John Wall: Reform UK and the holy grail of finding real efficiency savings

John Wall is a retired engineer and former Conservative county councillor in Hampshire.

Oppositions often claim that billions can be raised by cracking down on tax avoidance and evasion, but once in government little happens – probably because if it was easy their predecessors would have done it.

Following their local elections success Reform have jumped on the efficiency savings bandwagon.

It comes from tropes about public sector workers in ivory towers doing the crossword while drinking tea and coffee before eventually deciding to do what the taxpayer pays them for.

Then there’s what I call the “Science (sic) of Small Numbers” of which the MPs’ expenses scandal was an excellent example – what really grated was how petty many of the amounts were. The Queen Elizabeth class carriers went billions over budget, and most can’t relate to it, but they do know what hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of pounds will buy.

‘Waste’ can be subjective. Few reading this would consider spending on rainbow lanyards, pronoun training and multicoloured pedestrian crossings as worthwhile, but there are lefties who’d die on that hill.

Local government is the good, the bad and the indifferent. There are some poorly run authorities that have made foolish decisions, but this isn’t all.

Any large organisation, such as an upper tier or unitary authority, should be able to realise savings every year from their built estate. Capital investment can reduce energy costs – while waiting for Miliband’s illusionary £300! – and the need for buildings, whether owned or leased, can be reviewed.

Harry Phibbs, of this parish, has suggested Conservative councils must find their chainsaws or face defeat – and there is much to agree, and little to disagree, with. Everything should be challenged and good management should welcome this, but large wins are probably unlikely.

Consider a social worker having to go into an office to get their work from a corporate system via a desktop computer. Give them a mobile device and they can go straight to their first appointment, meaning they can do more per day, which reduces the need for a desk and car parking space. Not everyone is a Fred Kite/Mick Lynch dinosaur – the first iPhone was in 2007 and the first iPad in 2010 (other manufacturers’ devices are available!) – so serious questions should be asked if this isn’t happening.

It’s sometimes said that consultants charge an arm and a leg to tell you the blindingly obvious, and any preaching the Gospel according to Stonewall, etc should be dispensed with. But they can provide specialist expertise, perhaps on something like asbestos, that isn’t required sufficiently often to justify having it in-house.

Compulsory Competitive Tendering, replaced by “Best Value” under Blair, was an early Thatcherite initiative to harness the market and the innovative qualities of the private sector to reduce costs and improve value for money. In reality there isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer as to whether it’s best to do things in-house or contract them out.

I have little doubt that Reform councillors will find “waste” in the authorities they now control which they will trumpet loudly to justify their election and shame their predecessors.

This goes back at least as far as the Restoration Stela of Tutankhamun and the current government regularly talks about “fourteen years of Tory chaos/failure” – there’s little new under the sun!

There’s an enormous elephant in the room however, including the cost of social care, etc and there are pressures from both ends of the age range.

One of the many fallacies underlying the foundation of the NHS was that by improving the population’s health, the cost would reduce. Whereas increased life expectancy has now resulted in more age-related conditions.

At the other end, the average age at which women become mothers has increased, with a concomitant increase in the likelihood of a child with a disability.

Then there’s the seemingly inexorable progress of medical science meaning that very premature babies can now survive, but again with an increased likelihood of a disability, and people with things like cystic fibrosis can be kept alive longer.

Some need 24/7 care and there are 168 hours in a week so, simplistically, four people working a 42 hour week could provide that. That takes no account of holidays, etc which would add at least one carer, but it’s also likely they’d be caring for more than one person.

Multiply at least five people by the full economic cost of employing them and it’s well into six figures. Not everyone needs 24/7 care but a shorter package is still going to be in five figures. It’s demand-led: someone eligible arriving in a local authority area has to be supported, although it is means tested.

Starmer’s government, living down to expectations, hasn’t helped. Increasing employer NICs and the national living wage raised blood pressures in every county hall and, of course, the extra money from Whitehall doesn’t cover all the extra costs; been there, done that, got the T-shirt! It’s what’s happened since time immemorial – central government dumps on local government, and the extra costs are paid through council, not income, tax; plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose!

Opposition to the assisted dying bill has been increasing due its promoters seeming desire to reject reasonable safeguards, and we should be very concerned about bean counters armed with it being let loose on the vulnerable.

I lose track of the number of reviews into the funding of social care and, following tradition, Starmer’s government has kicked it into the long grass with a report expected by 2028. The cynic in me suspects it’ll be pushed into the next parliament and the, then, government will commission another review…

I’ll be very pleased if Reform manage to eliminate “waste” – and it may be millions – but it’s unlikely to result in more filled potholes or a reduction in council tax.