Tuesday, 22 March 2011

Hurrah, the citizen voice is here

Over on Our Society, Your Square Mile founder Paul Twivy has posted a response to questions posed by Julian Dobson. He includes a couple of rather odd statements.

'Our role is as the citizen voice.'

What can this mean? Was it deliberately intended to sound so incredibly arrogant, or did it just come out wrongly? On what basis can you attract large-scale funding and head off into people's neighbourhoods proclaiming 'we're here, we're here at last, sorry you've been waiting sooooo long, and you with such needs...' (A citizen's voice: 'Well, welcome, nice to meet you. Er, who are you?' YSM: 'We're the citizen voice.' CV: 'Er, I already got one mate. Are you saying I'm not a proper citizen?')...

Wait there's more:

'YSM is about enabling people to make the changes they want to see in their area in their way and not about us imposing ideas from the outside.'

Really? So what are you doing there? Were you elected? Do you have taxpayers money to allocate to services? Were you invited in? And if so, by who?

As with big society and coalition government, we're seeing an insensitive officer-class attitude towards ordinary people in their neighbourhoods - from telling them what to do, through savagely cutting their services in ways they can't defend against, to telling them that important people have come to help them make changes. And expecting to be applauded for this peculiar form of imperialist behaviour. I'm tempted to ask, do you have a flag?

One wonders who's next for the Grand Tour for Saviours of Low-Income Neighbourhoods.

22 Mar 2011 22:41:29 | Mobility and change

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Fatal error: (include_path='.:/local/): suicide and community A single suicide can numb a neighbourhood with guilt and confusion. Significant numbers of suicides must feel like a great inexplicable weight burdening those who have invested in and seek to sustain local social life. We don't seem to know much about its impact on the way residents interact at local level. It must be scary when the number of suicides around you is high enough to attract media and policy attention. Here's an article by Mary O'Hara in yesterday's Guardian about Northern Ireland's lasting pain, noting a 64 per cent increase in the past decade. And here's an article about somewhere else with an unprecedented contagion a few years ago. I think I'd like to live in a society where people consistently show 'respect for those who are asking for help' and where the state is prepared to invest in mental health services, and to support voluntary sector responses. Here for instance on Gerry Adams's blog you will find, in addition to the telling image above, the observation: 'The people of the Colin area deserve a crisis intervention response to the surge of suicides in their community. There is a huge amount of good work being done on the ground by youth workers, young citizens, teachers, church groups and others. But they should not have to carry this burden.'
PREVIOUS POST
Localism and equalities: dark age ahead Over recent months I've been party to a few conversations about threats to the equalities and rights agenda posed by public service cuts and the coalition government's apparent enthusiasm for throwing out safeguards. An example came up just the other day, with Children's Minister Tim Loughton quoted as saying that 'it is a "nonsense" that some carers have to get permission for everyday activities such as haircuts or sleepovers'. Yes but no. In many circumstances it's highly desirable that the parents of a child in care are encouraged to retain responsibility for precisely these kinds of decisions. As a foster carer there are definitely cases in which that is what I would want to happen, in the interests of the child, however awkward it may seem. Only bureaucrats benefit from excessive regulation, but when you start looking at why some safeguards are in place there are usually minority interests at stake. It's depressing to have a minister of government showing such a nuance-free disregard for the rights and needs of parents. I got onto this because I've been reflecting on the latest paper from the International Longevity Centre, on localism and neighbourhoods. Authors Dylan Kneale and David Sinclair argue that 'The Localism Bill should include greater safeguards to ensure that the rights of marginalised or minority populations to access a full range of amenities and services locally are protected.' They go on to call for 'a joined-up approach among bodies representing minority and marginalised groups to research and lobby for changes in the way spending cuts affect marginalised populations.' I didn't realise that it's well over four years since the ILC published their excellent paper on lifetime neighbourhoods - no less insightful or important now. The present document is an update to that thinking, in a less sympathetic political context where for example we no longer have CABE to defend and promote good quality design of neighbourhoods, and instead we have the bizarre and nasty government fad of bashing planners and the planning system. Dark age ahead, as Jane Jacobs foretold.

Kevin Harris

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments