Tuesday, 21 February 2012

Housing and social media

Yesterday I took part in a live panel discussion on social media in housing, for the Guardian’s housing network, and blogged a note about it here.

 

21 Feb 2012 10:11:48 | Information and communication, networked neighbourhoods

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Co-op capitalism I'm not an economist and I've been puzzled at how little open practical debate there has been over alternative forms of capitalism during the recession. Now here's Noreena Hertz in a Co-Op think piece outlining the potential of a capitalism associated with collaboration, loyalty and trust, interaction, social connectedness, and respect for process not just outputs. Here are four of the features of co-op capitalism that she offers: The collective has value How we interact matters The network has worth Collaboration can trump competition. It's a list that you might readily find on a flip chart after a workshop on community development. I've often noted that there is a fresh receptivity to social values, albeit sometimes in a shallow way; and the evidence of their widespread application in local entrepreneurship is plentiful. As so often, we are waiting for our leaders, so-called, to catch up.
PREVIOUS POST
Social justice is no longer available ‘People come together through day-to-day activities, not 'integration projects' which too often feel irrelevant and prove unsustainable… Central to this will be ensuring that the integration benefits of programmes and projects are recognised and supported.’ These sentences come from a paper on Creating the conditions for integration published yesterday by DCLG. They suggest, first, that the government recognises the value of interactions in everyday life, so it must place value on a public realm where such integration can be stimulated and take place. That's a relief, the sceptic might have been wondering. Secondly it suggests that the government values the evaluation and demonstration of 'integration benefits' where they can be shown to have occurred. That's good too ain't it? The paper raises a few other points. First – I don’t think I have a problem with using the word integration rather than, say, cohesion (which is what we’d have expected in the past): but it might be interesting to ask why, why the change in vocabulary? At the Institute of Community Cohesion, they know about some of this stuff: do they feel snubbed, I wonder? Second – is there an understanding that social injustice, poverty and unequal access to power and influence might be critical barriers to integration and should be part of the equation? (Answer, no). Third – at least three times in the paper the following phrase is used: ‘We want to hear further ideas for action…’ but there is no channnel offered, no named author with contact details on the document, only the switchboard number for the entire department. Somebody’s not being sincere. And on the question of social justice, here’s some curious news. A week ago the DWP set up a survey to help define social justice (be quick if you want to catch that link): 'The government will shortly publish a social justice strategy paper, detailing a new approach to it. This will define what social justice means to the government, and principles and current practice underlying activity in this area. The government would like to know what social justice means to different stakeholder organisations, so would like organisations to complete a short survey.' If you follow the link now, this (at the moment) is what you see: This survey is no longer available. Please contact ( ) for further assistance..

Kevin Harris

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments