Davy Jones Consultancy

I am struggling to understand something. Let me run it by you and see if you can help.

The much-lauded private sector, in the shape of the banks, has through incompetence, irresponsibility and greed, caused the biggest international financial crisis for 50 years. The public sector, in the shape of Governments, has bailed out the private sector with squillions and squillions of pounds. And the consensus across the main political parties is that the way out of this financial crisis is ........to slash the public sector ! And then, to force the public sector to farm more work out to........ the private sector !

The logic is baffling !

I put this paradox to a Tory MP recently and while "he understood my point", he lamented that Governments could not control the private sector, so the public sector would have to suffer. Well, I think it is intellectually bankrupt to suggest that governments simply have to go along with whatever the private sector says or does.

Rather than bail out the banks, nationalise them. Make them work FOR the taxpayers, not against them. Use them to fund a huge EXPANSION of the public sector rather than cuts. The banks could create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, supporting a real green new deal of essential public works such as home insulation and public transport programmes. We could se control of the banks to transform the role of the post office into a local bank at the heart of every local community.

And while we are about it, use our control of the banks to pull the plug on all the morally and environmentally irresponsible investments these banks are making around the world.

Next time, you get a lecture from a (private sector) consultant or media pundit about how the public sector needs to learn from the private sector about efficiency and value for money, just repeat after me: "BANKERS" !

Economy and State

The latest intellectual offering from David Cameron argues for less government or more self-reliance, a smaller state and more social capital. Many of us will recognise much of his diagnosis of the problem. But in arguing over the size of the state, he implies that the economy is neutral. It is not. The capitalist economy by its nature causes inequality, by its nature is in conflict with the views and aspirations of citizens, by its nature reinforces individualism and competition rather than collective approaches and social capital. It's the economy, stupid !

Hands up all the doubters - all those who said it would never take off, it was too radical, too "foreign", or wouldn't last beyond Hazel Blears or a Labour Government !

The latest count suggests between 80 and 85 areas of the country are now experimenting with some form of Participatory Budgeting - and the majority of these areas are controlled by Conservative councils. Even in the South East, there are now PB pilots in 8 areas with a further 8 seriously considering or planning such piloting - more than one in 5 local areas in the region. And the spread of PB has now gone beyond local councils in urban areas - reaching rural areas and parishes, police and fire services, housing associations and community organisations.

Can it survive ?

Yes. The underlying drivers for citizen involvement remain very strong - the public thirst for voice and choice grows rather than diminishes. The scale of tough economic choices and the resulting reconfiguring of local services will require greater public consultation and involvement. The logic of the emphasis on Total Place will lead to demands for citizens to have a greater say on how public budgets are spent.

And there is no sign yet of the Conservative front bench turning its face against PB. Many local Conservative councillors are now supporting PB pilots. Some see advantages in allowing citizens to have a say over tough budget decisions or on allocating their delegated budgets. The Conservative Party "Control Shift" paper proposed a local referendum on council tax rises above inflation. But this is not necessarily counter-posed to PB either. While I don't favour such referenda, potentially they could sit alongside one another.

Now take PB to the mainstream

There are now lots of local areas letting citizens vote on how small pots of money should be allocated. Great. It helps everyone get used to the idea that citizens can make sensible financial choices. But now it has to go further. A number of areas round the country are looking at using PB to determine how large strands of mainstream money should be spent and at how overall financial priorities are determined. That is inevitable and welcome. It is not serious to propose citizen involvement only when the decisions and budgets aren't very big or important ! The spread of PB in the UK now seems assured. Our task now is to deepen it and embed it into the mainstream.