Tony Blair and the local authorities
They’ve noticed us
The Tony Blair Institute has added to its recent series of reports extolling the opportunities of AI in government with a report looking at local government. Governing in the Age of AI: Reimagining Local Government promises that there are huge savings waiting to be realised by councils that embrace AI. It also provides some specific advice for councillors. Which is exciting. Because I actually am a councillor.
AI eh?
The report is frustratingly vague about what it means by AI. Based on some of the case studies it references the report is taking a very expansive definition. It includes machine learning, predictive modelling, remote sensors even data analytics and digital service design.
Is it helpful to badge these things as AI? I guess it’s sexier than digital, data and technology. At its heart that’s really what this report seems to be calling for. Fixing the plumbing, improving case management systems, better data standards. I’m all for this. We’re all all for this I think. Some of us have been all for this for ten or twenty years.
So allow me a moment to be a little frustrated that the bigwigs in the TBI seem to have turned up, looked into a local authority and said “gosh there are some issues here, had you ever thought about using technology to transform your services and maybe getting IT suppliers to provide you with modern tools?”.
They have fed some data about an unnamed local authority into a model which claims AI (or, more prosaically, better tools) could save us 25% of staff costs. Which sounds pretty exciting. If a bit difficult to believe. They don’t talk about the cost of the tools but we are allowed to understand that these will be much less than the cost of the staff.
The future
Let’s look at the solutions the TBI folks are proposing.
A Devolved AI Service (DAIS) funded by central government but owned by local government. Anything we don’t have to pay for is superficially attractive but if you don’t pay the piper you don’t, in reality, get to call the tune. Still taht’s just details. DAIS would do a number of interesting things including encouraging the development of shared data standards, prising open monopolistic markets and bolstering technical procurement capacity.
These are actually good ideas which people in the sector have been talking about for quite a while (Local GDS anyone?). I’m inclined to think that there may be some benefits in this cross-sector approach. Some.
The local government sector is large and complex though which multiple stakeholders locally and across the UK Government. A single technical consultancy for local government (stick AI in the name if you feel you must) is going to struggle to have the sort of impact we need at scale. Ultimately we are talking about changing in a complex system and this Local GDS, sorry: DAIS, is a solution for a complicated frame.
Carry on governing
There are some sections which I think could be charitably classified as “those things you’re already doing… do more of those”.
Transcription technologies have the potential to save social workers time in writing up notes the report tells us. If we had better case management systems and shared data standards they could potentially save even more time. And, an under-appreciated potential strength of the technology it seems to me, they could make it easier for social workers (or other professionals) to focus on the relationship with their clients without being distracted by forms or notes. This is no doubt why local authorities are already experimenting with these tools.
In a section about helping citizens get the support they need (local navigation assistant) the report highlights issues with data linking, data sharing and content and service design. All of which are, in my experience, fair. None of which I would particularly badge as AI. Still if we have to call it AI to get people to look at it. So be it.
I didn’t get the section on planning at all. Does the TBI think AI can write our local plans? Will we also have AI planning inspectors? Will AI barristers provide LLM generated evidence at planning inquiries? Once again they list some case studies of interesting things that councils are doing in this space “do more of the good things”.
Call to councillors
Then we get to the bit just for me. Five things they say councillors should be doing
Champion AI innovation
If I don’t have to call it AI I shall be very happy to continue to champion innovation around the use of data and technology.Adopt tools that have been proven to work
Yes. I mean I feel like that is what local government does. But I’m very much for this and against, for example, adopting tools that have been proven not to work.Use convening power to de-risk adoption
This seems to be a fancy way of saying “work with others” which I’m also in favour of.Adopt existing standards and platforms
Yes. And I would like to see more councillors talking about this.Adapt the workforce and attract the right talent
I mean, again, sort of the day job. It is not unhelpful to have a reminder to make sure that data and technology is factored into workforce planning.
This is fine
Overall this is fine. It’s OK. I recognise many of the problems that the report identifies. I think some sort of sector-wide consultancy might be helpful. I think the sector has been working on these issues and innovating in this area but we can always do more.
This is not reimagining local government. Which is not a problem other than that’s the title of the report. It’s imagining local government making better use of technology. Which is, frankly, fine.
I just don’t think this is really about AI unless you define AI so broadly that it becomes indistinguishable from computers.
Maybe it has to be packaged this way to get government to take it seriously. I don’t know.
Back to the coal face where we’re wrestling with ever increasing demand and diminishing funding and providing services which are, in a very large part, fundamentally about effective relationships between human beings not technology.
