Does Liverpool City Council's withdrawal signal the end for the Big Society?

Well yes, and no.

The leader of the council wrote to David Cameron "How can the city council support the big society and its aim to help communities do more for themselves when we will have to cut the lifeline to hundreds of these vital and worthwhile groups?"

Therein lies the problem. The idea, or to be fair, my idea, of the Big Society is that people do stuff for themselves, together, socially, as a society, without the support of the state. Letting go was always going to be the challenge for local government and Liverpool City Council's public abandonment of the Big Society shows only that they didn't understand what they were agreeing to.

So yes, I think the Big Society is dead, but I don't think it was ever a possibility. If it was going to generate funny-money revenue then the Big Society was going to be the latest thing for local government. Indeed, it would take some serious professional help to get the British public engaged in civil society. After more than a generation strapped into the local government matrix we need more than a bit of acupuncture and a rub down from Trinity to get us back on our feet, but why would local government want that? The local government industry is predicated on our feckless, whitless dependence so why would the industry engineer its own decline by empowering us?

Well it wouldn't, would it. Liverpool City Council, and I suggest local government in general, saw the Big Society as a threat and then reinvented it as just another administration gravy train which they'd ride with their third-sector buddies, and when the cash didn't appear Liverpool City Council got the hump.

It's the same story in Newbury. The third-sector organisations were nervous of the Big Society at first because it threatened their state funding, but now they've got with the programme they're bigging up the Big Society's dependence on local government bitty, and local government obliges its familiars with Big Society suckle.

I can't think of a more outrageous example of the Big Fat State than Newbury Town Council's handling of the grass-roots demand for allotment self-management. Allotment self-management is as old as the allotment movement and it's hard to think of anything more Big Society. There are self-managed sites around the country that are run by their tenants without any help from their local authority, and it would be as alien to these sites to depend on the state for support as it would any badminton club, golf club or bridge club. There is little more to running an allotment site than most any other social club, and there is strong support from a national society and active social networking. More than that it is recognised in the movement, and by local and national government, that allotmenteers in charge is good for people, and good for communities. Allotment self-management is the Big Society archetype. So the benefits make allotment self-management a no-brainer without even thinking about the cost to the tax-payer of state-management.

And this is the Big Fat State. Newbury Town Council won't let the service go because it is a £100k turnover industry for them, mostly funded by the tax-payer, so there's no way they'd let the service manage itself and lose all of that lovely money. So they suppress the debate, smear the argument, and marginalise the activists. And to put the cherry on the top, they create a £3.5k slush fund for their "Big Society" chums. You couldn't make it up.

I'd like to think that the Big Society was a genuine idea from the Conservatives, and I guess I am a bit of a tory boy so I believe it was, but if Tory High Command were serious about us re-claiming our dignity and not being Big State milksops then they need to provide a way for us to beat the Big Fat State, and they spectacularly haven't. Perhaps I'll write to Eric Pickles and tell him what's going on.

But on reflection I don't think I can be asked. I wish I'd taken the blue pill.

This was quite interesting to start with, then you turned into yet another allotment rant.

Ah, Mr. Smith.

But did it detract from the message? I say no and he has a point. It seems the Big Society is permissible, but only on the Big State terms. It seemingly hasn't empowered society to wrestle control from the Big State.

Yes, because as we know by Simon's own admission the only person creating "grass-roots demand for allotment self-management" is Simon himself.

It's the Big Society, not the Billy-No-Mates Society

Is that before or after the council showed their teeth?

Isn't that what I said? Other than me there was no call for a Big Society. I suggest that is really rather the point. I believe the Big Society is good for people, but it'll take some getting there, and for that to happen the grass-roots activists need nurturing, and the state needs to let go, and if the tories genuinely want society to get there then they need to fix the problems that will prevent it, and as yet they haven't. But I think I said that.

Anywho, aren't you meant to be out there fixing my allotment hedge for me? And when you're done the ditch needs unblocking too. There's a good chap.

Maybe if a whole load of allotment holders had got together & asked for self management it would have happened.
I was under the impression that the Big Society was about like minded people doing things for themselves.
Not like minded people clubing together to help spend state handouts.

Maybe, but I thought it was about society providing the labour and maybe the state provides the tools and means, as it were.

Exactly, one bloke does not a Big Society make.

Except that wasn't dannyboys point, but it gives you another opportunity to knock SK, eh?

Yes, I think if there had been enough people demanding self-management it would have been difficult for the Council to deny it for ever, but no one was bothered enough to demand it in the face of the Council's opposition.

It happens in places that the Council decide to drop their allotment service to save money and the allotmenteers have no option but to take on the management and even then there are only a handful of individuals happy to do the the management, and not infrequently just one or two (though working parties for the maintenance of usually well supported). We have become very used to depending on the state for everything, and it was always going to take some effort to make the Big Society work, but rather than that all I've seen is the local government working to preserve the Big Fat State.

I think you have summed up the problem.

You & maybe one or two others were the only ones wanting self management. The others could not care less - or even prefered to keep NDC in charge. If so, it is right that it stays under NDC control.

Spot on danny, as I see it anyway.

Why? If the Goverment has a wish to off-load costs, then perhaps the council should help promote or push for self management. If this is an option that helps to save (taxpayers) money and maintain quality, I say it is incumbent on the council to help get this going.


Edited for accuracy.

Incorrect.

Yes, there were allotmenteers who wanted NTC to retain control. However, it would have been interesting if the Council had asked allotmenteers what they thought. Why do you suppose they haven't asked?

If you remember, at the West Mills tenents meeting the Council implied that self-management was an increadily expensive option by saying that they had found self-managed councl sites charging £100 per pole (over 20 times what we pay in Newbury) and in response to a Freedom of Information request it turned out that the self-managed council site they had in mind was a Wyevale Garden Centre grow your own plot, so not a council site, not self-managed, and not even an allotment. Hardly even handed was it.

I think it would be good to ask the allotmenteers. How about: "would you like to pay the full cost of the Council running the your allotment service, around £225 for an average plot, or would you like to be self-managed and pay an average of £25 per plot".

This is why I am suspicious of dannyboy and user23's impartiality on this matter.

The government would like to see elements of their control devolved down to the end users. Why are dannyboy and user23 seemingly against it in this case. Even if it is that you are on a power trip. If self management was by election, your power trip would be short lived anyway.

As a tax payer, perhaps I should insist that allotments manage themselves?

Exactly so no openness or transparency there then? Plus they would not be able to use the allotments for council parking either? Of course that would not enter the equation would it?

Ha!

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.

Oh well in that case we can both shut up.

Why?

what is the point of prolonging a debate half of which is 'intellectuallty incoherent'

Do you support the suggestion that the Council should ballot the allotmenteers on self-management, adding this to the bottom of the bill?

Would you like a meeting to discuss self-management Yes or No?

I'm not sure my contribution is though.

I can see this is getting a little hung up on the self-management thing. I want to post a question I asked at the Community Services Committee almost three years ago. There's no possible criticism of power-grabs and dictatorships, all I was asking for was for the allotmenteers to be consulted and involved. Why do you suppose this was dismissed out of hand? Why do we allow the Big Fat State to suppress the Big Society?

As an allotment holder I am more than happy with the council running the allotments. If self management involves all this bickering I really don't want to know. Our allotments are managed well. Thank you NDC. Perhaps some of SK's amazing energy would be better spent trying to help those that really need help in this world, eg the homeless & starving. What a luxury an allotment would be to them.

What allotment do you tend to? How much do you pay for your plot?

An allotment would be a luxury for those you list, however; it seems the NDC are seeking to make the cost of owning one (unnecessarily) ever more expensive.

All that being said, and taking into account of your altruistic concerns, don't you think you should think about removing the cost of running your allotment from the tax payer?

Any reason you need to post anonymously planter? Which site are you on?

If you don't want to be involved self-management doesn't affect you. You pay less rent of course, and your site gets a toilet, and your hedge gets mended, but other than that it's business as usual.

In fairness to the tax-payer are you happy to pay the full cost of your hobby, and if you are is it fair to insist that everyone else does, even if they're eagre to do the maintenance and administration and keep their costs down like that?

It looks like you might get somewhere after all SK?

"Council leader, Graham Jones, has asked that the district council be considered for the Big Society pilot scheme"

West Berkshire bids to be the new Liverpool