16. Foundation Councils

This idea comes from Colin Barrow, Leader of Westminster City Council and Edward Lister, Leader of Wandsworth Council.  The idea is outlined in a report called Magna Carta for Localism and is further developed by Barrow who makes his argument in a series of posts on the Conservative Home site. 

In essence the argument is that council's are restricted by:

• An onerous, centrally-imposed performance framework
• Insufficient operational freedom to design services that suit local circumstances
• Lack of financial control in their areas

To overcome these problems a number of sympathetic, high performing and well managed councils should pilot foundation status.  These foundation councils would be given additional powers to help them  innovate in order to provide low cost quality services such as the power to:

• set local fees and charges
• generate income and save money through full freedom to trade and share services
• exempt them from some regulatory burdens
• introduce bye-laws and manage the public realm without reference to specific enabling legislation
• present “offers” to central Government for more specific powers, freedoms and flexibilities in particular areas

Regulatory 'exclusion zones' could be established in certain areas to allow innovation around particular policy problems.  A proposed 'power to innovate' also reflects the idea that local government needs to be freed from central control if complex issues are to be tackled.  These ideas are underpinned by a belief in civic entrepreneurship and local responses to social and economic problems. 

Barrow sums it up like this:

Local authorities could do so much more if we weren’t strangled by increasing centralisation and onerous inspections which hamper our ability to innovate and deliver savings to local taxpayers (Quoted here)

The Foundation Councils idea draws on three strands of thought. 

• First it develops a form of localism that rejects centralist managerialism and in particular the achievemnet of national policy goals through the use of central control and targets. 
• Second, whilst rejecting central managerialism, it sustains a belief that local government needs to be judged on its ability to deliver services effectively and efficiently rather than on its role within the national polity.  It is therefore an idea that is more technocratic than democratic.
• Third it rejects the idea that all local council councils should have equal status.  In many ways this resonates with the ideas of foundation hospitals (New Labour) and free schools (Conservative).   It suggests that councils need to 'earn' their responsibility in much the same way that children earn responsibility from parents.  Ultimately it is central government that decides which councils are deserving and which are not.  Foundation Councils therefore represent a limited form of localism.

As I often try to suggest, most ideas in politics are old ones reclyled (nothing wrong with that).

In this case I have found at least one interesting historical precedent (no doubt there are many others).  During the Holy Roman Empire a number of free and imperial cities were established.  They were run by Bishop Princes and (according to wikipedia):

They were not required to pay Imperial taxes or raise troops except during a Crusade, and had other additional rights and privileges (which varied greatly among them).

 Now, what about the idea of replacing council leaders with Bishop Princes....

12. The iPolis

This idea is an extension of the very elegant idea, put forward by Tim O'Reilly, that government can be understood as a platform.

I found this idea (like many others) through the very well informed Dave Briggs.

I have called this version of local democracy the iPolis (Ok - I know, but bear with me) as it uses the iPhone/iPad as a metaphor for government.

Tim O'Reilly argues that government can be seen in a similar way.  A basic platform is provided on top of which different applications can be run.  O'Reilly makes a number of fascinating points:

• Whilst the whole Gov 2.0 thing (i.e. 'government as a platform') is borne out of web 2.0 technologies, the concept should be applied to government as a whole - not just the techy bits
• Think of of the original U.S. constitution as a platform which was developed and improved and onto which states ran their different 'applications' (although this was, of course, Gov 1.0)
• Once the basic platform  is provided (in the right way) then the market will innovate and provide applications - just in the same way that Apple provided a small number of applications for the iPhone but the market soon came up with many, many, many more
• The Apple example also highlights the importance of being willing to strip away anything that isn't working or relevant.  The basic government platform should, in the same way, be simple, well designed, functional and appealing.

So that is the broad approach.  The idea of the iPolis develops this a little further and applies it to local government and democracy. It revolves around three core concepts:

• Central government provides the operating system / platform.  It provides the core constitution for each local democratic unit.  It sets out how the core processes will work (the same in every area) and it employs the people that support the core functions (legal, finance, ICT, etc etc).  Central government is just like Apple. 
• The applications are provided mainly by the market.   Delib provides an example of the sort of company that might do this from a web 2.0 perspective - I'm sure there are many others.  Budget consultation and online participation are the sort of 'software' apps we are talking about here but any democratic innovation whether representative or participative, whether online or off could be on the menu.  One advantage is that highly specialised companies could develop these tools in national markets in a way that local governments acting alone never could. 
• The user is the elected government of the local area.  The user is not (as you might expect) the citizen.  For the metaphor to work the iPolis (like the iPad/iPhone) can only really have one user - the local government.  The accountability of that government to the citizens can work in any way and ultimately the citizens are the beneficiaries.  But the user is the final decision maker about which apps to use and what apps can be afforded - hence it is the local government.

What I like about this is that it provides an interesting angle on the age old debate between those who argue for local autonomy and those who believe that services should be provided fairly across the country (this normally comes with a call to dispense with post code lotteries).  For the iPolis, central government could determine and run the core elements of democracy and service provision and this would be paid for through tax.  These core elements might also extend to essential services such as child protection and waste collection.  Local government would then determine which 'apps' to run on top of the basic operating system and this would be paid for through local taxation. So museums, leisure centres, recycling centres, welfare benefits advice teams might all be apps.  A national apps procurement system would provide a regulated environment though which apps could be 'downloaded'.

The iPolis also provides an angle on the debates in the UK about the Big Society.  Apps could also be provided by the third sector or the community.  They might or might not be supported financially but by adding them to their platform local governments would be providing basic support, sponsorship and recognition.

Update:  About the same time I wrote this, David Wilcox blogged about a recent open night for the Big Society Network:

Last night Steve Moore asked me to speak briefly about ideas for a Big Society Commons or Store, which I wrote about here, and here. I said we need space with different levels … information, conversation, exchange, products and services. Maybe it is a mall plus a market, some high tech, some low. It is absolutely not created by government, but by those with something to offer.


Then I started to wonder about the role of the skilled, creative, passionate people at the Open Night. Perhaps one analogy for part of the store is an Apps store, where you can download smart ways of doing things to your mobile phone. Some are free, some you pay for. The fee goes to the developer, with a percentage to the store owner.

It works because there is a framework for the way apps are developed – tight in the case of Apple, more flexible in open sources stores.

So perhaps some of the people at the Open Night were potential developers for the Social Apps Store. If the Network can help to create the store, it will provide a much bigger market for those with social action products and services to sell – or offer free.

The Apps Store offers one metaphor to help us think how we bring good stuff together, what’s in it for the different interests involved, what rules and frameworks we need to make sure things work together.

David suggested that the two ideas dovetail together rather nicely and I agree.  Hopefully a case of great minds think alike or maybe a case of when metaphors collide...