I think their dysfunction in local government is more to do with incompetence than design.
Is there serious sustained evidence of dysfunction in local government though, or is this just something people are saying to make themselves feel better?
I mean beyond resignations and occasional posturing?
I’ve said before that I live in a Reform controlled council (and don’t want to have to live in a petri-dish of their failure), and so far the reality here is it’s pretty difficult to discern much different since the local elections.
I’ve no doubt they’ve got time to turn into a toxic incompetent mess, but they haven’t yet, and I wouldn’t call them dysfunctional (yet).
We can’t just hope they will screw up, or tell ourselves that they are already uniquely dysfunctional, because really that’s not (yet) borne out by facts.
Wishing for misery and failure as a warning to everyone else is bad enough, but saying it’s happening whilst it mostly isn’t is doubly unlikely to be a winning strategy of opposition!
At the time when DOGE was laying-off air-traffic controllers, there were a few plane crashes, and anti-DOGE commentators predicted that there would soon be a lot more. Hasn't materialized, as far as I know.
There were also predictions that the lay-offs at social security would lead to a breakdown in the delivery of cheques. Lutnick didn't help the administration's cause by going on TV and saying it doesn't matter if cheques are late, just wait till next month, only "scammers" would call to complain etc etc. However, apart from that, there's been little controversy around the issue, because cheques have continued to get delivered.
If I were working in an environment where there were cut backs I would prioritise the things that absolutely have to be done now and anything with a longer deadline gets put off, regardless of how important it is. Thus the cheques would still go out but other things are not done which will cause problems in a month's time (say) when their deadlines are looming. Thus the problems caused by the cut backs are long term, not immediate. I'm not saying that this is what has happened at USA social security under DOGE nor that this is what will happen in the Reform-led councils where cuts might be made. But it seems quite feasible to me.
I’m not remotely defending them obviously - I’m just a bit exasperated by the ‘look what a mess they’re making of local government’ chat when at the moment that just doesn’t ring true (though I totally take @Arethosemyfeet ’s point about slow burn failure).
If we’re relying on a strategy of ‘everyone will see what a mess they’ve made’ then first they have actually got to make some mess.
I appreciate people are worried, and I think they’re right to be, but I also seriously worry about getting into boy who cried wolf territory. Because, at the moment in a Reform-controlled area, I can only imagine people being laughed at and then tuned out. Too fast out of the traps, and too ready to jump on anything as evidence of failure.
That’s fine if you’re trying to discredit a pressure group, when on the other hand you’re attacking a unitary authority with 100% election on the same five year term, a clear majority, and well over four years to run - where they basically are in charge barring implosion until 2030, then it looks hysterical if you go off too early.
Particularly when, as at the moment, it doesn’t match with what people are seeing on the ground. Or the overall mood.
I suspect Reform would walk a general election in this authority area at the moment, and that’s about 5 MPs.
I suspect I've said before that a lot of work that local councils do is down to officials, and mucking it up in the short term takes conscious effort rather than incompetence. Budget setting is an area I could see things starting to come unstuck.
Another factor is that councils are both strapped for cash and stripped to the point where the majority of their budget pays for social care.
The former means that they have been prone to being taken for a ride by fraudulent investment firms, something I suspect may speed up under a Reform controlled council with DOGE like pretensions. Trouble is that these take a long time to fester and the latter means that the impact is first felt by those least able to make a fuss.
@Stetson Do you think they make a connection between the Reform Party and the mobs outside the refugee shelters, but just prefer to ignore it? Or do they really not see the linkage?
"They say what I want to hear" is one phrase I hear a lot from them ... I tend to think my relatives don't care what is said atm. Almost as if they want 'something' to happen although if it gets too geographically close to them or too hot they'll just squeal like lil piggies.
If I were working in an environment where there were cut backs I would prioritise the things that absolutely have to be done now and anything with a longer deadline gets put off, regardless of how important it is. Thus the cheques would still go out but other things are not done which will cause problems in a month's time (say) when their deadlines are looming. Thus the problems caused by the cut backs are long term, not immediate. I'm not saying that this is what has happened at USA social security under DOGE nor that this is what will happen in the Reform-led councils where cuts might be made. But it seems quite feasible to me.
Yeah, quite likely. But when you say "Airplane crashes and late cheques coming up now!", and six months later those specific outcomes haven't materialized, it doesn't enhance your credibility.
I’m not remotely defending them obviously - I’m just a bit exasperated by the ‘look what a mess they’re making of local government’ chat when at the moment that just doesn’t ring true (though I totally take @Arethosemyfeet ’s point about slow burn failure).
If we’re relying on a strategy of ‘everyone will see what a mess they’ve made’ then first they have actually got to make some mess.
The bit where councillors work really hard is setting a budget. At present any Reform lead council will be working on the budget set by their predecessors, with only a relatively small amount of room to adjust that. The big question is going to be how they set their first budget. Do they maintain the basic funding formula and simply tinker with a few quid here and there, which is generally the approach most parties take (especially as over the last 10 years or so any potential slack in the finances which could be used to deliver either significant cuts in spending or council tax has been removed as councils have made their operations basically as efficient as they can be)? Or do they take the proverbial chain saw to spending and put themselves potentially in the position of not meeting statutory requirements to provide social services, to house the homeless and the asylum seekers in their area, run schools, collect bins etc? And, if they do cut, cut, cut who will notice - those receiving social care or needing housing will, but for the comfortable middle class as long as the bins are emptied and the grass cut it will look pretty much business as usual (except they may see council tax frozen).
@Stetson Do you think they make a connection between the Reform Party and the mobs outside the refugee shelters, but just prefer to ignore it? Or do they really not see the linkage?
In my experience, a lotta voters don't make connections between political parties and extraparliamentary groups pushing the same agenda as the parties. So unless Farage has actually endorsed the mobs, I suspect a lot of Reform voters think stuff like "Well, the rioting's not good, but maybe if the government wasn't so lax on immigration, people wouldn't be pushed to such extreme responses. Farage will take care of all that."
Comments
At the time when DOGE was laying-off air-traffic controllers, there were a few plane crashes, and anti-DOGE commentators predicted that there would soon be a lot more. Hasn't materialized, as far as I know.
There were also predictions that the lay-offs at social security would lead to a breakdown in the delivery of cheques. Lutnick didn't help the administration's cause by going on TV and saying it doesn't matter if cheques are late, just wait till next month, only "scammers" would call to complain etc etc. However, apart from that, there's been little controversy around the issue, because cheques have continued to get delivered.
If we’re relying on a strategy of ‘everyone will see what a mess they’ve made’ then first they have actually got to make some mess.
I appreciate people are worried, and I think they’re right to be, but I also seriously worry about getting into boy who cried wolf territory. Because, at the moment in a Reform-controlled area, I can only imagine people being laughed at and then tuned out. Too fast out of the traps, and too ready to jump on anything as evidence of failure.
That’s fine if you’re trying to discredit a pressure group, when on the other hand you’re attacking a unitary authority with 100% election on the same five year term, a clear majority, and well over four years to run - where they basically are in charge barring implosion until 2030, then it looks hysterical if you go off too early.
Particularly when, as at the moment, it doesn’t match with what people are seeing on the ground. Or the overall mood.
I suspect Reform would walk a general election in this authority area at the moment, and that’s about 5 MPs.
Another factor is that councils are both strapped for cash and stripped to the point where the majority of their budget pays for social care.
The former means that they have been prone to being taken for a ride by fraudulent investment firms, something I suspect may speed up under a Reform controlled council with DOGE like pretensions. Trouble is that these take a long time to fester and the latter means that the impact is first felt by those least able to make a fuss.
"They say what I want to hear" is one phrase I hear a lot from them ... I tend to think my relatives don't care what is said atm. Almost as if they want 'something' to happen although if it gets too geographically close to them or too hot they'll just squeal like lil piggies.
Yeah, quite likely. But when you say "Airplane crashes and late cheques coming up now!", and six months later those specific outcomes haven't materialized, it doesn't enhance your credibility.
In my experience, a lotta voters don't make connections between political parties and extraparliamentary groups pushing the same agenda as the parties. So unless Farage has actually endorsed the mobs, I suspect a lot of Reform voters think stuff like "Well, the rioting's not good, but maybe if the government wasn't so lax on immigration, people wouldn't be pushed to such extreme responses. Farage will take care of all that."