New 'New Strategic Direction' - a threat to our democracy?

And so, the truth is out there. For all the talk of 'rowing back' from the New Strategic Direction, the half-dozen or so councillors who apparently run Suffolk (as opposed to the remainder who mostly do as they're told) are determined to contract out or divest themselves of as much as they can get away with.

So, as a council taxpayer and observer of local politics, I am duty bound to consider what the impact of their course of action is.

Let's start with an admission though. I'm an agnostic over the question of public versus private sector delivery of services. In certain areas, the private sector already plays a central role in delivery - transport, care of the elderly, the NHS - and the world has not ceased to turn on its axis. Yes, there have been problems with contracts, but as a former resident of Brent and Southwark, two councils with a mixed performance history, I wouldn't want to suggest that local government is a bastion of efficiency either.

Others challenge, and will continue to do so, the effect of divestment on staffing, on service delivery and on budgets. I won't gainsay them on that, but instead want to focus on the impact on accountability and democracy.

All of us who rely on public services seek reassurance that our voice can be heard in relation to the delivery of services, someone who we can hold to account, someone who can fix things when they go wrong. If they're not very good, we can replace them with somebody else. That's democracy, and they're called councillors.

If, however, they divest themselves of direct responsibility, what are they for? Do they need to meet as often, do they need to be paid as much? Is what we want of them in terms of a skill set the same as it was when they directly ran services and directed council officers? I would suggest not.

And then there is the question about the length of contracts. To make contracts attractive, you need to make them long enough to make investment worthwhile, i.e. profitable (we'll leave the non-profit sector out of the equation for the time being). This means that, if you don't like the people who issued the contract, and vote them out, their replacements may find themselves tied into a contract that neither they, nor you, want. Potentially, different people, same rubbish service.

What does that do for accountability? If I ask my county councillor about a problem and he replies, "You need to take that up with Massive Conglomerate PLC, they have the contract now.", who actually is accountable?

And given the level of non-engagement amongst members of the ruling Group at Endeavour House, they may just like it that way...