Quick updates on news of the moment

Hear the new Chair of the LGA, Sir Merrick Cockell share some earlier ideas on sharing services from his perspective as the Leader of RB Kensington & Chelsea in London.


http://audioboo.fm/boos/193538-cpc10-sir-merrick-cockell-explains-how-councils-can-save-money-via-combining-services

Here's his inaugural speech to the LGA conference in Birmingham this week.


http://www.lgcplus.com/topics/politics/sir-merrick-cockells-speech-to-the-lga-in-full/5031851.article

His election is not universally well received (actually worse than that) on the ConservativeHome website, mainly because the bloggers there demand the LGA's abolition - which is pretty much the answer one hears from that  worldview for anything that isn't directly 'wealth-creating' (who is that 'wealth' for, by the way?).


http://conservativehome.blogs.com/localgovernment/2011/06/cllr-sir-merrick-cockell-to-be-new-lga-chairman.html

News of a more edifying nature - peace breaks out with Eric 'Neutron' Pickles saying:

"many councils had experienced a challenging year, but added: ‘I’m immensely grateful to local government for delivering – it has delivered in a way which has confounded many critics of its ability to manage. (Pickles of course being its greatest critic!!)

‘I think it is [now] in a stronger position.’

‘Of course, at the same time, we were devolving powers and hopefully, we’re about to go on to devolve financial controls to local authorities. It’s time to move on to a period where we can now genuinely, from a position of partnership, work to improve the quality of services.’"

Oh still my beating heart.

More on pensions and a bit from the CBI

Here is a recent press release relating to a speech made last week by the CBI's DG. The trenchant criticism of the government's reform agenda is interesting in its own right. What needs a little exploration are the unsubstantiated assertions and claims about the beneficial nature of private sector involvement in public service delivery. There's even a swipe at public sector pensions (please see my last blog on that issue) in the usual, broad and undifferentiated terms.

Now, reform of some pension schemes in the public sector would be helpful, for instance why not start with some of the unfunded schemes, like the one for MP's for instance. On the other hand, I heard this morning on another of the BBC's public pension have-a-swipe fests that Francis Maude was criticising public sector pensions from the standpoint that private sector pensions weren't as good, i.e. the 'envy' critique, so must we all descend to the lowest common denominator. 

The CBI's DG takes the opposite view, i.e. as he says, the private sector has tackled their pension shortfalls, and reduced benefits accordingly, so it's a matter of positive choice and better value rather than simply being a poorer comparator. Either way, less is better, regardless of equity, it seems. 

We should all feel genuine concern for those in the private sector who have suffered poor employer schemes, low take-up and critical mass, equity-based investments that have tanked at inopportune times and funds raided by Directors or lost as companies went bust. But none of those unfortunate circumstances justify the unprecedented attacks on a host of (undifferentiated) public sector schemes, put in place to provide not unseemly reward (read the numbers) but recognition of long public service and some small support in the later years, many  based on participant contributions.

Now is the time for employees in all sectors to demand good pension schemes, not for employees in all sectors to be divided and set against each other by those who will receive virtual kings' ransoms of pensions, some from the state and others through largely unchallenged, broadly unpublicised large-scale contributions from their companies.     

ONE YEAR ON GOVERNMENT IS NO FURTHER FORWARD ON PUBLIC SERVICE REFORM 

Forces of inertia holding back reform, warns CBI Deputy Director-General

The Government has allowed urgently-needed public service reform to be derailed by “forces of inertia,” and gives the impression of “having lost its way, uneasy about reforms and unsure about how to present them.” That is according to the CBI’s Deputy Director-General Dr Neil Bentley.

Speaking at the CBI’s South East annual dinner in Epsom last week, Dr Bentley questioned the coalition’s commitment to reform and warned that failure to embrace competition could lead to deficit-reduction plans faltering.

He said: “In most areas, we’re seeing public services cling on to existing ways of doing things, with vested interests fighting modernisation at every turn and campaigning against change. 

“Just this week, we’ve seen the forces of inertia in the NHS unions triumph on health reform. This is a missed opportunity for the Government, and with profound consequences. Patient services will only be improved if the NHS is opened up to far greater competition and dependence on hospital care is reduced. Without reform, the £20bn savings needed to help balance the NHS books will surely hit services. 

“Health’s not alone. In local government, policing, probation and elsewhere, reforms are losing momentum.

And Dr Bentley added: 

“Today, the coalition gives the impression of having lost its way, uneasy about reforms and unsure how to present them.”

Launching a new report, One Year On – Progress towards transformed public services,Dr Bentley highlighted some positive steps the Government has taken. For example, in making efficiency savings, centralising procurement and moving towards sharing back office functions. Progress has also been made on bringing in specialist providers to tackle worklessness and expanding the academies programme.

But Dr Bentley questioned the Government’s commitment to reform and argued that it must promote competition to ensure we get better public services at the right price.

“Before last year’s general election, we heard plenty from both opposition parties about the need for change. That’s why it’s so disappointing that we’re one year on with a coalition government but no further forward, with reforms stalling and the path ahead unclear.” 

Pointing to a catalogue of delays, he said:

“In January, the Prime Minister said: “We cannot put this off any longer.” In early February, he promised a White paper. Now we’re in mid-June, we’re told we might get something next month. After all this time, this ongoing uncertainty - combined with the debacle over NHS reform - clearly calls into question the coalition’s commitment to reform.” 

He highlighted evidence of the benefits of competition in service delivery, with competitive tendering leading to cost savings between 10 and 30 per cent and how other countries make much greater use of the private sector. For example, in Sweden where private operators run free schools; in France where they run one in three hospital beds; and in Denmark where one company, Falck, provides the majority of fire-fighting and ambulance services.

Dr Bentley blamed fear of a union and electoral backlash for the Government’s hesitation, and urged ministers to hold their nerve on public sector pensions.

“If the fear is that the unions will derail reforms, then the best answer is to be open, and to discuss with staff any plans for meeting the shared challenges we face.

“Though on pensions this isn’t working – even after all the consultation by the Government. Slap-bang in the middle of talks we’re seeing some unions sabre rattling and calling everybody out. 

“The Government has to hold its nerve and push through Lord Hutton’s pensions reforms. Otherwise the public sector pensions deficit - which is already more than £1 trillion - will get even more unaffordable. The private sector has bitten the bullet on this. Now the Government as an employer needs to do the same.”

It should also press ahead with modernising the law around industrial action – and before strikes occur: 

“We’ve heard Business Secretary Vince Cable say legislation will be considered if strikes happen. But by then it’ll be too late, and no barn-door-closure strategy will make amends for the horse having long-since bolted. I say: do it now, before the damage is done.”

Businesses are also ready to play their part in helping transform public services:

“First, we’re already working with the Cabinet Office and other departments to show how new approaches can result in better outcomes at a lower cost. 

“Second, we’ll help to create new public-private partnership models so major projects and services get the financing they need, including new PFI. Where we’ve done well, we’ll do more of the same. Where we haven’t performed as strongly, we’ll up our game. 

“And third, we’ll show how private sector involvement makes a positive difference to individuals and communities, and how our dynamism brings benefits for everyone,” Dr Bentley said.

http://publicservices.cbi.org.uk/reports/00430/

Public sector pensions - time for a more informed debate

I think something needs to be said about the paucity of the radio debates I've been listening to about 'public sector' pensions.  


Most commentators lump all public sector employees, and therefore their pensions, together. I am no expert (there, I've said it), but many public sector schemes are contributary and some are not. Does anybody out there know which pension is on which list? I could guess, but not a single commentator on the radio has made this distinction in terms. All schemes in the public sector are not equal and neither are the inputs/outcomes/exposure. 


Whilst there are a few hundred employees in local government who earn over £100,000 per annum, and most richly deserve a proper remuneration for the breadth and complexity of their leadership and management portfolios, there are thousands on such salaries in the NHS. Their pensions are commensurately different. As reported in a national newspaper this week, local government officers' average pension in 2009/10 was £4,052; a civil servant's £6,199 and a teacher's, £9,806. Surgeons and doctors get around £37,000 p/a on average, but they only make up about 1% of NHS pension recipients. A progressive local government career in anything but the largest of authorities will yield a pension broadly similar to that of a police constable. I make no judgement on these numbers, simply point out that even this basic level of comparative information has not made it onto the airwaves I have been listening to. 


This needs to be a much better informed and balanced debate - at the moment the lack of quality information and a positive presentation simply allows a vacuum to develop into which disinformation (some of it from Government), opinion, prejudice and envy flood in. Just as public services have borne the financial brunt of the failures of extravagantly remunerated bankers, so seem pubic servants' pensions demonised to justify further cuts. 


Whilst many private sector employees find themselves with similarly low pensions, but assume many of their public sector counterparts are much more highly rewarded than they actually are, the 'average' former FTSE 100 director's pension in 2009 was £248,000 per annum. 

Nokia worth £15bn

Sometimes you just have to get it off your chest!


I read recently that Nokia's company value is £15bn, whereas in 2002 it's value was £285bn. Having been blighted with the Nokia E72 for almost 18 months now, I am not remotely surprised in this loss of value, given one person's experience of their technology. 


Yet, it all started so differently for me. I moved to Nokia after 8 years of suffering Blackberry; frustrated by their plastic construction, multiple hardware and software keyboard failures, total failure of a handset during a routine software update (yes, nudge the darn thing during a software download and a Blackberry is rendered useless forever - bet you didn't know that!), less-than-stellar Internet functionality (despite all the claims to the contrary) and the overall impression I was paying a lot of money for tools that weren't physically up to the demands I was making of them. 


Well, it would appear I hitched my desire for alternative mobile computing power to an imposter and I have enjoyed not a little guilty pleasure in reading that Nokia's stock has fallen so low. The serendipitous nature of stock markets might explain some of this fall in value, e.g. the 'masters of the universe' who decide these things in their trades and market analyses have opined on the talent and ability in the company, but I'd like to think it is also to do with my feeling that in 2011 I'm using a handset that responds to my needs like a 2002 model. 


Perhaps handset functionality and company value are finally coming into alignment?


Anyone else have tech. experiences that support this admittedly personal and idiosyncratic view? Tom Peters did once say though that suppliers of goods and services ignore the experiences and feedback of customers at their peril. As he put it, it might be one-eyed, anecdotal and personal - "but, it's my money!" 

Planning in a Pickle

On the ResPublica blog (not a place I visit often) there is an interesting and accessible blog concerning the planning system. Written at the back end of last year, and therefore before the Localism Bill was published, it remains nonetheless a helpful contribution to understanding the dilemmas of 'localising' the planning system yet somehow avoiding the worst aspects of nimbyism, as well as how to encourage developers to engage in meeting local need more successfully than the claimed simplistic housing quotas. For instance, one comment about the blog suggested that Eric Pickles, by abolishing targets for new house building had simply stopped house building. 


One paragraph of the blog in particular caught my attention from an appreciative inquiry point of view:

"Yet when local people, politicians, planners and developers do engage successfully, before proposals are formulated and presented as a fait accompli, the process can be incredibly energising, reducing risk and increasing certainty for developers and communities alike. To empower local people and to fulfil the political ambitions Eric Pickles is shepherding, national and local government needs to invest in devising a new regime and new methods for engaging local people and economic interests in a process which is open, accessible, enticing and a prominent and valued part of how we live. There are models in Europe and some in the UK for an improved process. The problem is it takes increased resources which are unavailable to local authorities at present. There is also a case for independent means to be used to facilitate this engagement, which could be funded by interested parties in major development proposals. There also needs to be a clearer separation between the “ideas” and “visioning” stages and the consideration of actual proposals – the latter occupy most of local politicians and planners’ time when they are largely matters that could be dealt with by regulation, not political consideration. Public meetings need to be more successful and frequent, and the availability and communicative quality of information needs to be much improved."


This call to new "methods for engaging local people," "independent means to facilitate this engagement" and separation between ideas and vision just screams Appreciative Inquiry (AI) to me. The desire to have a high engagement, low cost, integrated means of shaping local development could be massively influenced for the good by using appreciative conversations to create strong topics, e.g. improving process, developing the local capacity to shape proposals or build consensus. These topics and the material from the conversations could then form the centre-piece of an appreciative conference, where the classic four stages of Discover, Dream, Design and Destiny, would frame a series of activities to achieve the twin goals of better process and strong planning proposals.


Elsewhere in the ResPublica blog's comments there are the familiar suggestions that engagement is not a good use of time and developers avoid it - perhaps with those twin deficit perspectives so strong, they become self-fulfilling prophecies in the current system. AI challenges this deficit paradigm and offers practical, well structured, proven methods to shift the conversations from problems to opportunities, from dividing lines to collaboration and strongly links dream to design and eventual destiny, i.e. delivery of change for an area or organisation(s).


None of this need be either expensive, time consuming in real terms nor an impediment to progress. In fact, the eventual outcomes are likely to be stronger, more sustainable and 'bought-into' by participants than other more formal and static types of consultation, which don't really 'engage' - I speak from experience here. Probity of course must be guaranteed


The independence required can be created by using an external facilitator, not of the key players, yet strongly allied to their goals for the process.The eventual formal decision-making will still, one presumes, be carried out by an elected body (?), though with a body of 'evidence' of a much more collaborative and appreciative nature as well as the usual technical matters.


The original blog post can be found here: http://www.respublica.org.uk/blog/2010/09/planning-pickle

Impact of Inflation on low income households

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has just published an interesting and accessible piece of research into the impact of inflation on different age groups and income levels. The research looked at differences in spending patterns and household-level inflation rates between different income groups. It found marked differences in spend between higher and lower income households. Lower-income households spent more on food, water and fuel and less on leisure goods and services than higher-income households. 

The report concluded  that these differences in spend patterns lead to high and low income households experiencing different inflation rates in any given year. The IFFS found that lower income households had experienced higher inflation rates than higher-income households across the previous ten years. There were also differences in the impact of inflation within income groups based on age and household size.

The report's ten-year spend patterns and other data will be of both general interest and for referencing in policy formulation.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/comm119.pdf 

Listening

"This is a very noisy era.I believe the volume is directly related to our need to be listened to. In public places, in the media, we reward the loudest and most outrageous. People are literally clamouring for attention, and they'll do whatever it takes to get noticed. Things will only get louder until we figure out how to sit down and listen. Most of us would welcome things quietening down. We can do our part to begin lowering the volume by our own willingness to listen."


Meg Wheatley, Turning to one another

Theory or Practice? Which is best...

Sorry, I was penning this post when I was sidetracked by the sight of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minster and Secretary of State for Health being thrown off a hospital ward by a senior clinician. The words were, "I'm not having it, get out!". Classic bushwhack television and deeply embarrassing as the trio had just been speaking with patients about their changes to their proposed changes in the health service. Reminiscent of several other off-message meet-the-people "opportunities," for senior politicians e.g. Brown in Rochdale and Blair in Birmingham. Not good but riveting viewing. But back to business... 


I often work with clients considering how we can best make practical improvements to the way our organisations work, how to lead more effectively and how to create stronger communities using appreciative, strengths-focused and positive psychology interventions and methods. 


Every client is different, each situation unique and the test is to apply these powerful and productive methods to best effect in each scenario. Of course, it's not always easy or straightforward, change never is. On occasion, the difference between the persuasiveness of the science behind these approaches and the practical impacts become the centre of debate. For instance, some clients want to really understand the theory and philosophy of appreciative inquiry; what theory is the practice based on, how does it differ from other models, and is there a strong validity for its claims. Others have little time for the deeper background and prefer to 'take it as read' and move on to the practical measures, e.g. what do we have to do to get the benefits of these approaches, what changes can we make, do you have 'proof' of application elsewhere?


Both stances rightly make demands of our knowledge and experience and create a healthy debate in the practitioner community - where is the best place to begin for the client, what do we choose to emphasise, how do we best create trust and understanding for the client? 


Below is a link to a short and helpful piece on the Positive Psychology website that pithily addresses some of these points. The comments on the piece also enlighten. 

http://positivepsychologynews.com/news/alan-foster/2011051317596#comments

If you enjoy the piece, you might also enjoy a conversation about how these approaches can make a real and sustainable difference to you and your complex issues. If you do, please contact us via the website. 

Developing the Attributes of Effective Leaders

The pressure is on many organisations across all sectors. Leadership is under the spotlight, needing to step-up, turn from external authority to internal authority; from command and control to empowerment and self-direction. 


Effective leaders recognise that power and influence depends in part upon the breadth and quality of the relationships they forge, not on policies, procedures and job titles. Collaboration rather than competition, win/win rather than win/lose and sustainable progress over short-term profits and bonuses are all features of a new leadership paradigm. 


The mechanistic model of organisations and individuals has taken almost 50 years to wither, though in some corners of the organisational world it hangs on, and we really must see the end of it if we are to properly motivate, guide and lead our organisations through the challenges in place now and for the foreseeable future. 


Are the best leadership attributes learned or within us? Research suggests some, in fact numerous of the key leadership attributes can be learned, developed and deepened with conscious effort and support. Aspects such as understanding the big picture, articulating a clear vision, communicating extensively and with clarity, inspiring and mentoring others, encouraging innovation and creativity, trusting and delegating, introducing change and managing the process, and creating strong teams, are vital to good leaders. All of these aspects and more can be explored and potentially enhanced through executive coaching and leadership mentoring.


Coaching can help leaders raise their awareness of their talents and strengths in the key leadership competencies, to get more from those talents and provide an early warning if the behaviours that underpinned the leader's progress dip towards becoming what's known as derailment characteristics. Derailment often comes through over-confidence, a drop in emotional intelligence and reduced self-awareness. 


Coaching helps leaders to develop adaptive behaviours, get back on line and reverse the derailment characteristics. It can be delivered face-to-face or by other media, when the leader needs it and with expertise, commitment, understanding and patience. An effective coaching style is one that makes a practical difference to the coachee, and at the moment, non-directive coaching is a style recommended widely as offering the client deep insights into their leadership practice and meaningful learning. 


That's where The Open Channel can help you and those you lead. Distributed leadership requires support to be available to all of those leading, wherever they are in the organisation. In our large, complex service bodies, the space and time to support your leaders at all levels is severely restricted, and a little outside assistance can make all of the difference. Visit us and see for yourself how 'bite-sized,' low-cost support can be provided to your and your team leaders.   


www.theopenchannel.co.uk    


  








    

Private equity and residential care

The Southern Cross/Care Home saga looks like it could become a tragedy - for residents, employees, families and others. The story though is much wider than one provider. The Municipal Journal has quoted some research by  UNISON that makes worrying and startling reading. Southern Cross is not the only provider under real pressure.

I've also attached a link to the Blackstone website, if only because many readers might  not yet have looked into Blackstone's part more deeply. It's worth a look.

http://www.blackstone.com/cps/rde/xchg/bxcom/hs/newsandviews_2011-6-2-1.htm  

The MJ article on UNISON's report says in relation to venture capital's involvement:

Causes at the heart of the care crisis:

• Some companies borrowed too heavily, despite their financial performance being too weak to repay debts on agreed terms.
• As people live longer, the demand for care in their own homes has gone up, in preference to residential care.
• Local authorities lost much of heir grant funding form central government and have cut spending on social care services.
• The fall in the value of elderly people's own homes means that many don't have enough funds to pay for residential care.
• The collapse of the property sector means that, in many cases, care home owners borrowed more than the reduced value of their properties, breaching banking covenants.
• The collapse of the banking sector meant it became impossible for some providers to renew borrowing facilities on affordable terms.

The care sector and the private equity 'merry-go-round' :

• Southern Cross was floated on the stock market by Blackstone, which obtained a 400% return in two years on its acquisition. Southern Cross is now at risk of collapse.
• Allianz Capital Partners made a return of 100% by acquiring Four Seasons in 2004 for £775 million, selling it four years later for £1.4bn - the business then collapsed in value.
• 3i private equity fund brought a 38% stake in Care Principles for £1.5m in 1997, the remaining amount in 2005 and sold to to Three Delta in 2007 for £270m - a return of 390%.
• Tunstall was acquired by Bridgepoint Capital in 2005 for £225m, merged with Birdgepoint Investment and sold on after three years for £514m.
• Sovereign Capital achieved a growth in value of around 100% after buying Tracscare for £26m in 2004 and then another four care businesses for £20m and selling the enlarged group for £200m. It owns City & County Healthcare who are currently undertaking a programme of acquisitions of other businesses in the domiciliary care sector.

Localism Bill criticisms rebutted

The DCLG has published a paper rebutting some of the major criticisms that have buzzed around the Localism Bill, particularly as it has come to prominence again via its Second Reading in the Lords. It bears reproducing in full with some brief comments in italics. 

Localism is a cover for cuts 

Both coalition parties have been talking about localism for many years – the concept of the Big Society pre-dates the financial crisis. However, we do believe Central Government has become  too big, too interfering, too controlling and too bureaucratic.This has undermined local democracy and individual responsibility, and stifled innovation and enterprise within public services. We will look to redress the balance of power and responsibility through our decentralisation programme, of which the Localism Bill is a key part.

The Localism Bill will produce a massive postcode lottery Allowing different parts of the country to do things differently is not the same as a postcode lottery. A lottery is random and people on the receiving end are powerless. Our decentralisation programme and the measures in this bill are actually the opposite – it is giving people more power than ever before over decisions that affect them and their communities. No doubt people will choose to do things differently, but through choice, not a “lottery.”

Although doesn't evidence show that the "post code lottery" does exist in the provision of some health services for instance, with patients feeling exactly that, i.e. powerless at the apparently random nature of how cuts are impacting upon some locales and not others. Fire Service budgets also show the damaging effect of a rush to cut  with quite startling variables in impact across the country. 

Localism and Growth are not compatible Decentralisation is about liberating the natural desire of local communities to become more prosperous. The notion that communities choose decline and reject prosperity is perverse, wrong-headed and not based on evidence. Evidence from the UK and overseas shows that local communities need the right mixture of powers, incentives and accountability to maximise their prosperity. Decentralisation is new to this country and long over-due. The previous administration devolved with one hand and with the other hand bound regional and local authorities ever tighter in the red-tape of national targets, requirements and guidelines.

This might be semantics, but decentralisation is not "new to this country." Perhaps in terms of the Bill there might be an argument for newness, but as a model of participation, empowerment, engagement and involvement it is well known, widely practiced and properly understood by many local authorities and other public bodies.  

The Bill bypasses local government Through this Bill we are freeing local government from central and regional control, scrapping national targets and removing pointless and prescriptive duties which have held local government back. In addition, we are giving local authorities the long awaited general power of competence which will transform the relationship between central and local government by allowing local authorities power to do anything apart from that which is specifically prohibited.

However, the Government is committed to the radical decentralisation of power and control from government to individuals and local communities. This is not simply about replacing the big central state with the big local state – it’s about putting people back in control of decision making or, where this is not possible, devolving power to the lowest appropriate level. We’ve got to hand power directly to people. We will seek to incentivise people rather than punishing them. We trust people to make things better by taking charge of their lives.

Interesting how the notion of "incentivise", which at first sight seems quite a positive notion, but is felt in another dimension of people's lives, as damaging cuts to individual benefits, reduced access to resources and now the threat of cutting housing benefit if you are unlucky enough to have a 'spare' bedroom. The incentive all to quickly seems to be of the cattle-prod variety.  

The Bill is centralist not decentralist The large majority of the SoS powers either provide technical detail or simply replicate powers contained in previous legislation. In addition there are a number of key ‘barrier busting’ powers that enable the Secretary of State to remove burdens or further delegate powers to local authorities or local communities at a later date. For example in the General Power of Competence the barrier buster in clause 5(1) gives Secretary of State the power to remove unnecessary restrictions and limitations that are restricting the use of the general power where there is a good case to do so, subject to safeguards designed to protect vital services.
Finally, there are the usual powers such as to make transitional, consequential and savings provision. Taken together, these powers and the Bill itself will shift power from the centre to local authorities, communities and individuals.

The Localism Bill is a NIMBYs’ charter Giving people greater control over the planning system will transform community attitudes to development, particularly if neighbourhoods benefit directly from growth through the New Homes Bonus and the reformed Community Infrastructure Levy.

Locally grounded planning will not stifle development but will provide the certainty and confidence businesses need to take forward their plans for growth and expansion. They will act as a catalyst for development and will attract and encourage the investment, economic growth and housing that Britain needs.

There are a myriad of reasons why Britain requires a "catalyst for development, investment, economic growth and housing" and and many, inter-connected ways to achieve it. Maybe the devolution suggested will deliver this "development," but will the price be random differentiation, lack of consistency, reduced equality and a mish-mash of decisions with no apparent coherence, although meeting the localist mantra?

The abolition of housing targets will mean the shortage in housing will only get worse 

A key weakness of the Regional Strategy approach was the assumption that imposed housing targets would be incorporated into plans by local authorities and communities, and that the market would deliver them. But only 22% of local planning authorities have translated the RS targets into an adopted Core Strategy. Regional Strategies did not build homes and we now have the lowest level of house building since 1924.

It's a bit disingenuous to blame Regional Strategies alone for "the lowest level of house building since 1924"! Does a banking-precipitated financial tragedy which sucked in over half of the previous government's deficit spending not have a role to play in this developing (affordable) housing new build crisis?

Incentives are just bribes We need to get the country building again – but this time with the support of local communities rather than in the teeth of their opposition. That’s why we are introducing powerful new incentives that give communities a reason to say yes to new development. Local finance considerations, such as the New Homes Bonus and the Community Infrastructure Levy, may be taken into account in relation to planning applications – but only where they are material to the particular application being considered. As before - unacceptable developments should not be given consent just to unlock incentive payments, and a matter can only be considered material to a planning application if it relates to the development and use of land, and to the merits of the application under consideration.
The point is that local authorities are best placed to judge the need for housing development and we trust them to continue to plan for it. And we are introducing incentives to help them achieve that vision. The New Homes Bonus introduces a powerful framework of incentives and new homes delivered now will be rewarded under the scheme. This will encourage local authorities and communities to increase their aspirations for housing and economic growth and to deliver sustainable development.
In the meantime there are planning permissions in the pipeline that will support supply whilst the new incentive scheme beds in.

Neighbourhood planning will end protection of the green belt The idea that local people will want to damage green belt in their neighbourhood is daft. Residents are always keen to protect the environmental quality of their local area. Neighbourhood development plans will be written by communities who are likely to be strong advocates for safeguarding their landscape and natural environment. Residents are also best qualified to understand what needs protecting in their local areas.

We are working with DEFRA to introduce a new designation that will allow communities to protect green spaces of local importance. National policy on the environment will be a basis upon which plans can be rejected as inappropriate. And we expect environment and climate change to be a strong feature of the National Planning Policy Framework.

"Local people", "communities" and "residents" are not homogeneous groups and can be and are composed of many factions and interests, including powerful landowners, large-scale property landlords, significant developer businesses and speculators - none of whom are necessarily the most staunch advocates for either "safeguarding their landscape," or alternatively keen to promote, say, new affordable housing. These will be some of the tests for the freeing of the planning system.

The Bill signals the end of social housing as we know it Rather than ending or abolishing social housing we are determined to make it work for those families that are in genuine need. It is difficult to argue for the case against reform when there are more empty bedrooms in social housing than are needed to tackle overcrowding; and only 49% of working age social tenants are in work (compared to 71% in 1981). We need to make better use of the homes we have, and to give councils flexibility to take decisions that will lead to better long term outcomes. To do this the Bill will

• Keep tenure for life for existing tenants, but give social landlords the additional option of granting shorter tenancies to new tenants subject to a minimum of two years. Social landlords should not have to give tenure for life to those facing a short term crisis.
• Keep the duty on councils to house those facing a housing crisis, but change the rules that mean people owed the duty can insist that their needs are met by giving them a social home for life.
• Provide that all new secure and flexible tenancies include a right to one succession for spouses and partners, but give landlords the flexibility to grant whatever additional succession rights they choose
• Give councils the power to decide who goes on their waiting lists to better reflect local priorities and realities
• Make it easier for social tenants to move within the social sector
• Support social tenants to achieve sustainable home ownership
• End the discredited Housing Revenue Account subsidy system, in favour of a more localist approach, allowing council landlords to plan long term and enabling their tenants to hold them to account over how their rent is spent.

It's interesting how a massively reduced and still declining resource, the health and vibrancy of which was probably fatally compromised by a previous Tory government, e.g. RTB, the prohibition on public sector house building and so on, remains the site of so much governmental intervention. Yes, there are matters that require, and have required, action for years but some of the poorest residents seem set to have even more intervention applied to their sector without the hope of the overall quantum of the stock increasing anywhere near significantly enough to provide choice, price and the variety we should expect in 2011.


Want to join a developing learning community of public sector professionals and access high quality support? Then please visit  www.theopenchannel.co.uk

Family Pressures

Check out a fascinating report by the Relationships Foundation, with some really important insights into the relative position Britain's families are in when compared to their European neighbours in the context of a host of dimensions, such as work, finance, caring and the environment.
A very brief introduction from the Relationships Foundation says:


Our index, built entirely on official data from Eurostat, Eurofound, and the OECD, shows that the UK is almost the least family friendly country in Europe. Families in the UK are the third most pressured of 27 European countries. Only families in Bulgaria and Romania have a worse time of it. Financial and work pressures, combine with poor maternity and paternity provision, and poor living environments put our families among the most pressured in Europe.

http://www.relationshipsfoundation.org/Web/OnlineStore/Product.aspx?ID=142


The Foundation juxtaposes the position of families in Britain with the oft avowed commitment of the Coalition to "make Britain the most family friendly country in Europe" and sets a challenge to make the apparent rhetoric a policy reality.   

Localism Bill or centralism Bill?

The LGA has put up a brief and helpful note on the 2nd Reading in the Lords of the (in my opinion, underwhelming) Localism Bill, exposing to a degree the espoused theory behind the Bill of shifting power to local communities and the theory-in-use of providing Ministers with new powers to direct, instruct and impose. Perhaps 'twas ever thus in relation to the central/local nexus, but this evermore looks like an opportunity that might be lost amidst some muddled thinking which seeks to do one thing, i.e. localise/devolve, and might conceivably achieve quite another, i.e. centralise/direct. A lack of trust between the centre and the local characterised too much of the previous Government's behaviour towards local government, and this trait seems to have been inherited by the Coalition.
http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/18775810

Leadership that overcomes barriers to progress

A really interesting piece on the new leadership styles required prosper in the most challenging of times, and ‘heroic’, forcing leadership styles do not feature. If I have a criticism of what is generally a helpful piece for the debate about public leadership, it is that the article perhaps understandably, uses examples that focus on the ‘usual’ star names and does not seem to offer a longer term historical perspective. These leadership styles have been extant in some local authorities for over 25 years and not only in large city authorities. There are many others in local government, less well known, who achieve significant progress, against the odds, using the fierceness of their quiet resolve to work through boundaries, around constraints and over barriers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/public-leaders-network/2011/jun/07/local-authorities-leaders-red-tape#start-of-comments

Well Being and Flourishing, Talent and Perseverance

Some interesting 'side-bars' over the weekend:

Martin Seligman, of Positive Psychology fame sees well-being as a combination of feeling good as well as actually having meaning, good relationships and accomplishment. His own positive psychology movement, which I find a particularly persuasive world-view to challenge the deficit paradigms of our time, has inspired many efforts to survey people's state of mind. One example being David Cameron's moves to measure GWB as well as GDP.

Seligman is now concerned however that surveys exploring well being use questions which tend to concentrate on "life satisfaction", which might include the above elements of well-being, but he says that the answers to these questions are largely, i.e. 70%+, determined by how respondents are feeling at the point of the survey and not how they evaluate their lives overall. For this he believes better questions search out notions of "flourishing", ask people about their moods, i.e. the present, then go on to explore their relationships with others and how far they have a sense of accomplishing something worthwhile or meaningful. This offers a more comprehensive assessment than joy and happiness of previous survey methods.

For the record, a recent study in 23 countries found that the citizens of Denmark and Switzerland topped the table for having flourishing lives with more than 25%, and citizens of France, Hungary, Portugal and Russia reporting fewer than 10% of citizens as flourishing.

Motivation. Many will have enjoyed listening to motivational speakers from business, sport and leadership. Interesting, inspirational even, yet beyond the intrinsic value of the speech the longer term value back in the office can sometimes be difficult to realise. In a Guardian article over the weekend, there was an interesting exploration of how innate talent is seen as having a strong influence on excellent performance, but it's not the only determinant. In fact, research shows that high-flyers learn no faster than those who reach lower levels of attainment, but the critical feature of their success is that "high achievers practice for more hours." Strengths theory speaks often about talents being part of us and not learned, and that talents only become true strengths when combined with activities that bring the talents into full and frequent use, i.e. 'practice make perfect.'

In addition, it appears that mindset, in this case fixed or growth focused shaped very different responses to challenges and apparent 'failure.' For instance, fixed mindset groups, i.e. those who see talent as fixed and incapable of development, rapidly shift into a blame mode when things go badly, whereas 'growth' mindset groups seek new approaches, are flexible in their thinking, don't recognise 'failure' as such and teach themselves new strategies for addressing apparently intractable problems. Perseverance it seems opens the door to the potential for personal transformation and access to higher performance. Or, as the great golfer Gary Player once said, "it's funny, when winning major tournaments, I'm often called lucky, yet the more I practice, the luckier I seem to get!"

And finally, one sentence I couldn't resist replaying from today's press:

"A Conservative Council,with a history of cleansing the poor from its housing, is currently attempting to criminalise the good souls who distribute soup to the destitute." LB Westminster draft bye-law refers. What price the Big Society, in Westminster at least?

Now is the time to be properly supported

Times are tough for the public services. We know this. Over 45,000 jobs have gone from the public sector in the past few months. The narrative around the public sector emanating from government concentrated in part on the alleged bloated scale and terms and conditions, the easy-to-say "budget cuts won't equate to front-line service cuts" and on back-office transformation, i.e. cuts or outsourcing or both - all possible with minimal impact on service quality, or indeed the economy more broadly. For some public bodies the worst is yet to come as the back-loaded cuts of 2013-15 will come into sharper relief.

Yet, it would appear a succession of economic statistics have given the lie to this narrative. The recession stumbles on, mortgage approvals hit an 18 year low, new housing starts are in a similar slump; unemployment is not falling and the attempts to make large inroads into various benefits and their claimants are having some really unfortunate consequences for individuals. The 'feel' is also that the private sector is neither ready nor willing and able to take up the 'slack' of public and charitable sector job losses.

So, where does The Open Channel come in to this difficult complex and worrying scenario? Well, we believe strongly, and more so every day as we speak with colleagues delivering services, that now is the moment when hard-pressed middle and senior managers, in all sectors, could really do with some cost-effective, flexible and knowledgeable support. Support that comes over the 'phone', on-line via Skype, through email and by using other web technologies.

This support needn't and will not cost a great deal to our subscribers, and that's a deliberate positioning to ensure no-one need miss out on what we offer. In fact, we offer much that is easily accessible at no cost, and as we develop our networks further this content will increase alongside the depth of our password protected resources for subscribers only. We fully intend that a learning community develops around our subscribers, ensuring that when they want to, there is a platform to share ideas, experiences, knowledge and intelligence.

We define ourselves by who we are, e.g. leaders, managers and practitioners, able to share and pass on what we have learnt and achieved - whilst still remaining avid learners ourselves. That's The Open Channel. When times are at their hardest you want your providers to intrinsically understand your challenges and yet also to have sufficient detachment and objectivity to be of real value to you.

So, our new venture comes to the end of its second week. The Open Channel offers us the opportunity to help our subscribers make the most of their talents, to deliver the best of what they can. Take a visit to our new website -http://www.theopenchannel.co.uk/ If you think this is not for you just now, do you know a colleague who might need this kind of support - please alert them if you do. Thanks and we look forward to welcoming you.