Perhaps a more ominous (yet typical) portent for the Big society is WBC's building disposal.

Under the new Localism Bill due to come into force summer 2011, all councils have to offer all public buildings to community groups BEFORE putting them on the market. In practice, this means a 90 minute moratorium on flogging old buildings until we've had chance to put together a business plan and bid for it.

So, the Big Society Tories on WBC are instead doing deals with a well-known local housing association - no doubt for unimaginative flats. Hardly Big Society eh? Similarly, Newbury Town Council is secretly trying to sell the footie pitch opposite Shaw Crescent to the same organisation. Shameful.

I believe various developers are looking at Greenham House (the white house on the burger king roundabout), which is for sale by WBC.

Because these failed institutions are only capable of doing the right thing after exhausting every other possibility, we're not going to get a better deal.

More needs to be done, a la Mubarak?

Top post Bofem. I'll happily join you in the market square for an Egyptian reggae.

This the pitch?


If the pitch isn't needed for footie then there's nothing stopping them from turning it into an allotment site and doing their statutory duty by providing sufficient allotment to clear the waiting list and give everyone the size of plot they want. Shameful. They did try and sell the south end of Southby's site a few years back too, but despite their best efforts to run the most miserably ineffectual allotment service they could people still kept applying for plots. Still, if Cllr Arthur Johnson revives his idea to hike the rent then plots like mine will be more than £250 and that'll clear the sites.

Yawn,

I'm not against allotments being self managed. Seems to me in Newbury, the allotment holders were happy as things were. If they wanted self management, why was there no grass roots support for SK?

Perhaps you're right, but where do you get your data from? You spend a lot more time winding into SK that actually describing why self management is a bad idea...that is why.

The objective evidence was that 80-90% of allotmenteers wanted self-management. See here.

The problem was that the Council didn't want self-management so they smeared me, undermined the allotment society, and suppressed the self-management debate. While 80-90% might want self-management, pretty much 0% wanted it enough to fight the Council for it. That isn't to say they were happy with the Council's regime, and the Council are very careful not to invite any comment that would show otherwise.

The question to ask is: Why won't the Council ask us if we want self-management? It would cost nothing to put the question at the bottom of the bill that goes out next week.

"Would you like a meeting to discuss self-management. yes or no."

Exactly, and dannyboy and user23 shy from that idea.

data - SK himself. Not one singole follow allotment holder was prepared to stand with him against the council.

I don't shy from it at all.


It would not be a fight if enough allotment holders asked for it. Why don't they? Why didn't they all get together after the proposed 'community hut' fell through & demand action? Why are they not supporting SK?

It is the silent majority.

And you know this is the case? Anyway, why don't your 'mates' insist on self management?

err, Sk himself said he had no support.

I have no mates. Why do you think I am on forums when normal people would be socialising?

1 So he's the font of all knowledge (notwithstanding a society seems popular, but a fight with the council is less so)?
2 At 22:21?

Basically, you are a fraud.

Well, you have swallowed everything he has said.

Let's cut the bickering and get back on track.

If local governmeent isn't responding, then we could arrange a referendum on whether Hutton Close should be used for allotments, (or better still whether NTC should be abolished due to chronic maladministration.)

Either way, there's land, funding (Greenham Trust etc), and people, and certainly demand (100 on the waiting list for allotments in Newbury).

My point was never that there was a huge popular demand for the Big Society, but a lack of demand doesn't necessarily mean an active opposition, it could just be apathy. It's a falisy to suggest that a slient majority are actively voting against whatever it is, silent majorities are, well, they're silent. They don't care.

How many residents of the Nightingales are actively campaigning for an end to the anti-social behaviour on their estate? How many take to the streets in protest at their local authority's suppression of their grass-roots programmes of social inclusion and regeneration? It's none isn't it. Do you suppose that means that the silent majority want to live as they do, or does it mean that they are unempowered and believe the problem is for someone else to solve?

This is the essence of the Big Society failure. People don't believe in society, they don't believe that it's really any of their business, and while they might like it to be better, they're not going to put themselves out to do anything about it. This was the problem that the Big Society had to address, but the Big Fat State's business model depends on our passivity and compliance, and so local government actively suppresses the Big Society.

Self-management would have worked in Newbury, because it works all over the country and people are people. By and large self-management works well and it creates happier sites and happier people, but who wants to put themselves out to fight a council that doesn't want it to happen? People don't have allotments for a fight, they have an allotment for to grow some veggies and not be messed around.

But why does Newbury Town Council suppress the debate? It's not out of support for some democratic decision by the allotmenteers because what consultation there has been suggest that 85% want self management, and in any case Newbury Town Council never consults its allotmenteers about anything. Neither is it out of a genuine belief that self-management is wrong for the people of Newbury, because informed research shows the opposite to be true, and even the Local Government Association recommends self-management. So the Council suppress slef-management to serve some ends of their own, and as the only ends they have are money and power my first guess would be to look there. And surprise surprise, the Town Council does indeed spend maybe £75k of tax-payer's money on their allotment service, and self-management would see and end to than and a shrinking of the Town Council by 15%, and that doesn't leave much for our councillors to be incharge of.

This is what killed the Big Society, the Big Fat State.

I am open to his claims to be refuted, but that hasn't been forth coming, so until then, it is a matter of faith. From what basis are you entitled to believe how you see the situation? What facts are you in possession of that refutes SK's claims?

I maintain: I insist that our council should look into reducing costs where they can do so, provided the quality of the service can be preserved. I see self management being a plausible option. Why are you against it in this instance?

What am I against -

the holding of an allotment ( which is an over subscribed luxury ) and then attempting to bite the hand that feeds whilst at the same time claiming you are trying to force change for the better of everyone. Even though tyour fellow alloment holders want no part of any change. ( then claim that this is due to apathy ).


My motto - don't attempt to fix what isn't broken.

Why do you think that self management wouldn't be better for everyone (the allotmenteers and the tax payer).


One minute you believe his view of events, the next you are sceptical of them. Is it because you only believe and disbelieve those points which supports your argument?

One minute you are critical of allotments (over subscribed luxury), the next minute you think it is right to protect the status quo.


The allegation is that it is broke! It is also proposed that we reduce the cost of having allotments by making them self managed. What the freak is wrong with that? Like I said, as a taxpayer, I think it is only right that the council seeks to reduce costs, not be forced to.

In my view, your reply cements my view that your main gripe is personal and not one based on the technical merits.

Calling an allotment an over subscribed luxury is not being critical of the idea. It is a statement of fact.

if Sk had managed to get even one fellow allotment holder to join his fight for self management I'd be more inclined to accept his arguments for SM. You can't assume that the lack of interest was solely due to apathy.
Therefore they must remain a tax payer funded luxury.

And the practical difference is?


Why? Why should the council not look to 'off load' the management to save tax payers money? SK's argument for self management is not undermined by the apparent deference of the allotmenteers to confront the council.

In my view, your argument is intellectually incoherent.