Lambeth plans to style itself the "John Lewis Council"

The Guardian reports this morning that Lambeth is to rebrand as the "John Lewis Council" - this is an echo of Barnet's easyCouncil label, but the move is prompted by the Conservatives plans announced earlier this week for co-ops to take over parts of the public sector.

It doesn't sound as if Lambeth is actually proposing to allows groups of its workers to run taking over the running of services as a co-op although their leader Cllr Steve Reed tells The Guardian: "Co-operatives and mutuals will be our compass." The problem with socialists is that they want to keep ownership and control in the hands of the state. It's in their DNA. So I would be sceptical if what is planned will amount to much when we see the details.

The proposal for an "Active Citizens Dividend" to provide a Council Tax rebate for those involved in voluntary activity is attractive in principle but sounds like it would be expensive to administer. There is a reference to "micro mutuals" for personalised budgets for care service users. What does this mean? Why not just focus on getting personalised budgets working? There is a reference to allowing tenants to take over their estates as cooperatives - but the article points out this can already happen. The main incentive Lambeth appears to provide is making a botch up of running housing services.

So there may be some good ideas here but it sounds a bit gimmicky. Rather policy on the hoof to allow the Labour Party to respond to Monday's headlines. It says it was all approved "two weeks ago" by the Lambeth Council Cabinet. Was it? They had a meeting on February 8 but I can't see it on the agenda. The meeting they had before that was  January 18, something about prostitution but nothing about co-ops. A serach on Lambeth Coucnil's website for "micro mutuals" or "active citizens dividend" proves unrewarding. If these plans are so clear and advanced why haven't the people of Lambeth been told about them? Or is Cllr Reed making it up as he goes along?

Is the heart of easyCouncil to be found in San Francisco?

A recent article in The Times by Barnet Council leader Cllr Mike Freer said:

We could follow the lead of San Francisco. Waste disposal costs there are separate from other city taxes: residents who generate less waste get a rebate. Equally, if someone wants to pay the council to spend time sorting out their individual recycling items, they could pay us to do so.

San Francisco has a Democrat Mayor Gavin Newsom and many would consider the extent of its eco targets startling and rather draconian - often using compulsion. They have a "zero waste" target. But it is the success of the incentives aspect that is likely to appeal to British Conservative councillors grappling with the huge cost of disposing of waste in landfill.

> From Saturday: A three minute guide to the easyCouncil model

A three minute guide to the 'easyCouncil' model

The BBC's Giles Dilnot talks to the leader of Barnet Council, Mike Freer, about a 'no frills' model of council services where the council provides every local resident a core set of services but where residents get a discount for not using certain services or pay extra for additional services.

Additional video: Susie Squire of The TaxPayers' Alliance and Kate Green of the Child Poverty Action Group discuss the easyCouncil model.

Tim Montgomerie

EasyCouncil model could mean paying extra for quick planning decision

Tony Travers suggests that part of Barnet's EasyCouncil model could mean that you pay a higher fee for a planning application in return for getting it prioritised for a quicker decision. I can see the analogy. As with a low cost airline you pay a bit extra if you want something more than the basic service - extra baggage, food and drink, early boarding.

Would this be acceptable? Some planning applications are more urgent than others. For instance a loft extension wanted as a new baby is on the way compared to a loft extension some time when there is enough money to pay for the builders as a bit more room would be nice.

I suppose some might resent "queue jumping" - although appreciate the lower Council Tax which extra revenue from fees might provide. 

> Last Friday's EasyCouncil post.

Barnet adopts EasyCouncil model

There's a (reasonably balanced) report splashed in The Guardian this morning about the philosophy as well as practical changes in Barnet Council in seeking savings of £16 million a year. The approach has been dubbed EasyCouncil. Providing good, reliable basic services, keeping the costs down and being transparent about those costs, on the EasyJet model. Their Future Shape of the Council proposals plan greater involvement for the private sector and the voluntary sector and a "self help" philosophy.

The most controversial proposal is considered to be a reduction in the number of live-in wardens covering sheltered housing for the elderly. They are felt to be simply too expensive. A system of "floating wardens" is planned. Some residents are worried about the replacement of an emergency cord in their room as it would take longer for them to get help in an emergency. One would have to know the details. Are the "live-in" wardens actually there 24/7? Would the floating wardens be available 24/7? In sheltered housing block in my ward, residents complained that they have two wardens working Monday to Friday, nine to five, while they would rather have them working in shifts and covering evenings and weekends. 

The Fire Brigade advise that the most effective way for savings lives in installing sprinkler systems and Barnet are fortunate in this regard in having Brian Coleman who is a champion of this life saving measure - whatever we might think of his enthusiasm for taxis.

Apart from health and safety it is pointed out that wardens help to combat loneliness for residents. But surely this is an area where greater involvement from the voluntary sector should be encouraged? There are plenty of us who are happy to keep old people company because we want to, not because we are paid. That can do far more that the state possibly could.

Another change which is proving popular with the elderly, as well as saving money, is greater help for people to remain independent.

The Guardian reports the case of 87-year-old Sarah Walker.

When discharged she had to use a walking frame, struggled with the stairs and couldn't cook meals or make her own bed. She worried the local authority would want to put her in a home, but because it now has a policy of trying to avoid expensive long-term care, it instead offered a burst of intensive help in a bid to help her regain her independence, and it worked.

"I had three carers a day for the first week," she said. "One in the morning, one at lunchtime and one in the evening. They gave me the confidence to get back to doing things for myself. At the end of six weeks I was managing quite well and I am independent now. It would be a waste of money if they were sending someone once a week for evermore, so this was the right approach for me."

How else might the self help approach be encouraged for residents in general? "The snowfall this winter was a good example," said Nick Walkley, the Council's Chief Executive. "A lot of people phoned the council to ask when we were going to come along to clear the pavement. In the past most residents would have got out their spades and cleared the pavement in front of their house … We need to think about which of those approaches is the right model."