Online brainstorm: High Impact/Low Likelihood issues

From Future of Local Services to the Public

The following direct responses were given by Chief Execs in the online prioritisation exercise as to why they had rated certain issues as relatively high impact and low likelihood.

Why do you believe that (ISSUE) is a potential high impact / low likelihood issue for the delivery of local services to the public over the next 10-15 years?

A major economic, terrorist or environmental disruption prompts a rethink of local contingency planning

• A significant terrorist event at Heathrow would have major consequences for us but is mitigated by action and contingency planning. This will always be high impact low likelihood on our risk register.
• By their very nature the impact of such an event will be significant but these are not everyday issues.It will as the fear of terrorism will continue to be prevalent but the likelihood in rural areas is minimal

A new generation of "facilitative" leaders re-energises local services and places

• Don't believe these people will want to work in the public sector and unless there are similar facilitative elected leaders, it will not work.
• Excellent political leadership key to successful local government but the ability to influence greatly reduced, complex, driven by national agendas etc so less appealing to potential leaders to stand for local government.
• I do not believe that local government attracts potential leaders anymore - either from school, university or from other sectors.
• Traditional career paths are limited. Incentives are very few.
• Local politics does not attracted the quality of leader, local government needs to change and governments allow local decision making
• Radical changes to leadership style could break local apathy and lead to participatory democracy - once that happens who knows what might result? Not likely though because potential leaders with such ideas will be unable to break through the party machines and if they did they would soon be stifled by the managerialists.
• Such leadership across the public sector as a whole could transform local services. However, in practice, leaders and organisations are not rewarded currently for this and whilst still judged separately as individuals and organisations this is likely to continue

Apathy attacks: the double devolution agenda stalls due to citizen apathy

• We would lose what visible public support we have (already low). I doubt if it will change but if it did the Council and its partners would lose its assumed leadership role of the area
• Behavioural economic: a new understanding of social complexity and how people make choices changes the way we provide services
• Behaviour change is the only was we can make a sustainable difference to the issues around deprivation - in addition to targeted support and interventions

Devolution and local empowerment through personal and community budgeting becomes a reality

• Central government will ensure it does not happen
• Change of government
• I think it almost impossible to conceive that central government would introduce this but if it did it would have a very significant effect on the way we deliver services
• I don't think this is likely to happen on a large scale and I think very early in the process we will find a series of local frauds being perpetrated which will lead to a quick retrenchment of the policy.
• If we were to see devolution and people really empowered it could have huge changes in terms of what people would want of their Council (cannot see the majority wanting some of current Government policy) - but I don't think it will happen. No government has seriously devolved in my living memory - and I cannot see why any should start now.
• It is high impact as it will require a different way of working and could lead to significant variations in service delivery. It is unlikely however that the government will ever devolve the range of funding as suggested in the "help text"
• It remains difficult to see the political appeal of significant personal or community budgeting given the current public and media responses to any differential in service provision in, for example, health services.
• Personalisation of services could have a huge impact. I doubt very much whether it can be afforded, both the cost and implementation for systems and processes, and even is if that could be done, to be able to cap demand. Isn't it interesting that the rise in Contact/Customer Centre culture has resulted in greatly increased levels of demand. Personalisation of services is sure to have the same response, with a potentially devastating impact on affordability levels.
• Promises about devolved budgets have been made but no evidence to suggest the Government will deliver as it wishes to maintain tight control - where are the promised freedoms for local councils?
• Whilst I believe that devolution and local control of budgets could be extremely powerful and beneficial in reinvigorating local activism and engagement, I have no confidence that any realistically conceivable national government will, when in power, cede significant control to localities. Whilst token participative and community budgeting will increase, real, substantive empowerment at a genuinely local level is unlikely.

Digital Britain creates dividends and divides for local residents

• I'm techno-savvy but see that people do not change - they like personal interaction
• Many of the services we provide depend on face to face contact (schools, social care) or are infrastructural (highways, transport) and cannot be replaced by digital transactions.
• The digital divide will enable those that have access to the internet to access services more quickly and effectively. Feedback on services will be carried out via short polls, SMS texting and other electronic means. Therefore those with electronic access will increasingly have a greater say and input in the shaping and delivery of local services.
• The technology will become ubiquitous just as the telephone did. It will change the lives of everyone.

Funding Squeeze: with funds from central government dwindling local areas pass more of the costs on to local residents

• In the end the more direct the taxation the more obvious link between it and the quality of the services it funds. Local people will want less rather than more when they see the cost of their local services. Government will keep taxation centralised to reduce the nature of the link.

Green energy pressures

• Location in the centre of the country and some relatively remote areas would make this a high impact issue; low likelihood because the issue may well settle in the next few years

Growing ethnic, social and economic disparities increase tensions in local areas

• Any impact on the cohesive nature of communities is important. People in this district live well together and everyone is working to maintain that.
• Due to the make up of our population
• This is an important issue but I do not see it becoming a main driver in the delivery of local services.
• When tensions explode they are very high impact but they are thankfully very rare and local govt and its partners have become increasingly skilled in preventing such tensions from getting out of hand
• Yes - community cohesion becoming a more significant agenda

Housing shortfalls cause severe pressures on local authorities and services

• Housing shortfalls could affect our plans for economic growth but we firmly believe that our regeneration strategies will see a substantial housing growth by 2020.
• I think the problem has been over-emphasised. Again it’s more about quality than quantity.
• This is a building issue in Britain as young people are unable to afford property
• While a slow start - and some initial issue to overcome -the system is gearing up for it - so as soon as upturn occurs - there is enough on-the book schemes to meet the shortfall. Also expectations of what to expect has changed - a lot more people willing to live in flats that 20 years ago at the entry point into the market.

Local Area Taxes: finance of local government revolutionised with the end of council tax

• Can't see any government biting this bullet. Impact would be great in terms of local govt autonomy and removing one of the factors in its low reputation/easy scapegoat (visibility of council tax coupled with constrained powers)
• Can see that as we are close to the Scottish Border, were it to be introduced in Scotland, people would want it in Northumberland.
• Few changes would make a larger difference to local government, local democracy and local services - bringing accountability and flexibility, and significance to the local level, but central government has a strong vested interest in retaining financial controls.
• I am sceptical of the ability of government to grasp the nettle. As a council on the grant floor with a thriving business sector that generates a lot of tax that is taken for other areas there is a good chance that we would benefit from a major overhaul of LG finance.
• If it were to happen, it would affect what we do because the rich majority in our area would vote for lower taxes, thereby preventing us from meeting the needs of the poor minority. But it won’t happen because central government will never give up control of taxation.
• In the sense that I can't see more resources being made available so funding will remain a key challenge
• Insufficient political motivation. Unpopularity of direct personal taxation in the past seems unlikely to result in popular support for such measures. Would also require a paradigm shift in national and local service funding and delivery models across all public services, not just local government.
• Local area taxes would undoubtedly put the Council in a stronger financial position allowing further improvements to services. It is unlikely to happen as long as tax income continues to be shifted from the affluent south east to other areas of the country.
• Local taxation would be a very significant change in the way that local government services are resourced - but the Govt response post -Lyons indicated clearly that there is not sufficient political impetus behind this change.
• Lots of talk but it won't happen. If it does then it will change the whole basis of how people view the services they provide.
• Potentially, this could dramatically alter the relationship between local services and residents' contributions to those service providers. However I don't think it will happen in the next 10 years.
• Probably wont happen but would have big impacts if it did
• The government are unlikely to allow local authorities to levy local taxes. There will be too many losers.
• This could have a high impact on Council's willingness and ability to become more radical leaders of their areas and therefore the likelihood of local people becoming more engaged. I remain pessimistic as to how likely govt is to find such a solution and cede control.
• This would absolutely revolutionise local democracy, economic leverage and community engagment. It would enable a wide range of innovative work around the place shaping agenda. However I do not see governments of any hue rushing in this direction!
• With only one of the three major parties advocating a local tax, I do not see this as highly likely. If it were to happen, it would have a major impact on our finances. I believe that we would struggle to maintain existing budget levels.

Mayors on the march: mayors elected to lead local government

• They would significantly alter the means of governance. But neither party threatens them for rural and dispersed communities.
• Unlikely to be imposed but if it was it has a high potential impact

Online social networks and Web 2.0 reinvigorate local democracy and transforms services

• Because of the young people who will be making use of on line information, but older people who won't. Transformation will be slow.
• I believe it will have a high impact for that proportion of the community who are active on-line (and generally younger) but demographics and longevity show a high proportion of the population are over 60 and for whom this is less appealing and in reality less likely
• I believe this change should have a high impact, but I don't think it will actually happen in the way envisaged in the questionnaire. It may be different in larger conurbations, but I get no sense of this in the rural areas.
• It would really ratchet up the expectations on public services if people created these sorts of networks, but I think it is unlikely to happen because the are more likely to be about things other than public service delivery. There are more exciting things to talk about.
• Low likelihood because of general levels of apathy and exclusion, but would have a huge impact if majority took a real interest

Partnership working becomes increasingly complex but real and successful

• Has the potential but Government "must be dones" often set the priorities rather than the partnership
• Return to simpler more effective solutions demanded by public. Can partnership working get any more complex in some areas? If it does it will have an overbearing and disproportionate impact!!

The costs of mobility mount up: fuel costs, congestion, poor infrastructure and environmental impact bring transport systems to breaking point

• Mobility costs will raise but transport systems locally should cope
• The culture of managerialism in central and local government inhibits creativity in shaping local services
• At the end of the day local govt is pragmatic - and is part of the political democratic process. In the short term things like managerialism hold sway - but I am not convinced re long term impact because of the inherent tension and counter balance with the political environment
• Because we will find ways to overcome it.
• I think central govt is beginning to step back from micro-management, and opposition parties seem to be willing to embrace post code lottery if it achieves local responsiveness. Local Govt management is moving away from micro-management of service delivery to embrace broader partnership and community leadership agenda
• If it was to happen I believe it would significantly impact on service delivery, stifling creativity would be a disaster. We need innovation in local government and it is happening all over, which is why I believe it to be low likelihood
• If we all stay below the parapet there is a real danger that in an increasingly difficult financial situation services to the public could suffer. However, I believe local government officers and elected members have an extraordinary talent for finding creative solutions to even the most difficult of situations.
• It already does. Managers careers depend on success in meeting usually externally imposed targets. There is now a whole generation of managers who think that's what local government is about. Councils are nervous of jeopardising their performance ratings by prioritising innovation and strategy. There are one or two reasons to be optimistic CAA and efficiency targets will both force change.
• More resources devoted to "managerialism" will impact on resources available for services. I simply don't believe that this will happen.
• The thrust for targets has caused a great deal of harm in the delivery of local services; there is ample evidence available on this in the public domain. However, the awareness of this harm, particularly in central government, is likely to reduce the likelihood of a return to a heavily target driven top down style of management.

The dependency squeeze means an ever-greater focus on service provision for the elderly, health and social care

• I'm hopeful that solutions will be found/behaviours changed to mitigate the demand.
• We know that the cost of aging cannot be afforded so I think there is going to be less provision and more self reliant approach in this area

The Petabyte revolution: the power of instant data in an information rich would presents problems and opportunities for local services

• I am not convinced that the ever-faster increase in the availability of "instant" assists policy-making, or that over this period it will be harnessed in reality.. The issue is rather how a wealth of info is analysed and used. But over time, changes in availability of data, and its analysis, can have profound impacts in tandem with other changes.
• I am not that clear about this issue.
• It very much depends on how communities harness this information. I can see that by gaining information from the internet this could be very powerful, so could potentially have a high impact to enable citizens to challenge and raise expectations about service delivery, However, in my own LA, with many deprived communities, and lower educational attainment the likelihood of this having a major impact may be less than in other areas.
• There are more opportunities than impacts

The value of the ageing population is successfully harnessed through the third sector

• I presently see little sign of a willingness of those living longer to commit themselves to undertaking voluntary work.
• I think that especially here where our older peoples profile is increasing faster than nationally the potential is huge and it could really impact on the way in which services are delivered. I am not however convinced that we, or the VCS, have the capacity needed to support these initiatives and that there will therefore be a lack of momentum to develop their full potential
• It is a high impact because it has the potential to do so much good for our society - just think of the number of excellent, well qualified people who retire and then vegetate, or worse, emigrate. I believe it is a low likelihood because the third sector does not have the resource at present to make it happen, and I do not see any enthusiasm in government to make the required investment.
• Locally, our University of the Third Age which is organised without any local authority input energises a very large number of older people to participate in social, educational and cultural activities. The potential of this group is enormous. There is, however, a reluctance to take on obligations to provide services which would hinder harnessing this potential to have an impact on public service delivery beyond the current fairly high level of volunteering on a more casual basis.
• The idea of thousands of pensioners volunteering to do valuable work via the third sector is an ideal. However, unless we are forced through poverty to work until we drop, I think most of us would rather be on holiday or watching Sky TV Sports. (If we can afford it). Get real....
• The UK population is aging dramatically and it needs to harness the power of its elderly. If this is not done soon, we face a huge drain on government resources. Moreover, we will lose the spare capacity that elderly people have, especially as research shows that they are more likely to vote and volunteer.
• At the moment, everyone (except a brave few) see the elderly as a problem or a cost rather than an opportunity. To put it bluntly and directly, how many communities have thought to attract the elderly as an economic development project such as many areas in the US? How many authorities have thought to create a niche market by linking health care, elderly care, with life science centres?
• There is not enough money being invested in preventative/community issues due to squeezes on budgets
• Would be good but difficult to achieve

Workforce and recruitment problems in local government and other partners undermine the quality and effectiveness of services

• Recruitment and retention is always a challenge in London and staff shortages in key areas cannot fail to impact on service delivery. Such shortages would therefore have a significant effect on London councils but I am reasonably confident of our ability as a sector to tackle such problems. For this reason, I do not believe it is very likely.