Leviathan

I think it would have been wiser to wait a year or two, or at least to phase in slowly over a like period.

The public sector should always be in a state of reform but getting from glib to good policy is the catch. If I were advising Cameron and Clegg, I might offer bampbs suggestion- comment on blogs for a couple years and see where that takes you.

Public Policy Leviathan - as someone who works for a Council in a Northern City I object strongly to the seeming suggestion in the last paragraph that there are council officials or councillors (of any party)that would senselessly prioritize officials' pay above social care services for the exceptionally vulnerable like disabled children or worse still deliberately cut this sort of service to further their own political cause. I think anyone who makes such a suggestion that this is an issue should be able to back it up with some very solid evidence.

Generally, I have been very disappointed in the comparative weakness of coverage in the Economist of the complexity and scale of the challenge facing local government (especially those authorities with high levels of deprivation). More so because it requires finance experts of some caliber to get to the bottom of hideously complex local government finance issues and make sense of them for readers. If the Economist can't do it - who can?

I would like to throw down the gauntlet to the Economist - would you be able to bring your usual sharp and shrewd eye to analysing the financial and economic challenges facing the big Northern Cities over coming years, including a review of serious policy proposals for how they might be best met?

There is a singular and frightening lack of good well-informed debate in the national media on this critical issue, which in the near future is going to start to unfold rapidly and dramatically impact on the lives of significant part of the British population and none more so than the vulnerable living in deprived regions.

Anomosity [sic]?

May I remind you there are examples of devolved authority. As a skeptic, let me note one awful experience: the devolution of public school control to local communities in some large US cities. The "community schools" movement insisted that local control would be more responsive to local needs, would save money and be more efficient. Turned out the opposite; local politicians discovered the ancient truth there is value in controlling local resources and the schools were materially, even substantially damaged by political interference, patronage and waste.

My point is shifting authority has consequences that tend to be ignored when the political tides are for devolving authority. The period of devolution is then followed by consolidation intended to remedy the problems created by devolution. Each political movement ignores the reality of how human beings work.

Thank you Jomiku - I think your point is a very valid one.

I do work for a council and I am a paid-up believer in the value of good local government. My concern however, is not so much with a devolution argument but with the quality of the debate in general.

There is a lot of distraction in the media around what I believe are to date unfounded accusations of 'political cuts'. Happily I have not come across of a local politician of any party or officer who would allow the deliberate slashing of services to the vulnerable like disabled children to make a political point. This is a very serious accusation and should be backed up by hard evidence. If such evidence exists it absolutely has to be brought forward and action taken.

What is more concerning is the lack of coherence in the Localism Bill which does not delineate clear lines of responsibility between local and central government - central control of budgets and finance with local responsibility for decision making in an increasingly 'devolved' environment is a recipe for weak accountability and the throwing of blame around when services are under extreme pressure.

This is not to mention the announced abolition of the Audit Commission with no clear proposals for its replacement. Hence the control environment for local government is undergoing huge upheaval and uncertainty at the same time when local government is under enormous pressure and the possibility of critical service failure for vulnerable individuals is inevitably more likely. Afterall, such failure happens in the 'good times' too. How changes to the control environment are going to be managed in coming years alongside major reform and budgetary cuts really needs looking at.

Finally, there is the added critical issue that the rate of change and speed of cuts is much greater in deprived regions where there is a concentration of more vulnerable parts of the population. Whatever reform model you advocate for services that are relied on by vulnerable groups, I think it is undeniable that increasing the rate of change in their services translates into increased risk for the individuals concerned. How should this risk be managed? If central government needs the savings quickly, then perhaps it needs to buttress critical provision for the vulnerable somehow - even with more central control. This is a serious risk issue for deprived areas and needs a proper debate no matter which part of the political spectrum you are on.

My current position is simply to advocate for a better quality of debate in the national media on the challenges facing local government in deprived regions.