Wednesday, 31 March 2010

Let's hear it for neighbourhood groups: Conservative party launch of the Big Society

In the 1980s if UK politicians talked about community action at all it was defensively, because the notion was subversive, anti-establishment, tainted with radicalism and, typically, intensely confrontational.

Today eleven members of the Conservative party shadow cabinet (yes, eleven, including the party leader David Cameron) presented their ideas for 'the Big Society' which are dominated by plans to stimulate involvement in neighbourhood groups. Given the party's realistic aspirations to be in government within a few weeks, these policies constitute a justification for neighbourhood action at the highest political level.

It was genuinely peculiar to sit and hear the emphasis placed on the role of local residents in social policy. The single phrase most repeated through more than three hours of speechifying (shame about the talking-heads format, they still have a bit to learn in that respect) was 'neighbourhood groups'. They are, we were told, 'the essential building blocks' of the policy.

The three key promises are:

  • strengthen and support social enterprises (I'm sure I wasn't the only person surprised at how little emphasis was placed on social enterprises)
  • stimulate the creation and development of neighbourhood groups in every area
  • encourage mass engagement in neighbourhood groups and social action projects.

Financial incentives are promised 'for people to come together to form neighbourhood groups in the poorest areas', and funding for 5,000 independent community organisers (note: 'will have the skills needed to raise funds to pay for their own salaries').

On page 5 of the document you can read the powers and rights that will be assigned to neighbourhood groups. The list begins:

'Neighbourhoods will be able to bid to take over the running of community amenities, such as parks and libraries that are under threat'.

Threat from where? Understandably, this will be widely read as 'funding for parks and libraries is not gonna be great, but we'll support voluntary action to run them: and if it runs into the sand after a while, that's the community's decision.'

So this, boys and girls, is what localism means - local people being given support to run facilities like schools and parks, or taking over ownership of closed down shops. In his introductory remarks, Oliver Letwin equated the Big Society squarely with social capital, and part of the assumption is that in controlling their own resources local people will also generate much-needed social capital. Empowerment featured frequently in the speeches: local government hardly at all.

Most of the nine points in the neighbourhood powers list imply local consensus, using the N word where so often in the past the C word would have been used. This cheerily-assumed consensus is one of the areas where som elearning might be needed, but for now, the onus is on the community sector to respond to this extraordinary challenge.

If people react saying 'they don't understand the messiness of neighbourhood life - or the inertia, the separation and exclusion...' that won't get us far. Neighbourhood politics can be very intense, but you wouldn't have guessed that from today's speeches. Nor do we know whether grants will be available to unconstituted groups. All that reality-checking is yet to come.

Scepticism about individual choice being packaged as neighbourhood action won't help either, because great stress was placed on membership of neighbourhood groups. Make no mistake, there is, radically, a collective dimension to this policy: it's not just promoting individual civic behaviour (although the sop to the party traditionalists is to call it 'collaborative individualism').

So there I sat, listening to a potential Conservative prime minister say that the role of the state is to agitate for community engagement (speech here). And I remembered the day in 1997 when I heard a representative of the brand-new exciting-new socially-dynamic Labour government say 'we know things can't all be done quickly, we're planning for ten years'. I rushed back to my colleagues at Community Development Foundation with the message - c'mon, c'mon, we've got ten years to prove community development works.

Well, we didn't. Now I reread the phrase in today's document: 'We will encourage mass engagement in neighbourhood groups and social action projects' and it seems to me this is another chance; because the welfare state and a society of institutions are things of the past, and you can't do without support for local involvement.

Press release.
 

31 Mar 2010 21:27:57 | Citizenship and democracy, Governance and participation, Social capital, Social policy

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Ordinary places 'Ordinary places do not have to be mediocre' say CABE in a new pamphlet. CABE want to start a debate about 'creating the culture and conditions to help ordinary places to become valued and valuable'. Part of the problem, I suspect, is that 'ordinary people' don't feel that the built environment comes anywhere near their sphere of influence. Even street reps, with their eyes and ears attuned to order and disorder in their neighbourhoods, don't think of the buildings and spaces as being something they can do anything about. They're ready to try to influence what gets dumped on it, or what people do while they occupy it, but that understandably tends to be the limit of ambition or expectation. CABE however are characteristically upbeat, placing a welcome emphasis on treating streets as places: The quality of neighbourhoods is largely determined by the quality of streets. Too few streets are walkable, lively and sociable. It is almost impossible to imagine ordinary streets now without ugly clutter: guardrails, signs, more signs, rubbish bins, grit bins, parking meters and bollards. Most streets are still designed to separate people from cars, despite evidence that this leads to higher speeds. Research has shown that guardrails increase the likelihood of accidents. Department for Transport demonstration projects show that busy urban streets can be made safer by designing for everyone including elderly, blind and sight impaired people. Among the proposals, a large-scale programme of walkabouts (not unlike the community street audits run by Living Streets for years): professionally facilitated visits to give councillors, developers and local people the chance to view and debate successful schemes together. They can see what locally distinctive design means, with a strong response to existing buildings, landscape and topography, and use of local building materials and vegetation. They can hear about its appeal to residents and homebuyers, and the idea will start to become accepted, and expected. Then local distinctiveness can become the norm. And yes of course, as the pamphlet says, 'quality of place should feature in the national indicator set for local authorities and in the comprehensive area assessment'.
PREVIOUS POST
'To spend more time with my sheep' I spent a couple of hours yesterday in a meeting about co-production where we discussed, among other things, the ways in which many local councillors in England are sidelined by the governance structures (if it's not strategic enough for cabinet, it's not important. But here, read this stack of papers before Monday's meeting...). We also compared the motivations of councillors and the incentives, or lack of, by comparison with community activists for example. There's always a sense of puzzlement at why people choose to stand as councillors given the persistently unfavourable regard in which they are held and the ways in which the system makes it awkward for them to help residents. But I see that for some city councillors there are other distractions. Bulgarian City Struggles as Councilors Play Farmville on Facebook. Via Keith Hampton.

Kevin Harris

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments