The current financial crisis is changing the face of community asset transfer. Locality and its predecessors, the Development Trusts Association and bassac, have long since advocated and supported community asset transfer. Three or four years ago, the main model of community asset transfer was demand-driven – community organisations seeking transfers to improve local services, develop social enterprises and establish their financial resilience.  

Demand-driven transfers have increased by 50% over the last twelve months – with local authority officers reporting 1,500/annum underway in a survey conducted during January 2012. But, times are changing – and, with them, the impetus for community asset transfer. 

Local authorities, primary care trusts and other major service providers are under immense pressure to deliver high quality outcomes with increasingly constrained resources. They are also asked to deliver against the Government’s Opening Public Services, Mutuals and Big Society agendas. This combination of factors has led to the emergence of a ‘supply-push’ model – where multiple asset transfer to communities is increasingly sought as a way to maintain or evolve services, whilst reducing facilities management costs for the public sector. All of this, at a hitherto unprecedented pace.

The Asset Transfer Unit has been working with local authorities over the past two years to explore approaches to multiple asset transfer. The programme has looked creatively at how services can be delivered, the full potential of assets realised and a strategic approach taken to maximising opportunities through community asset ownership and enterprise. 

The values built into the programme are those which have always underpinned community asset transfer:

• community empowerment lies at the heart of the transfer process
• transfers must be financially viable and sustainable in the long-term
• services available to local people should be enhanced through transfer
• effective transfer results from genuine partnership working

The difference lies in the scale, speed and complexity of ambitions encountered in each locale.

The development of assets by communities and the role social enterprises can play is critically important to the future of public service delivery. As such, the Multiple Asset Transfer programme is designed to offer expert support to develop strategic approaches to both. Multiples can be structured around services, places or asset types – so there is real flexibility. 

That flexibility means that approaches to multiple asset transfer vary enormously. I am particularly inspired by those which pursue bold and innovative solutions to maintain and enhance services – for example local authorities which:

• trust their community and voluntary sector partners, consider all the options and co-produce solutions
• seek to enhance services in the long term through working in partnership with community enterprises
• explore different models of ownership, management and collaboration in order to develop sustainable solutions
• see the benefits of co-location, better joining up of services and attracting additional investment
• are prepared to offer property for sale or community asset transfer, and weigh up in each case which delivers best value

The work of Northampton Borough Council and Northampton Spaces CIC serves as an excellent case in point – http://www.atu.org.uk/Stories/Northampton

These are difficult issues and there are no easy solutions. Local authorities face pressures to realise capital receipts. It’s not easy to come up with viable business models for many of the buildings in their portfolios because they are small, in a state of poor repair or, else, challenged by location. Changes to valued services and buildings often prove emotive amongst the general public. For these reasons, local authorities are looking for strategic solutions which deliver revenue savings alongside service transformation outcomes.

Locality has launched a Call for Expressions of Interest from local authorities interested in progressing plans for multiple asset transfer during 2012-13. The programme will work with 5 local authorities across England, building upon the learning from earlier rounds involving work across 15 areas. Further information on multiple asset transfer and the call to action can be found on the Asset Transfer Unit website via http://www.atu.org.uk/programmes/Multiple/MATDemonstationProgrammeAPPLY 

On May 24, I am due to speak at the College of Journalism’s Connecting Communitiesconference about how local councils and councillors have reacted to the emergence of community media.

But before looking at the ‘how’, I want to ask why current momentum suggests that citizen-led content will continue to grow.

The decline in traditional local media has been and is being well reported. Less well-covered is the growth and opportunities in politics, technology and the media that are fuelling the ambition, energy and belief of these early practitioners.

First, politics: one of the central pieces of legislation of the Coalition government is theLocalism Act. The intention is to push as much power as possible away from Whitehall and back to the Town Hall - and local people, charities, voluntary organisations, community groups and parents.

It’s about developing a more varied, diverse, almost certainly messier, public services landscape; but one that appreciates that different people and different communities want to do things differently.

Then in technology, the current momentum online is about connecting with place – where we are right now and what we’re doing. Smartphones allow us to check in on-the-move (Foursquare); record whatever we see in front of us (Bambuser); and communicate that across a plethora of social (Facebook) and professional (LinkedIn) networks.

With declining production costs, the growth in public wifi access and the impending roll-out of 4G, this is only going to grow in use, and so in significance.

Lastly, consider what’s happening in the media. Back in March 2010, the Guardianlaunched three local blogs - in Leeds, Cardiff and Edinburgh. Sadly, they were wound down. The Guardian‘s Meg Pickard explains here why the project was ‘not sustainable in its present form’. 

But the national-to-local mantle has now being taken up by Northcliffe Media. They now have more than 120 LocalPeople websites (such as Wimbledon People, above) and claim they are ‘accessed regularly by over 20% of the town’s online population’. I’ve been told by a Northcliffe representative that the company is now selling franchise versions of these sites to people who fancy their chances of making some money from this branch of community media.

The BBC has appointed a senior journalist, based in Birmingham to investigate forging better links with hyperlocals.

This week Ofcom has invited bidders to submit applications for 12-year licences to run local TV services in 21 cities and towns. Along similar lines, independent charity NESTAhas just launched a program to work with ten organisations with £55,000 each to develop better ways of using geographical data in hyperlocal websites.

So what we’re seeing is a top-down trend: the top proactively going to meet the grassroots; the central seeking out the local; the big working with the small.

Around the periphery of this politics/technology/media Venn diagram there is still some suspicion and unease, but at the centre there is growing understanding, trust and respect.

And in the centre, there are some excellent examples of how local councils and politicians can help new media flourish. They range from councillors running online surgeries on hyperlocal websites to bloggers being invited to press briefings. One council is now looking for wiggle room in the law that will allow it to stop posting statutory notices in local newspapers and publish all that information in community media instead.

It is stories and possibilities like these that I’d like to explore more at the Connected Communities event.

In the aftermath of local elections and mayoral referendums on May 2012, there is a need to take stock of future prospects for mayoral governance in English Local Authorities, and also of the related implications of concurrent developments for city leadership.

Notwithstanding the rejection of elected mayor at referendums in nine major cities, by the end of 2012 England will have the London Mayor operating at world-city/regional scale, and 16 further Mayors covering a population of 3.6 million, and an economic footprint of around 2 million jobs and over £100 billion gross added value (GVA). Elected Mayors will therefore be an important part of local governance and local economic development landscapes for the foreseeable future.

There is very little national clarity and sense of direction for the future of elected Mayors from government, although they remain interested in the model. This gives an opportunity for the local government sector, together with partners, to shape solutions that work locally and have national significance and replicability.

This blog outlines considerations and strategic choices facing local authorities with existing and prospective directly-elected mayors. It also considers other developing approaches to political and strategic leadership of local economic growth, and the interplay between mayoral and Council Leader systems. Sector-wide and specific local development and capacity-building exercises would assist Mayoral effectiveness and relationships with neighbours.

Directly-elected mayors in English Local Government

Directly elected mayors were first introduced in England for Greater London under the GLA Act 1999, and provision was made for their introduction throughout the country in the Local Government Act (LGA) 2000. Under LGA2000 directly elected mayors were adopted following approvals by referendums in 12 local authorities during the following five years (2001-06):-

•  Three London boroughs (Hackney, Lewisham, Newham);
• Six unitary councils (Doncaster, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, North Tyneside, Stoke-on-Trent, Torbay);
• Three district councils (Bedford – which became unitary in 2009, Mansfield and Watford).

In addition:-

•  Tower Hamlets adopted the model after referendum in 2010
• Leicester introduced the model by council resolution in 2011
• Liverpool introduced the model by council resolution at the recent May 2012 elections
• Salford also introduced it at May 2012 elections but after referendum

Also, in terms of ‘mayoralities’ established under LGA2000:-

• Stoke on Trent voted to abolish the system in 2008 and returned to the Council Leader and Cabinet system
• Doncaster held a referendum to abolish the system in May 2012, but the electors chose to retain it

Finally, in this rather complex landscape, the Coalition Government determined to seek Mayoral referendums in 12 cities as part of their programme of local government reform in 2010. Both Leicester and Liverpool bypassed this process through adopting the model by Council resolution (under an amendment to LGA2000 introduced by the former government in 2006). Ten referendums were therefore held on 3 May, as a result of which:-

• Bristol will move to directly-elected mayor governance in November 2012
• Birmingham, Bradford, Coventry, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Nottingham, Sheffield and Wakefield voted against the proposition

Proponents of the mayoral ‘model’ (which has included at times both Blair and Cameron) were broadly supportive of directly-elected mayors, suggesting they would revitalise local politics and provide decisive and directly accountable local leadership. Opponents of directly-elected mayors, who have tended to include the majority of local councillors in the major parties, have feared authoritarian leadership and corruption.

Initially the introduction of elected mayors did produce a number of non-traditional winners of mayoral elections. Ken Livingstone first won London as an independent; whilst Ray Mallon in Middlesbrough, Stuart Drummond in Hartlepool, and Frank Branston in Bedford did not come from the major political parties. Latterly, however, Labour has tended to dominate the introduction of new mayoralities, Leicester in 2011, Liverpool and Salford in 2012. Tower Hamlets was won by an independent mayor.

Many commentators have questioned whether there is a coherent ‘mayoral model’. The system has been adopted by a varying range of councils/areas at different times, under differing legislative provision. Powers of mayors have been either restricted (under LGA2000 effectively to the powers of a local authority with Leader and Cabinet) or unclear (for Mayors to be adopted under the Coalition’s Localism Act 2011). National political support has been ambiguous and spasmodic, and a range of other governance and public service reforms (e.g. from Elected Police Commissioners to LEPs) has paid little attention to a specific role for Mayors. In addition, for those core cities (and their hinterlands) who rejected the model in the latest referendums, Government appears to offer an alternative pathway to increased decentralisation and particularly influence over local economic growth through, inter alia, Combined Authorities (on a city region basis) and ‘new city deals’.

However, once Bristol has introduced the model in November, in addition to the internationally-significant London Mayor operating at world-city/regional scale, ‘Mayoralities’ in England will cover 16 local authorities (of which 14 are unitary), two core cities, and a population of 3.6 million. These local authority mayors provide the potential of strong local political leadership of economies delivering up to 2 million jobs and making an annual GVA contribution of around £50 billion outside London and an even higher amount within London (given Canary Wharf is in Tower Hamlets).

The elected mayor will therefore remain an important dimension of England’s local government and probably its local economic growth landscape for the foreseeable future.

The uncertain and evolving powers and status of elected mayors

As stated above, one of the fundamental issues for elected mayors has been the powers which they have at their disposal. The London Mayor, under the GLA Act, is a very prominent national and international figure, with extensive powers and influence over Transport, city-wide strategic planning, housing and economic development. These powers have been deepened under both Labour and the Coalition in existing functions, and extended to include Police and Fire Services, Regeneration, waste and public health etc. The Mayor has also been extremely influential in attracting major government investment (e.g. Crossrail, Olympics etc), and has been a credible champion for London on both national and global platforms.

In terms of the 16 (other) local authorities with mayoral governance, strictly, the LGA2000 gives the role no more status than Leader and Cabinet models. However, both prominent Conservatives and Labour supporters of the model envisage the role as transformational, and therefore have advocated additional formal powers and status.

The coalition has attempted to address this in various ways since 2010. For instance, initially it was suggested that newly formed Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) might be chaired by an elected mayor – although this became untenable when no LEPs contiguous with mayoralities were established.

More seriously, in late-2011 DCLG consulted on potential powers for new city mayors. The consultation was restricted to the 12 ‘mayoral cities’ (i.e. Leicester, Liverpool and the ten cities required to hold referendums on 3 May 2012). Government’s approach was to invite individual ‘mayoral cities’ to make proposals as to which powers they would wish to have. Responses from the twelve cities focused on planning, transport, employment and economic development – although there was some appetite for mayoral roles in health and police.

The government should now complete and agree new dispensations with Leicester, Liverpool and Bristol (post-November), although it rather ‘jumped the gun’ in Liverpool by agreeing a ‘new city deal’ (reported to include £75 million of new government investment and largely focused on economic development and employment) as part of Liverpool’s proposal to move immediately to the mayoral model without a referendum.

Finally, in the run-up to the May referenda, Cameron offered a bi-annual Cabinet of elected city mayors, as part of a package to incentivise the ten remaining mayoral cities to adopt the model – giving the political leadership of these cities unprecedented access to and the prestige of regular direct dialogue at the most senior levels of national government.

Naturally, these approaches have been resented by the earlier mayoralities who have sought to be included in any new mayoral powers and status. Given government’s localism agenda, and a willingness to evolve arrangements, it remains unclear precisely what powers and resources existing and new mayors might attract over the coming period. It seems unlikely either that these will be akin to the London Mayor, OR, as things stand, that the London Mayor would wish to be involved in a cohort of local authority elected mayors.

Evaluations and assessments of mayoral governance

A number of studies and assessments have been made of mayoral experience in England – mainly by think tanks and academics. In general, these are inconclusive, but the positive impacts tend to outweigh the negative. A strong overview is provided in the Institute for Government publication ‘What can elected mayors do for our cities?’, produced as a prelude to the recent referendums. This summarises clear benefits as providing visibility (and increased local recognition), stability and outward-looking leadership. Service improvement has been more mixed, but has also tended to be positive. The profile of mayors though has been most often white male, and succession planning has not been strong. It is quite apparent, however, that mayoralities each have their individual stories to tell.

Most recently, the Third Warwick Commission on ‘Elected Mayors and City Leadership’ published its summary report on April 16 2012. Echoing the Institute for Government (who did collaborate with the Commission), they go further in considering (relatively favourably) the case for Elected Mayors charged with economic roles to be on sensible economic footprints (i.e. ‘metro-mayors’); for Mayors as transformational change agents in places requiring major change; and for the need of Mayoral governance to sit alongside and support/enable a much wider change in community involvement in governance and civil society.

Internationally, too, English elected mayors outside London have attracted a prominence their place might not have acquired otherwise. For instance, three-term Stuart Drummond of Hartlepool has promoted and generated distinctive interest in the town. He was even a ‘World Mayor’ finalist in 2010 – finishing in tenth place (the second highest position of any European Mayor).

For those local authorities seeking to either incept the mayoral system or to refresh the one introduced in the last decade, evaluations and assessments provide fertile material and frameworks for tailoring to the specifics of individual mayoralities. This is explored further in Comments below.

Alternative (and/or complementary) city leadership developments

The promotion of mayoral governance in major city councils has occurred alongside the Coalition defining its approach to sub-national governance and local growth in general, and to ‘city-regions’ in particular.

In terms of local economic growth, government’s first initiatives involved the establishment of (now) 39 Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) covering economic geographies literally from regional scale (e.g. the Greater Essex, Kent and East Sussex – now South East – LEP) through ‘city regions’ (e.g. Greater Manchester) and non-metropolitan sub-regions (e.g. Solent) to traditional county models.

Government has also promoted ‘city regions’ through ‘new city deals’ – economic packages to be negotiated firstly with Core Cities (and/or their LEPs), but potentially later to be extended to other cities. The first such deal was agreed with Liverpool City Council (at least partly on the basis of its decision to adopt mayoral governance), and so a further negotiation would be required to extend this to a ‘city-region’ or LEP basis. The second deal, however, was agreed with Greater Manchester on a Combined Authority (i.e. city region) basis, independent of Manchester’s decision (by referendum) to reject the mayoral model, and Salford’s to adopt it.

The impression gained, therefore, has been that those major cities that have rejected mayoral governance may achieve similar ‘deals’ to those offered to mayors by establishment of ‘Combined Authorities’ – where local authorities wish to agree discharge of strategic functions jointly – on a city region basis. Greater Manchester Combined Authority has led the way, and Leeds City Region has announced its intention to follow. Although focused on economic growth, the Combined Authority has sought decentralisation of transport, skills and other functions, and could potentially extend into other areas.

A suggestion of reconciling city region and mayoral models was given by Greg Clark, Minister for Cities, in the run-up to the referendums on government listening to suggestions for ‘metro mayors’. In the aftermath of the referendums, ‘metro mayors’ have been suggested by bodies like Centre for Cities and Institute for Government as the next possible ‘bottom-up’ development of the model.

With a different genesis government has also announced pilots for ‘whole place community budgets’, which potentially could cover broad areas of public policy similar in reach to LAAs and MAAs under the previous administration. And, there are a range of other public policy reforms (e.g. NHS, Police, Welfare) where the public might reasonably expect ‘their’ (powerful) elected mayor to have influence, which are being introduced with no particular special standing for the Mayor beyond that of a Council Leader.

Taking stock and next steps

In summary, and particularly in the light of the nine rejections of mayoral governance in the May referendums, it is difficult to discern a consistent and coherent pattern as to how government wishes mayoral governance to develop over the coming period.

The local government sector, on the other hand, is faced with:-

• a nationally-significant footprint of areas and councils covered by mayoral systems that need to be effective
• the potential for this footprint to be extended on a one-off basis either by public petition and referendum or by ‘own initiative’
• a set of issues around how to ensure mayoralities work well with neighbouring Leader and Cabinet local authorities
• Longer term question-marks over whether demands for and interest in ‘metro-mayors’ (or their non-metropolitan equivalent) have any merit.

A commentary on these challenges is outlined below.

Comment 

The national policy context – ‘localism and indifference OR confusion and incoherence’

Twelve years after the election of the first London mayor, successive governments have continued to struggle with providing a clear coherent context for elected mayors at sub-national levels of local government. These struggles appear to revolve around two major issues:-

• Firstly, does national government genuinely believe in and wish to promote mayoral governance or is it a matter for bottom-up local choice about which they are relatively indifferent? Neither Labour nor the Coalition has ever answered this question consistently. The most recent city mayoral referendums are a case in point. Government expressed a proposition that mayoral governance would be ‘good’ for major cities. They selected an arbitrary number of larger cities who would be required to have referendums – claiming (wrongly) that these were the largest twelve in population terms. There was no reason given as to why twelve was the ‘right’ number (e.g. as opposed to the eight ‘core cities’, that at least had a history of collaboration; or a much larger number of cities that would have given a wider geographical and socio-economic spread. Sunderland, for instance, is one of the twelve largest cities, but was NOT required to hold a referendum because it had rejected a mayorality in a 2001 referendum on a 10 per cent turnout!). Government then gave the electorate (and the candidates) no real steer as to the powers and resources they might have; and offered an alternative route (i.e. the Combined Authority model) for achieving the same ends. This same incoherence characterises most of the issues around mayoral governance where a national steer might be helpful in setting the context. The coalition argues this as ‘localism’ and that ‘one size doesn’t fit all’; critics may argue it as abdication of national responsibility, effectively continuing to embed the centralist character of the state.
• Secondly, is mayoral governance about democratic renewal and increasing local accountability for (sub-national) public policy, or is it really about promoting economic growth and regeneration in major cities? Whilst much of Blair and Cameron’s enthusiasm for elected mayors initially appears to be about the former, in practice much of the argument and justification – especially in the recent referendums – has been about the latter. For existing (and the prospective Bristol) Mayors, however, this national ambiguity has huge practical implications. The electorate have a reasonable expectation that the elected mayor can assist them in, for instance, their NHS, community safety, welfare or other public policy concerns, but in reality the Mayor is in no better a formal position than their Councillors. Concurrently, Government and business may expect an economic premium from mayoralities, but, as the local authority does not comprise a functional economic area, this premium (if any) is severely constrained. This dilemma becomes even more acute in non-metropolitan areas. If Mayors were good for democratic renewal and/or for economic development, why would ambitious counties not consider them seriously as an option, and why has government never actively advocated them for non-metropolitan areas? 

Mayoral governance will continue to struggle (except in ‘special cases’) as a compelling alternative to the status quo whilst government fails to resolve these dilemmas. Following the May elections, Greg Clark – Minister for Cities and for Decentralisation – has expressed his disappointment with the referendum outcomes. However, he has re-affirmed that the existing cohort of Mayors (plus Bristol) remain significant, and raised again the prospect of ‘metro-mayors’ where they are sought.

The choices for existing and/or prospective mayoral councils

Resolving this lack of clarity nationally falls to the local government sector in general and to local authorities and their partners in specific sub-national geographies.  In building the most recent (and any future) mayoralities, and refreshing the more long-standing ones, two frameworks may be useful in defining the character and delivering strategic development of a mayorality.

The first framework, Figure One, defines the mayorality in terms of its focus – economic development or public policy more broadly; executive leadership of the local authority or as a wider influencer/shaper on a ‘whole place’ basis:-

Figure One: The characters and focus of mayoral leadership

The four conceptual characters of and focus for mayoral leadership are:-

• The ‘whole place leader’ – probably corresponds most closely to the ‘lay’ public view of the powerful elected Mayor – someone to whom they can look to solve (almost) any of their problems. Local Authorities who seek to develop this type of mayorality need to support the Mayor with structures and processes that deliver influence over the major public policy resources and organisations that impact on their locality (i.e. akin to a whole-place community budget). The Mayor would need to be a prolific partnership builder, especially with public partners – including major leaders of key institutions in a real or virtual local leadership team. The public might also expect a strong case work capacity in the Mayor/Council offices.
• The ‘council service deliverer’ – focuses on personal accountability for the quality of council strategy and operations. This type of mayorality may be particularly appropriate when the system is introduced in response to major council crisis. It is also the type of mayorality often suggested by Eric Pickles when he suggests Executive Mayors can dispense with the Chief Executive. These mayoralities prioritise service improvement and the Mayor needs to be an organisational leader and change agent.
• The ‘council as economic driver’ – focuses on the Mayor ensuring the council is an economic driver, deploying resources and assets to enable growth and regeneration, business-friendly, and a major economic role player. This type of mayorality needs a strong economic development team that can operate both in the market place, with local communities, and most importantly influence the mainstream services of the council (planning and transport, but also education, housing, social services etc). The Mayor needs to ensure a continuing council focus on economy, and also be proactive in local partnership forums, the LEP etc.
• The ‘strategic economic champion’ – probably corresponds most closely to the Cameron/Clegg view of powerful mayors and to the potential for ‘metro mayors’. The mayor builds priorities for development and regeneration across the functional economic geography and then positions and promotes the place in national and international markets. The council needs to scale up its economic capabilities either directly or indirectly (e.g. through the LEP or a bespoke specialist city development arms-length body) to support an effective mayorality.

The second framework looks at embedding and sustaining the mayorality over the longer term with reference to the types and styles of leadership of the mayor.

Figure Two: Leadership styles

The ‘strategic leadership team chair’ will build collective leadership teams both within the council (Member and Officer), and with external role players (public/private/community), and require support and resourcing from the council to sustain this. If the Mayor’s is ‘Operational Management Team Chair’ (i.e. more inward-looking on the council – for instance, in the aftermath of crisis), the focus is more on Cabinet and the Senior Management Team. As ‘micro-manager’ the mayorality is likely to be pre-occupied with case work. The ‘strategist’ mayor will be an influencer but perhaps in more supportive roles in wider forums (e.g. as a Member but not the Chair of a LEP).

These frameworks do not suggest that there are ‘pure’ mayoralities in terms of exclusive quadrants that mayors will occupy. All Mayors will need to occupy all quadrants during their mayoraility, and local authorities need to consider the structures and processes that will enable this to be done successfully. However, Mayors and mayoralities will in practice gravitate towards specific quadrants of both frameworks as personalities and circumstances dictate. This needs to be discussed openly and honestly between Mayors, their advisors and their council leadership teams.

Implicitly, the author of this briefing considers the most successful Mayoralities will be more enduring if they tend to operate towards the top right-hand quadrants. Strategic leadership and influencing implies a range of development and support challenges for both the individuals and the council. Similarly the dangers of mayoralities – including the much-publicised ‘failings’ of Doncaster – appear to have become more acute in the bottom left-hand quadrants.

Mayors and City Leadership

Given the referendum outcomes and the alternative mechanisms for city leadership promoted by government, the role of elected mayors in city leadership remains ambiguous. At LEP level, they remain, de facto, one of a number of Council Leaders with a stake in the LEP – unless all the LEP local authorities agree on an enhanced role. Similarly, with ‘new city deals’, it remains to be seen how individual agreements between government and Mayors dovetail with and complement wider ‘city region’ deals. There seems no appetite from government to prioritise ‘deals’ with LGA2000 mayoralities on a council basis. Finally, it will be interesting to see whether government convenes a Cabinet of City Mayors and on what basis.

At the same time, there is no doubt that, in practice, an elected mayor does give a ‘place’ an edge and distinctiveness with the market and with local business and communities. Ambitious cities and city regions should recognise and may exploit this in positioning themselves as a destination for inward investment – whether on a city, city-region or LEP basis.

Where next for mayoral governance?

As we approach mid-term of this parliament, the Coalition’s approach to mayoral governance has provided no national sense of clarity or purpose for the future of this system. For the local government sector, therefore, practical priorities are:-

• Making the most of existing mayoralities – both locally and as part of the argument for increased decentralisation
• Determining whether there is merit in pursuing a ‘metro-mayor’ experiment

These are both necessary and important undertakings. Government and the sector need to deliver on this agenda, and put in place development and support mechanisms to secure successful outcomes for them.

However, neither is ‘sufficient’ for either revitalisation of local governance and community engagement, or for delivering local economic growth across the majority of England. Whether elected mayors are part of the future for non-metropolitan areas is a ‘dog that hasn’t really barked’ in the first twelve years of elected mayors (with all due respect to places like Bedford, Mansfield, Torbay and Watford). However, alongside the two headline priorities, crucial questions for governance and economic development in non-metropolitan cities and communities may wish to include consideration of the opportunities a mayoral system may offer.

For more information about this, or any other LGiU member briefing, please contact Janet Sillett, Briefings Manager, on janet.sillett@lgiu.org.uk

They say that the two documents will “probably” be published at the same time. 

These will be followed by the Draft Care and Support Bill once the responses have been collected.

There were 19 bills in this Queen’s speech, including ones carried over and draft Bills – compare that with the 44 in the Speech from Tony Blair’s 2005 Government. The coalition’s first Queen’s Speech was heavy with complex Bills – this one is predictably lighter (though its main constitutional Bill on the House of Lords could prove pretty controversial if it isn’t sidelined by Ministers).

No surprises for local government either – this was never going to be a landmark  Speech and there must be some relief given what else councils are currently dealing with. Nothing from DCLG, but there was never going to be much after the complex Localism Act. The LGiU shares the relief of not having a huge new Bill, but regrets some lost opportunities: We published our alternative Queen’s Speech before the real one: Andy Sawford has commented that we wanted to see legislation on Community Budgets and on the Repeal of Statutory Duties, but neither of these were included today.  

To be positive, the Children and Families bill will be widely welcomed. The non appearance of the hi speed rail bill will be a frustration to some but an opportunity for its critics to strengthen opposition to it over the coming year.

But the most serious issue for local government (and for millions of people) must be the future of adult social care. There has been growing speculation and disappointment over the last week or so about the delay to reform of adult social care. There is to be a draft Bill and the expected but late White Paper later this month or June. The draft bill will not cover funding. It will cover the reform of social care law, following the Law Commission’s report. 

So is this good news or not for everyone who is demanding reform? It certainly looks like there will be much needed legislation before the next general election on simplifying the system and developing ‘a modern, coherent and consistent approach to adult social care legislation’ – though even this can’t be a hundred per cent guaranteed – the white paper needs to be substantial and provide a clear timetable for change.

But delaying funding reform is ominous – the system now is in need of urgent reform. And dealing with social care reform piecemeal is problematic – how will the Law Commission proposals fit with a potential funding settlement; how does a new system work with welfare changes; what about the implications of the Health and Social Care Act? The Health Select Committee wanted to see more radical reform than Dilnot envisages (or was asked to consider) with prevention and integration at its core. 

The current Local Government APPG inquiry into social care reform which the LGiU is administering has already produced much convincing evidence from local government and the voluntary and private sectors about the urgency of the situation. The King’s Fund estimates that the the cost of the current system will rise from £6.7 billion to £12.1 billion in 2026. There will be a funding gap of at least £1.2 billion by 2014. And this is without implementing Dilnot. Putting off taking the hugely difficult, but immensely important, decisions, on how  we can achieve a sustainable, coherent and fair system will be a disaster – for councils who will run out of ways of  making the current system stack up, and, of course, for those who rely on support now and in the future.

Getting political consensus is clearly proving tough; ensuring adequate funding now, in the transition and beyond, is extremely hard, but letting the opportunity dissolve, yet again, for fundamental reform, is something we really cannot afford.

This blog was first published by Public Finance.

Ronald Regan famously said “Don’t just do something, stand there”.  He believed that government should get out of people’s lives and that the American people would be better served by an in-active government.  As a localist I’ve spent years complaining about hyper-active central government in the UK, imposing too much legislation.  Today though I actually wanted more from the Queen’s Speech. 

A few months ago I wrote to the Prime Minister and senior members of the Cabinet urging a range of Bills, some of which made it into the programme today.   It is good to hear that there will be a Bill to create new powers for the Children’s Commissioner and improve services for children in care, both things that the LGiU has been campaigning for. Similarly, we welcome mention of legislation on the future funding of adult social care although we are concerned that the plans are vague, and we would urge the government to confirm that legislation will follow the forthcoming White Paper.   Chances of a lasting settlement on social care funding seem greater to us if the momentum is maintained and if we are far enough away from the next election.  The lessons of 2010 are that once an election is on the horizon any political consensus will break down.  

We wanted to see legislation on Community Budgets and on the Repeal of Statutory Duties but neither of these were included today.  The Department of Communites and Local Government was missing in action today, perhaps because the Localism Bill was such a big feature of the last session.   I hope in the coming months that local government Ministers press for amendments to two of today’s Bills.  On the Enterprise Bill, this is very much led from the Business Department at the moment.   Local government would welcome the inclusion in the Bill of significant new powers for Local Enterprise Partnerships.  We also await more details of the Green Investment Bank.  In the new Bills for the electricity and water industries, local authorities should be given strong scrutiny powers to hold companies to account.    

The announcement of a National Crime Agency sounds like a centralising move in our police services, creating an American style FBI to lead on serious and organised crime.  Local authorities, who have a key role in community safety, will want reassurances that this will not strip out resources and resilience from local police forces.

As expected there will be a Bill to officially abolish the Audit Commission and put in place new processes.  Local Authorities will not mourn the passing of the Audit Commission but they will want to know that any new arrangements are light touch and can be effective in giving the public confidence and helping local authorities to improve the effectiveness and value for money of local services

Further reforms to public service pensions have been expected but for local authorities these are hugely significant financially, and there is real potential of further industrial action by the public sector workforce, which of course has costs and implications for services.  We would urge that before the Bill is presented there is a strong dialogue with local government and with public sector trade unions.

Ronald Regan again: “I’ve left orders to be awakened at any time in the event of an emergency – even if I’m in a Cabinet meeting”.   Some might wonder if the DCLG Ministers have been caught napping.  

Andy Sawford has published the Local Government ‘Alternative Queen’s Speech’. This can be accessed on the LGiU blog through the following link:

blog.lgiu.org.uk/LocalGovernmentAlternativeQueensSpeech

The Queen has delivered her speech to the House of Lords setting out the Coalition Government’s programme for the next Parliamentary year.  The speech centred on measures to focus on “economic growth, justice and constitutional reform.”

The Cabinet Office has released some very useful briefing notes.

Bills Relevant to Local Government 

Children and Families Bill

Reform to SEN support

Reforming the family justice system

Flexible parental leave

Stopping local authorities delaying adoption

Strengthening the role of the Children’s Commisisoner

Energy Bill

Introducing a system of low-carbon generation revenue support

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Introduction of individual electoral registration from 2012

Public Service Pensions Bill

Changes to public service pensions provision 

Beginning implementation of the final proposed agreements reached with the Trade Unions on the three largest schemes

Draft Care and Support Bill

‘Modernising care and support to ensure that local authorities fit their service around the needs, outcome and experience of people’ 

Building on progress of personal budgets

Modernising the legal framework  to support the forthcoming White Paper

Responding to the recommendations of the Law Commission 

Draft Local Audit Bill

Abolishing the Audit Commission 

Requiring local bodies to appoint auditors based on the advice of an independent auditor panel 

Draft Water Bill

Allowing every business and public body to switch its water and sewerage supplier

Full List of Bills

Banking Reform Bill

Children and Families Bill

Crime and Courts Bill

Croatia Accession Bill

Defamation Bill

Energy Bill

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill

House of Lords Reform Bill

Justice and Security Bill

Pensions Bill

Public Service Pensions Bill

Small Donations Bill

Draft Bills

Draft Care and Support Bill

Draft Communication Data Bill

Draft Local Audit Bill

Draft Water Bill

A full briefing will follow on Bills relevant to local government. 

FURTHER NOTES

Andy Sawford has published the Local Government ‘Alternative Queen’s Speech’. This can be accessed on the LGiU blog through the following link:

blog.lgiu.org.uk/LocalGovernmentAlternativeQueensSpeech

With the local elections over, and with one of the longest sessions of Parliament in recent history now at an end, thoughts in Whitehall are turning to future legislation. 

Time was that local government promoted legislation in Parliament. In the late 19th Century in particular major bills, such as on Public Health, were initiated by councils. When the Queen addresses Parliament this week, it would be good if those words “my government” meant local as well as central government. In this spirit we at LGiU are keen to test the government’s commitment to localism by pushing for a range of bills that meet the priorities of local government.

Here I set out five ideas for the an alternative Local Government Queen’s Speech. I am very keen to hear your views – either send me a tweet or leave a comment in the space below.

The Community Budgets Bill will introduce community budgets in every local authority area, they will implement the findings from the Total Place and Community Budget pilots. A major part of the bill will ensure through statutory direction that all Whitehall departments and all the local public services that they sponsor, from policing to healthcare, are required to work with local authorities in a community budgeting approach.

The Localism and Statutory Duties Bill will repeal outdated, unnecessary or burdensome statutory duties. There are over a 1000 duties currently placed on local authorities, acting as a major constraint to local initiative and determination of priorities. Whilst the government will want to maintain the force of some of these duties, this new bill will repeal those that are outdated, unnecessary, or inappropriately burdensome on councils. In addition, the bill will introduce a new ‘Right to Request Exemption’ that councils can use where they wish to be exempted from particular statutory duties.

The Social Care Funding Bill will be announced although not published until later in the Parliamentary session. Its inclusion in the Queen’s Speech will signal the government’s intention to legislate following the consultation on the social care funding white paper that is due out soon. This pro-active move by the government will allay concerns that social care funding reform will be put into the long grass until after the next election.

The Children’s Services Bill will help address a number of priorities, including improvements to adoption processes, and reforms to accompany changes to councils role in the education system. The bill will bring academies and free schools within the scope of councils to implement their duty to oversee the provision of places and fair admissions.  

The Primary Justice Bill will promote the localisation of elements of the justice system. In particular, it will give local communities an enhanced role in administering ‘community justice’, and will give local authorities a co-ordinating role in the currently fragmented relationships between probation, the courts service, policing and prisons services.

Together these five bills would embed the decentralisation of power from Westminster to local councils and the communities they serve.

This article was first published by the Local Government Chronicle

Key highlights from today include:

• Bristol has voted for an elected mayor by a 53% majority
• All other cities – except Leeds who are still counting – have said “No” to having an elected mayor.
• In Doncaster people have voted to keep their mayor – meaning Peter Davies will keep his job. 
• In Salford, Labour’s Ian Stewart has become their first elected mayor. This means Labour have taken both mayoralties outside of London. 
• Labour have broken through the +700 mark that many media pundits were expecting them to achieve. In doing so, they have taken some key battles grounds – such as Harlow, Southampton, Thurrock and Reading.
• In London the mayoral race is ever tightening with Boris now on 44% and Ken on 40%. Meanwhile a fascinating three way tie is developing between Siobhan Benita, Jenny Jones and Brian Paddick. Much may depend on second preferences but most commentators still calling a Boris victory.
• Voter turnout across the board has been low

Milton Keynes:  We accurately predicted last year that the Conservatives would win enough seats to form a minority administration.   This year the Conservatives could win outright control but they need net gains of 5 seats, with only a third of seats up for election this time. Count on Friday

North East Lincolnshire:  Currently a minority Labour administration 19 seats), the local Conservatives (14 seats) and Lib Dems (9 seats) have chosen not to join up to outvote Labour here.  The 12 seats up for election this time are evenly split, 4 each for the three main parties.  This gives Labour a good chance to gain the three seats they need to take control. LAB gain from NOC

Plymouth: This is a straight two way fight between the ruling Conservatives (32 seats) and Labour (25 seats), who are attempting to gain a handful of seats to win control.  This contest is important for both parties to see how they are faring head to head, with the added spice that Plymouth is home to two parliamentary marginals. LAB gain from NOC

Portsmouth:  The Lib Dems (23 seats) are in control here but a net gain of four seats by Conservatives  (17) would give them the upper hand.  Not all council results go with the national swing and some areas buck the trend – the Lib Dems are hoping this will be one of them. No change – LD retain control

Reading: Labour run a minority administration and will hope to strengthen their position by making the 4 gains they need for an outright majority.  They will need to watch out for the Greens who are also targetting gains. LAB gain from NOC

Southampton:  The Conservatives (26 seats) have held a slim majority here and Labour (19 seats) would need a net gain of six seats to take snatch control, which seems a tall order when only a third of the council is up for election.  The Lib Dems have 3 seats. LAB gain from CON

Thurrock: This is a tight two way fight between Conservatives and Labour, with Labour currently having the upper hand with 24 seats to the Conservatives 22.    This is one of Labour’s top parliamentary targets and Ed Miliband’s office will be watching this result, not least because Miliband aide Polly Billington is Labour’s parliamentary candidate LAB gain from NOC

Swindon:  Conservatives have a commanding lead here but the council has ‘all out elections’ and local sources on both sides predict Labour gains.  If Labour gained Swindon it would mean they were having a particularly good night. No change – CON retain control  

Metropolitan Authorities

Birmingham:   The current make up of the council is 56 Lab, 39 Con, 24 Lib Dem and 1 other.  Labour launched their local election campaign here and are hoping to build on the gains they made last year and win control of the council from the coalition parties.  The Mayoral referendum result will be one to watch too as it is widely expected to be a Yes vote. LAB have won from NOC with the Mayoral referendum counted later today

Calderdale:  The Conservatives are the largest party with 21 seats and would need five net gains to take control and oust the Labour / Lib Dem coalition, who have 13 seats each.   With only a third of seats up for election the council will probably remain hung. Count on Friday

Kirklees:  Labour has a vulnerable minority administration here but the Conservatives have been losing ground at recent elections so Labour will hope to make gains.  The balance is Lab 27, Con 21, LD 14, Green 4, others 3. Count on Friday

Liverpool:  The Lib Dem collapse in Liverpool was one of the big stories of the 2011 local elections and Nick Clegg’s party will be watching nervously to see if there are further losses this year.  One of the few Lib Dem councillors to hold on last year, Richard Kemp, will be flying his parties flag in the Mayoral election against current council Leader, Labour’s Joe Anderson, who is favourite to win.  Council count on Fri. Joe Anderson is elected first Mayor of Liverpool.

Rochdale:  Labour has a minority administration and will hope to win an outright majority this time by gaining two seats. No change – LAB gains majority

Stockport:  The Lib Dems have run the council for a long time but they now have a minority administration and will have to campaign hard to hold on.  The current balance is LD 30, Lab 18, Con 11, Residents 3. No change

Walsall:  Conservatives and Labour have 27 seats each but the Conservatives run the council with the support of minor parties.  This is a major battleground in the Midlands and Labour will be hoping for a swing back towards them this time. NOC – no change

Wirral:  Labour have the most seats here but after a difficult period of minority rule the Conservatives have recently taken charge with Lib Dem support, making this a very unpredictable election which will be fought on local lines as much as national issues. Labour gain

District Councils

Burnley:  Currently a minority Lib Dem administration, this is a key Labour and Lib Dem battleground.  The current balance is 21 LD to 18 Labour, 5 Conservatives and 1 BNP. Count on Friday

Cambridge:  This is a Lib Dem and Labour battleground, where the Lib Dems hold 25 seats to Labours 14.  With only a third of councils up for election the Lib Dems will hold on to power but the results here will be closely watched, particularly as the Lib Dems hold the parliamentary seat in what is a real three-way marginal.  LD lose to NOC

Cannock Chase: A Labour minority administration currently, they will be trying to win 4 seats to gain a majority. LAB gain from NOC

Carlisle:  The Conservatives (22 seats) are in minority control with the support of the Lib Dems (5 seats).  Labour are the largest party with 24 seats and could gain control if there is a swing to them. LAB gain from NOC

Cheltenham:  The Lib Dems hold 25 of the 40 seats, but with half of the seats up for election this May, a Conservative gain cannot be ruled out.  If this happened it would signal a bad night for the Lib Dems. No change – LD retain control

Chorley:  The council is finely balanced between Labour and the Conservatives, but the Tories currently run the council with Lib Dem support.   Labour and the Tories will both be vying to win a clear majority this time.  LAB gain from NOC

Colchester:  The Lib Dems have a two seat advantage over the Conservatives here and will be hoping to hold on to power.  It has been a traditional Lib Dem stronghold and they hold the local parliamentary seat so this is a key contest.  NOC – no change

Exeter:  The council is a three way contest and has been hung for years.  There is currently an all party administration but Labour will have designs on gaining the few seats they need to take control. LAB gain from NOC

Great Yarmouth:  This is a straight two way fight between Labour and the Conservatives, with Labour needing to gain 4 seats to snatch control from the Conservatives.  LAB gain from CON

Harlow:  Another of the few areas in the East of England where Labour is competitive, the Conservatives currently hold the council with a vulnerable 1 seat majority. LAB gain from CON

Lincoln:  The political balance in Lincoln is on a knife edge between Labour and Conservatives.  The outcome this time has extra significance as this is now a top parliamentary marginal. LAB hold

Mole Valley:  The Lib Dems are the largest party but the Conservatives run the council with Independent support.  Conservatives will be aiming for outright control. NOC – no change

Newcastle-under-Lyme:  A Conservative and Lib Dem administration could be vulnerable to Labour who are already the largest party.

Nuneaton and Bedworth:  Labour currently run this on the Mayor’s casting vote and look set to gain outright control this time. LAB gain from NOC

Pendle:  Currently in no overall control the council is finely balanced between the three main parties and the outcome is difficult to predict. Count on Friday

Rossendale:  A Labour minority administration at present, they will be hoping to win a majority. Count on Friday

Stroud:  The Conservatives have a minority administration and this may continue, but the other interest here is the relative strength of the Greens who currently have 6 councillors and will be looking to make gains. Count on Friday

Weymouth and Portland:  Currently an all party administration, the Conservatives are the largest party and the only one who could take control with just a third of the seats being contested this time. NOC – no change

Winchester:  This is a hotly contested Lib Dem and Conservative battleground where the Lib Dems and Conservatives each have 27 seats. Given the national polls, the Conservatives will hope to gain outright control. CON gain from NOC

Scotland – *all Scotland counts take place on Friday*

Scottish local government uses a PR system for local elections which leaves most councils   hung.  There are an exotic range of combinations in the administrations across Scotland which are certain to change significantly after May’s elections.   The SNP is widely expected to make gains against all parties.  Labour will hope that they can fend of the SNP surge and do well against the Conservatives and Lib Dems.

Aberdeenshire:  Currently a Lib Dem and Conservative administration, the SNP are likely to become the largest party.

Dundee:  The SNP need to gain 1 seat to take control

Falkirk:  In an unusual coalition Labour works with the Conservatives to run the council.  This will be an SNP target to win control.

Glasgow:  Labour’s dominance in Glasgow is under threat, with the SNP hopeful of making significant gains.  This is likely to be the most watched contest of the night in Scotland.

Perth and Kinross:  This is an SNP target where they need to gain 3 seats to take control.  

Renfrewshire:  A minority SNP administration relies on Lib Dem support.  Could they win outright control or could Labour – currently the largest party – snatch the initiative.

South Ayrshire:  Conservatives have been in the driving seat of a minority administration but the SNP are challenging this time

Wales

It could be Labour’s night in Wales where they will hope to win back many of the 100 seats they lost when these seats were last contested in 2008.

Bridgend:  Labour would take overall control with net gains of just 1 seat. Count on Friday

Caerphilly:  A tight two way fight between Labour and Plaid, Labour will be hoping to wrest control from the minority Plaid / Independent administration. Count on Friday

Cardiff:  The Lib Dems are braced for losses and Labour expects a comeback.  The Conservatives did will in the capital four years ago and will be looking to hold on to the seats they gained. Still counting

Conwy:  Presents an opportunity for the Conservatives to emerge as the lead partner in a new coalition.  They are currently much the largest party but are kept out of power by a coalition of the other parties. Count on Friday

Newport:  Traditionally a strong Labour area they lost this council last time around and will be hoping to win back control from the Conservative / Lib Dem minority administration. LAB gain

Swansea:  The Lib Dems have ruled here with the support of the large group of Independents but Labour, currently the largest party, will be looking for gains. Still counting

• #monelection2012 - Monmouthshire
• #bwdvote2012  – Blackburn with Darwen
• #Swindonelection - Swindon
• #brumvotes12 - Birmingham
• #liverpoolvotes  – Liverpool
• #HullVotes - Hull
• #ccs12 - Swansea
• #cdfelection - Cardiff
• #walelect12 - Walsall
• #wakeyelections - Wakefield
• #rdg - Reading
• #swindonelection - Swindon
• #votecouncil12 - A general one for Scotland

Of course they’ll be loads more that we haven’t picked up yet. If you have any more, please write them in the comment box below so we can make sure we’re updated!

Words and research by Lily Megson.

David Cameron is said to have urged his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that in this Queen’s Speech there is less, but better legislation. He is particularly keen to avoid being accused of further u-turns after difficulties over the NHS reforms, elected police commissioners, forest sales and benefit changes. Peers inflicted eleven defeats on the Government during the passage of the Legal Aid Bill alone, more than any other legislation in recent times. Though, there has been some criticism in and around the House of Commons that Government business managers, in managing its legislative business, have not kept the House fully occupied.

Other press reports have also predicted a “thinner-than-usual” Queen’s Speech – which has been said could be about a dozen Bills – because the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are “struggling” to agree a legislative programme to keep the coalition in business. Indeed, much of what was agreed in the Coalition Agreement in May 2010 has already been implemented in new legislation, where it was needed. Consequently the Coalition will need to find new common ground. That will start with the new Parliamentary session which is likely to include some measures which are not contained in the 2010 Coalition Agreement. Perhaps more significant will be the new Departmental business and structural reform plans which are expected soon after.

The Queen’s Speech at this point in the political cycle is important as it comes off the back of both mayoral and local elections and, after what has been a difficult two to three months for the Coalition or more particularly, the Conservative Party. And, from May onwards, the politics of getting elected is going to start slowly but surely encroaching again on the politics of governing. The government will begin to run out of time to do new big things and establish new big themes which could make a difference to the way they are perceived when the election finally comes around. This is also possibly the last Parliamentary session where the legislation enacted will have a visible impact upon the Electorate before the General Election in May 2015. But there is also a short term objective in keeping up the morale of backbench MP and party workers in the lead up to the Party Conferences in the autumn.

Therefore you could expect a small number of high profile measures. The press speculation has focused on House of Lords reform, same-sex marriage, the recall of MPs, curbs on executive pay, banking reform and the interception of communications which will, given their political significance within the Coalition Government, be poured over whether or not they are included in the next session. 

However, some of these measures may attract significant backbench opposition from both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, probably with different targets. Government Ministers from the Conservative side will be cautious to pursue some measures such as international aid, and House of Lords reform ahead of what the British public see as more important legislative matters given the economic downturn. The trouble is addressing economic matters in the short term is not easy to do through legislation.

As usual there is a long shopping list of potential crime and home affairs matters calling for legislation, and as is the norm it is an eclectic range of issues from dangerous dogs, public order legislation to force marriages. In contrast, the legislative possibilities from some quarters of Whitehall, appears to be very light and even non-existent. In part that reflects the heavy duty legislation in the last session, for example, on education and welfare reform. But also reflects that some Conservative Ministers prefer to adopt other means to turn their policies into reality. It is also reflects timing, so for example it is unlikely that the current regulatory review of the communications sector will be speeded up to secure legislation in the next session given the Leveson inquiry and all the politics surrounding that.

In terms of local government, the legislative programme is likely to be less significant than it was in the 2010-2012 session. The Local Government Finance Bill will continue its path through the House, and may be joined by legislative measures on the abolition of the Audit Commission and establishing a local audit framework (at least in draft), changes to the law on adoption, Health and Safety of local community events, the regulation of Park Homes and electoral registration and administration. 

However, there are a number of further possible areas where there is uncertainty, at this time, for example we await an overdue action plan on reforms to Special Education Needs and disabled services for children and, a White Paper on Adult Social Care which are both likely to require primary legislative changes. These could still be flagged up in the Queen’s speech; with any legislation introduced towards the middle and end of the session.

Of course, given the wide ranging responsibilities of local government and its interests, the contents of the Queen’s Speech will be significant regardless. We just have to wait and see.

This post is based on a Local Government Information Unit member briefing by Mark Upton, LGIU Associate.

For more information about LGiU membership and briefings see www.lgiu.org.uk or contact chris.naylor@lgiu.org.uk.

More LGiU local election stuff that we got for today

• information on when most counts are taking place and results expected to be declared - bit.ly/IjynMt
• nearly 100 Count Correspondents at the counts feeding us local insight and analysis -bit.ly/IjlnMj
• mapped data for all authorities holding elections - bit.ly/Irk2wK
• predictions the 50 key battles to watch - bit.ly/JhoqsO
• an hourly elections email alert service delivering updates to your inbox throughout the night - bit.ly/HFkw2z

Expected declaration times

00:00 – 01:00

Castle Point
Kingston-upon-Hull
Knowsley
Lincoln
Maidstone
Nuneaton & Bedworth
South Tyneside
Southend-on-Sea
Sunderland
Broxbourne
Carlisle
Tamworth

Wigan

01:00 – 02:00

Bolton
Brentwood
Bridgend
Ceredigion
Dudley
Eastleigh
Exeter
Flintshire
Gosport
Great Yarmouth
Halton
Hart
Stockport
Tameside
Tandridge
Walsall
West Oxfordshire
Wirral

02:00 – 03:00

Amber Valley
Barnsley
Basildon
Cambridge
Cannock Chase
Cheltenham
Cherwell
Chorley
Elmbridge
Harlow
Havant
Hertsmere
Merthyr Tydfil
Neath Port Talbot
Newport
North East Lincolnshire
Plymouth
Portsmouth
Purbeck
Rochdale
Rotherham
Runnymede
Rushmoor
Sandwell
St Helens
Swansea
Trafford
Wrexham
Derby
Gloucester
Mole Valley
Oxford
Southampton
Stevenage
West Lancashire

03:00 – 04:00

Blaenau Gwent
Bradford
Bury
Colchester
Coventry
Fareham
Hartlepool
Hastings
Huntingdonshire
Ipswich
Monmouthshire
Oldham
Peterborough
Preston
Rochford
Salford
Sefton
St Albans
Stratford-on-Avon
Thurrock
Torfaen
Weymouth & Portland
Worcester

04:00 – 05:00

Basingstoke & Deane
Birmingham
Daventry
Manchester
Norwich
Slough
Wyre Forest
Swindon
Vale of Glamorgan

07:00 – 10:00

Cardiff
Carmarthenshire (09:30)

11:00 – 13:00

Gateshead
Orkney Islands
Comhairle nan Eilean Siar
Epping Forest
North Tyneside
Redditch
Rugby
Stroud
Watford
West Lothian
Wokingham
Wolverhampton
Worthing
Craven
Rossendale

13:00 – 14:00

Burnley
Calderdale
Clackmannanshire
Conwy
Crawley
Denbighshire
Doncaster
East Dunbartonshire
Fife
Hyndburn
Kirklees
Leeds
Newcastle-under-Lyme
Pembrokeshire
Perth & Kinross
Reading
Shetland Islands
Pendle
Solihull
Tunbridge Wells

14:00 – 15:00

Argyll & Bute
Dumfries & Galloway
Dundee
Harrogate
Highland
Inverclyde
Powys
South Cambridgeshire
Three Rivers
Winchester
Gwynedd
Reigate & Banstead

15:00 – 16:00

Aberdeen
Adur
Midlothian
Milton Keynes
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
North Ayrshire
North Hertfordshire
Sheffield
South Ayrshire
South Lakeland
South Lanarkshire
Blackburn with Darwen

16:00 – 17:00

Angus
East Ayrshire
East Lothian
East Renfrewshire
Moray
North Lanarkshire
Renfrewshire
Rhondda, Cynon, Taff
Scottish Borders
Wakefield
Welwyn Hatfield
Caerphilly

17:00 – 20:00

Aberdeenshire
Edinburgh
Falkirk
Glasgow
Stirling
Warrington
West Dunbartonshire
Liverpool
Woking

With the decline of local newspapers and growing centralisation from national broadcasters, much national coverage of the elections will resonate from agencies – feeding in observations and results when required. These are ok, but they often lack the insight and subtleties that come from someone who knows the area road-by-road and block-by-block.

In a recent blog I identified the 50 key battles to look out for on Thursday. What will the small differences in voting trends be that cause some of the councils to change hands? Where will independent candidates figure at the polls? What local conditions or politics will result in a yes or no vote for one of the new Mayoralties?  Where will there be recounts in knife edge wards?

This is why LGiU has organised a group of Count Correspondents from around the country – local councillors, officers and volunteers – who will be channelling their insight, rumour and fact throughout the night, capturing the excitement of the count.

But this is actually just one bit of a much larger collective voice that’ll emerge tomorrow night and continue into Friday evening.

On social media there will be thousands of people – some hugely active in their local community, others who probably don’t engage with local democracy for 364 days of the year – who will seek and share information and look to get involved with the events in their own way.

So as well as our Count Correspondents, these are the people we will be following tomorrow. Those people who can not just report the numbers of votes, but those who can help explain why, who and how these numbers come to be.

The final session of the Local Government All Party Parliamentary Group inquiry into the future of social care met yesterday.

Evidence was given by Stephen Dorrell MP, Chair of the Health Select Committee, Shaun Gallagher, Director of Social Care Policy at the Department for Health, Sarah Pickup, new President of ADASS, Cllr Ann Naylor, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care at Essex County Council, Chris Horlick from Partnership and Richard Humphries from the Kings Fund.

The report will be launched in Parliament on July 16th and will feed into the Government’s soon to be launched White Paper on Social Care. 

More information about the APPG can be found on our website www.lgiu.org.uk/appginquirysocialcare/