Monday, 05 April 2010

My networking opportunity: your unjustifiable public subsidy

Lobby My thanks to the excellent Tim Davies, too busy writing his thesis, for permission to post this delight:

Talking to Derek Wyatt MP during a tour of the House of Commons he gave to students from the Oxford Internet Institute, Derek commented that the cost of pensioners collecting their pension at the post-office far outstripped the cost of delivering direct bank payments. Regardless of the social interaction people felt they got at the post office, Derek said, it was simply not a cost-effective way to offer pensions.

Later in the tour, we came to the voting lobby of the House of Commons. 'We could all vote electronically' Derek noted, 'But coming into these lobbies is one of the few chances you get to catch a Minister to speak to, or get quick interaction with them'.

(Authors report, House of Commons Visit, Winter 2009)

Previously:

'We would like a say in our way of life'
Post offices, informality, and participation
Please serve yourself: rural post offices
The local post office: a brand in jeopardy
Post offices and social value

5 Apr 2010 21:24:38

1 Comment

Sadly predictable really.

Posted by: Ian Bertram | Wednesday, 07 April 2010 at 17:37

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT 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.
PREVIOUS POST
Big Society is being watched David Wilcox has blogged more on the Big Society Network, which describes itself as 'an organisation being set up by frustrated citizens for frustrated citizens, to help everyone achieve change in their local area.' Our aim is to not only create the largest co-operative or mutual in Britain, but to create a mutual that is Britain. Every citizen can be a shareholder, contribute, receive help and rewards. Call me old-fashioned, but I think there's a difference between a network and an organisation, which is kinda significant. Either that's been thought about and is being disregarded, or it hasn't been thought about. If I'm reluctant to trust the network it's because it seems to be an organisation with an agenda, and the agenda doesn't appear to include values and principles that in my view are essential to community development: inclusion and social justice, for instance. If the response is, 'no, the members set the agenda, so join in and help shape it' then it begs all sorts of questions such as why there are no proposals to strengthen the existing community sector networks (er, we call this 'bottom-up' - it's just a bit if jargon we use, you'll get used to it chaps). At least the Brown government recognised this, albeit in its central-controlling way. Any self-respecting community activist can smell a hidden agenda from well beyond their own territory: they will be suspicious of the Big Society Network perhaps not because it has an expressed agenda just yet but because it's a centralised construct coming from a philanthropic tradition. A post on ConservativeHome notes the possibility of 'the politicisation of community activists' under the Big Society umbrella, which apparently has also occurred to the Taxpayers Alliance. Is it possible that these people have been immersed for so long in a cakestall-mafia version of the voluntary sector that the prospect of voluntary action having a political dimension is a bit of a shock? Here's a suggestion: start from the recognition that community action is fundamentally, insecapably political, and get used to it. Attempts to depoliticise it will be self-defeating and may lead to a revival of confrontational radicalism. I welcome the Big Society thinking from the tories because it might just force us to think about the politics of communty action after a couple of decades when that really hasn't been paid much attention. Julian Dobson has it about right I reckon: If we want community activity that won't frighten the horses and will leave most of society pretty much as it is, and will give you social action without having to worry about social justice, this kind of set-up may be a good bet. Those who want more substantial change may well find themselves suffocated in such a network.

Kevin Harris

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments