably experience further reductions and major changes to critical local services.
One can argue that at a time of little economic growth, there should be more short-term borrowing and some progressive taxation to ensure that core services are maintained and to provide some economic stimulus. As it happens, I would be one of those arguing for such a policy, but it seems that national politicians are yet to be persuaded.
Public capital investment in infrastructure and key economically-vital projects are more likely, especially if there is a change of government in 2015, but constraints on revenue expenditure are with us to stay, whatever the government. So, the message, however unpalatable, is that we have to find ways of working with less while challenging the underlying policy.
Having said that, there are still opportunities to constructively address local economic and social challenges; inequality; and hardship even within very tight fiscal and public expenditure envelopes. But to do so requires a much greater focus on locality, and on communities and neighbourhoods. And it requires local community social action and local public sector action.
Locally, the public sector can and should use its buying power as well as its direct expenditure to benefit local economies. It should insist that all its providers pay the living wage to their staff, as an increasing number of local authorities are. It should also require its providers and suppliers to offer decent apprenticeship opportunities; to be exemplar employers; and to embrace local equality objectives. And of course, every local authority should match if not exceed these requirements. They should also seek to do everything in their power to persuade local public sector partners to do the same.
And absolutely, local authorities and the wider local public sector should encourage and support the local business sector and the local voluntary and community sector through its procurement, planning, education and other programmes and expenditure.
Where it is necessary to contract with larger providers from outside the area, they should be required to purchase supplies and to recruit local labour, as far as is practical.
I cannot understate the scale of the positive impact locally if the government could be persuaded to devolve responsibility for the Work Programme and related employment initiatives to local authorities to organise and deliver in partnership with their local enterprise partnership and local employers. Work experience and other initiatives within such programmes should also be based on appropriate remuneration and not offer employers involuntary ‘free labour’. The latter encourages a ‘false’ economy, does not aid increasing prosperity, and is morally questionable.
Schools and colleges should be encouraged to consider how they can best support and aid the development of local communities, voluntary groups, the local economy and local employers in all sectors. They can offer much to their communities, including the right training and accommodation for local enterprise development and incubator facilities as well as expert support and relevant training. Such facilities should be integral to the school or college, and not simply ‘add-ons’.
Social and business entrepreneurship should be on the curriculum and be an underpinning philosophy of many more schools and colleges. Social entrepreneurship is critical for community resilience, cohesion, employability and survival.
Local employers and professionals should be encouraged to mentor and to offer support in kind to local start-up businesses and local voluntary and community organisations. And the wider public sector should be leading on this by example.
The government’s programmes of community ‘right to own’ and to ‘challenge’ can play a vital role in the future of some public services, even if it is likely to be somewhat limited in many places. And even then local community organisations are going to need support and funding to enable these initiatives to truly take off. They can diversify funding but this takes time and in current economic conditions can be extremely tough.
Even given the pressures on public expenditure, the public sector should not expect the voluntary and community sector to take over services or premises without adequate support, including financial support. And the voluntary and community sector must be free to choose what it will do and what it will not do; and on what basis. It has to be ready to say ‘no’.
Civil society (including community and faith groups) may feel that given the level of need, they will simply have to step in, as is happening with the phenomenal growth of food banks. Many such groups are not in receipt of public money and choose not to be. Others are and choose to be. Both should be respected but the public sector cannot and should not expect a community organisation to act for it without proper funding.
New forms of public service delivery (and indeed, new services) and new collaboration between the sectors will emerge in different patterns in different places. Some services will disappear but again not in the same way everywhere. This is the essence of localism.
Many public services are failing; some simply miss thousands of those in need; some services are quite simply over-stretched; and some are wrongly focused. It follows that at the truly local level, the voluntary and community sectors may be better placed to reach, support and empower marginalised and vulnerable people.
It is also vital not to lose sight of the fact that local community social action has so often to be about ‘voice’ rather than about services. Accordingly, it must not be silenced or feel that it has to tone down its messages and the volume in order to appease funders.
At a time of rising inequality, poverty, significant homelessness, benefit changes, cuts and hardship, local community social action has never been more important. Tackling contemporary social and economic challenges requires more co-production and more community empowerment. It requires entrepreneurship. It requires strong local voices. And it requires us all, in every sector, to recognise communities as ‘communities of assets’, comprising people, services, premises and collective action.
The next few years have the potential to provide the opportunity for a renaissance in local community social action based on voluntary collectivism. However, this will only be possible with the support of state/local authority facilitated and funded collectivism; and successful local businesses (and be in no doubt – without thriving business and social enterprise sectors, local communities are, in the long term, unsustainable). Voluntary and state collectivism are complementary – not substitutes; and sit well with local enterprise.
“One can argue that at a time of little economic growth, there should be more short-term borrowing and some progressive taxation to ensure that core services are maintained and to provide some economic stimulus.”
That is – if you look at the actual figures for government spending rather than the make-believe ones you want to use – precisely what is happening. Between QE and borrowing we have had the biggest stimulus in our history.