How consultation practice has been influenced by the austerity agenda.

Fifteen years ago, when the Consultation Institute was founded, there was a wider range of public consultations. We labelled some of them ‘aspirational’. They asked people what they would like, often in the guise of ‘Vision’ statements for local authorities or policy areas. Money was never plentiful, but the assumption was made that sensible priorities would become affordable one way or another. Consultation on new initiatives, perceived as good news is inherently a positive message: Tell us how we can make things better!

If, exceptionally, public bodies made proposals with significant disadvantages for some people, there was often enough money to lubricate the wheels of change with mitigating actions. Consultation was especially effective because decision-makers had room for manoeuvre. The financial crash of 2008 changed the climate, and for much of the last decade, consultations have regularly needed to focus on accommodating cuts to public services as a result of reduced budgets. Moreover, these exercises have had to be managed by fewer consultation/communications staff, working with smaller budgets for each project.

We have, therefore, developed a defensive consultation culture. Many proposals have been couched in terms of regrettable changes that are acknowledged to impact people adversely. Consultations become damage-limitation exercises. Sometimes they have honourable intentions to find useful ways to ameliorate the consequences. At worst they are cosmetic PR exercises going through the motions so that consultors can say they listened…but to little effect. Rather too many organisations have seen consultation as a means to let badly affected consultees let off steam and get things off their chest. Even more have just shaken their heads sadly and uttered the famous TINA mantra. There is no alternative.

In fact, this is rarely the case. There usually are alternatives – though not always are they popular or practical. Someone has to sift through a range of possibilities and focus on realistic options. Better organisations have realised the power of stakeholder involvement at this point, but in the context of unrelenting cuts and withdrawals of service, participation can be grudging and the excellent concept of co-production, can be used by unscrupulous Managers to legitimise some savage cuts in service.

But look deeper, and you will find that there are some good news scenarios. We recently looked at plans to relocate and effectively rebuild a hospital a mile or two away from its current site. Someone pointed out that there was little or no significant service change so, Hooray – we don’t need to run a consultation! So accustomed have we become to engaging only on the bad news that we lose sight of the immense benefits of seeking views and opinions on the more positive projects. Here’s a useful list:

• Stakeholder relationships will always improve if the subject-matter is a positive one
• Less chance of “You only talk to us when there is bad news!”
• There is scope for creative thinking and imaginative solutions
• More chance of ‘joined-up thinking’ as new projects can benefit from linking with parallel initiatives.
• Creates a sense of shared-ownership for new developments; better community buy-in!
• Successful consultation on new projects can provide great :”You suggested; we did” stories. 

Even around the most exciting, well-supported ideas, there can be hurdles to overcome and contingencies which must not be overlooked. Consultations provide useful checks and balances – and in the context of future investment rather than disinvestment, all sorts of innovative solutions can be found. It also often falls to stakeholders to probe Managers about longer-term perspectives. What will it look like in ten years’ time? Or twenty? What will be built alongside? How about transport? Are there enough skills? …… 

Assuming we leave the EU, there is scarcely a single area of Government policy that does not face reappraisal, and BREXIT optimists clearly feel that many of these offer opportunities for new thinking and a fresh start. And we have already seen a number of ‘blank page’ consultations, such as on the future of farming. Planners say we are entering a period of more urban regeneration; more garden cities are planned. Renewable energy sources are appearing in new locations. Transport infrastructure is being renewed; retailing is changing. In all these there are elements of good news where stakeholder views on positive change should be encouraged.

Consulting on such topics can be a refreshing change from the austerity agenda, so maybe we should reach for the dialogue toolbox, polish up those methodologies that lend themselves to more expansive discussion and ideas-generation and try to restore the reputation of consultation as a great way to manage change.

TRIGGER POINTS

1. To what extent are your consultations still dominated by austerity-driven changes in public services?
2. Have you recent experience of working with stakeholders to devise new solutions in a positive, good news scenario?
3. Are you able to ‘sell’ the benefits of good news consultations?
4. The Politics of Consultation covers both bad news and good news – and in both cases, there is a need to get the politics right. 

This is the 342nd Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement.