Thursday, 01 April 2010

'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.

 

1 Apr 2010 10:16:17 | Governance and participation

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
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...
PREVIOUS POST
My networking opportunity: your unjustifiable public subsidy 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

Kevin Harris

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments