Public opinion: Your blogs

Is regeneration dying or coming of age?

From media reports painting a gloom and doom picture of public spending, you could be forgiven for thinking that the regeneration sector is about to breathe its last.

Reports by the BBC of an estimated 25,000 job cuts in town halls up and down the country (said by some to be conservative predictions), and criticism of regeneration spending from the likes of the commons public accounts committee which has launched a broadside into the supposed waste of the £1bn Coalfields Regeneration Trust, are just two examples which reinforce this view.

Of course, predictably, I don’t agree. As a regeneration practitioner, I am a natural optimist, but the fact remains that we are in very different waters from the relative millpond of the past 20 years. Things will change, and let’s face it, change is long overdue. We have relied far too heavily, for too long on public 'servants' to regenerate our communities, when they are almost certainly not the best people to do it, and consultants have been given lucrative contracts which deliver little or nothing to communities who deserve better. We have pointed our compasses towards government funding pots while ignoring other, more imaginative, ways to create resources for regeneration.

I believe communities must deliver their own regeneration. Whatever the colour of the next government, they have to stop talking localism and set the framework in place for it to happen. BlueFish Regeneration was set up to work with local communities to help them deliver their own regeneration. We have slogged solidly for five years to get the point across to quangos and councils that people within communities are in the best position to change things for the better. Local authorities should stick to emptying wheelie bins, not take on the role of charities or businesses. The BlueFishes of this world have an increasingly important role to play in filling the gap left by local authorities. We can help to make a real difference, but to do this we need to work more closely with communities, and not fall into the 'them and us' bear trap of the past.

On the other side of the coin, communities need to reorganise themselves in order to become a far more integral part of the fabric of regeneration. They need better management structures and governance arrangements, and to be far more radical about alternative funding mechanisms. Acknowledging that the tough new world of regeneration will not support more marginal projects without a strong case, will also be crucial. And above all, communities need to believe in themselves as the instrument of delivery, not look to others to do it for them. If they can do all of this, an army of regeneration professionals exists who are ready and able to assist them.

Regeneration is certainly not about to keel over and die: there is too much positive momentum for us to allow that to happen. But it must change, and if it does, we will emerge a leaner, fitter and more effective sector than ever before. But then, I am an eternal optimist.

So how can communities adapt?

• Take the lead: don’t be thrown off course by bureaucrats telling you what you can’t do.
• Look at alternative funding mechanisms to public sector grants: there are some excellent examples of communities doing imaginative things like the East London Bond, Settle Hydro and the Wensleydale Railway.
• Learn from others: find a successful community-led project near you and find out how they made it work for them.
• Make the most of skills and resources within your own community: there are bound to be local people with the skills and time to help.
• Set up a structured, constituted organisation: nobody will fund you if you can’t give them confidence that you can deliver.
• Write up a business plan the organisation can sign up to: this will bring focus and a structure to the project.
• Have belief in your project: if you don’t have passion and belief, nobody else will.
   

Better banking – too big to fail

In the post-financial crisis world, we’ve all become experts in economics, as terms such as mortgage-backed securities, quantatative easing and sub-prime lending have permeated everyday life.

Or perhaps, even if we’re not experts, then the gap between so-called ‘experts’ and everyday folk has diminished, as knowing all about banking regulation didn’t seem to make any difference when it came to predicting the credit crunch!

The need to fundamentally change the way banks operate and are regulated should not be contentious and who could argue against better banking (or that what we have currently is adequate). It shouldn’t even matter whether your motivation is self interest or social justice, the current system fails us all.

Taxpayers, small businesses, anti-poverty campaigners, shareholders, even governments have all been adversely affected by the actions of the banks. And all of us have an interest in devising a new system that better serves the interests of all. So, I think we should appropriate one of the phrases to have emerged from the credit crunch, ‘too big to fail’, to describe the better banking campaign.

Of course I’m not saying that the campaign is now so large as to pose a real systemic risk, but given the huge range of people and institutions that have an interest in reforming our financial institutions, surely the need can be regarded as ‘systemically important’.

There’s currently a huge gulf between the words politicians use and the proposals they offer – so lots of good talk but little evidence of the banking system’s obvious flaws being addressed. Perhaps politicians are so scared of the banks’ lobbying might that they shy away from real reform? Perhaps they don’t know how to change things? Or maybe they think it’ll all go away if they just ignore it.

The current system does not provide a satisfactory balance between costs and benefits. The profits banks have made over recent years have provided huge financial benefits to shareholders, investors and bankers. However, the costs – not just of the bailout, but indirect costs (or ‘externalities’) arising from not having a bank account for example – are all borne by taxpayers and society at large. To use the jargon – the ‘upside’ is all theirs while the ‘downside’ is all ours. This is something that must be addressed, urgently.

With the announcement that the Budget will be on 24th March, a May 6th general election is now reckoned to be so likely that bookmakers have stopped taking bets on it. It’s crunch time for Better Banking (as opposed to credit crunch time!).

If we are going to influence the party manifestos, then time is running out. Meetings at Downing Street and with Conservative shadow treasury ministers have proved productive, but we must press on with an even greater sense of urgency.

However tantalisingly close we may feel to achieving our aims, there are no prizes for second place in this race. We need to raise the issues at any and every opportunity we get and make sure it’s a key election issue. The message to those who seek our votes is simple – bank reform matters! Let’s really show our politicians that the Better Banking Campaign is really Too Big To Fail!
 

Local authorities and social media – what’s next?

Since my job is to show clients how to use words effectively in press releases, reports and on websites, anything which suggests councils are using the power of the written word on social media platforms will grab my attention.

I recently spotted two reports by the Society of Information Technology Management (Socitm) on social media and councils. Together they make interesting reading for anyone keeping an eye on how councils communicate with local residents.

'Social media: why ICT management should lead their organisations to embrace it' summarises the answers given by local authority IT managers when asked about their council’s social media policies. The findings are revealing.

The Socitm site claims: 'About 67% [of councils] have a total ban on use, enforced either through policy or by a software block. Others allow use out of office... or over the lunch period - suggesting that they see these tools as purely social and not having any business benefit. In contrast, according to Computer Weekly, some 80% of private sector organisations do not block access.'

Security worries top the list of reasons given for restricting access, 'with possible exposure to viruses, malware and spyware chief causes for concern'.

Other concerns include 'time wasting by council staff, risk of reputational damage, systems and data compromise and increases in bandwidth requirements'.

These are all genuine concerns and each is dealt with in the report. More positively, 'the report says social media may help address looming budget issues faced by public service organisations, by providing economical ways of engaging citizens, delivering services, and by empowering and supporting employees.'

The second report offers a perfect illustration of how the link up between social media and local authorities can work in practice.

Drawing on research conducted in January during what is referred to as 'the snow crisis', Socitm says councils are starting to use social media such as Facebook and Twitter to keep in touch with residents and businesses during emergency periods.

'Twitter gritters' are a welcome development and an opportunity for councils to reflect on how the experience of the recent bitter winter period could help them keep in touch more generally through social media.

It remains to be seen whether they will grasp this particular nettle or not. I hope so, because social media channels are only really effective when activity levels are high. The most read bloggers and social media experts are prolific writers who ensure they always have something to say. They know that failure to post a blog or Facebook/Twitter entry for a few days suggests they can’t be bothered or have nothing to say. Either way, their visitors soon get the message and go elsewhere for their information.

There are two ways local authorities can prevent this from happening. First, they should give staff training on how to use social media in a constructive way. Second, they should incorporate social media into their communications plans for emergency and non-emergency periods.

These measures could encourage responsible use of social media, lessen the risk of time wasting or reputational damage, and stop other organisations filling the information vacuum with alternative messages which conflict with those councils are trying to get out into the public domain.

Do our leaders say ‘I’ or ‘we’?

The words we use can reveal more than we intend.

Coming into the co-operative movement, I was interested to have a look at how co-operative our leaders in society are and chose a simple and playful test. Do they talk in speeches about 'I' or 'we'? Do they talk about 'me' or about 'us'?

A few years ago, this would be a research project. Today, with the aid of downloading and word counts, we started after lunch and ended before tea.

So what were the results? In the run up to the general election all the political parties have been talking about how they are going to embrace co-operation.

Both David Cameron and Gordon Brown scored over 2.5 - with Cameron just ahead - while Nick Clegg was well behind with 1.85.

Our UK leaders were streets ahead of continental counterparts, such as Nicholas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel. Je, Je, Je... Ich, ich, ich.

But they were all way behind Churchill (we shall fight them on the beaches) on 6.5 and contemporary faith leaders, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, on 5.82.

The results are admittedly more light-hearted than scientific, but could suggest a lack of togetherness. The political parties seem to make all the right noises but in power will they talk the talk, never mind walk the walk!

Our fringe estates need new solutions

Aspley in Nottingham is typical of hundreds of other housing estates – run-down, disconnected, deprived and depressed. Years of regeneration programmes have produced some gains, but it still represents over a quarter of all Nottingham’s benefit dependent households and one tenth of all lone parent income support claimants, while being home to just 6% of its overall population.

What sets Aspley apart from many deprived estates is its size and location. Almost 16,000 people – more than a third of them under 18 – live on two inter-connected estates (Broxtowe and Aspley) some three and a half miles from Nottingham city centre.

Large, outer city estates are different from inner city estates. Often with poor transport links, they are more cut off from the employment and other opportunities offered by the city. And their size makes them more akin to small towns. Take, for example, Hexham and Otley, both with smaller populations, which have their own town councils. But Aspley is treated as a fraction of Nottingham Council, represented by just three ward councillors, who have to clamour for attention with 57 others across the city.

The problem for outer estate towns like Aspley is that their only claim to fame is how badly they do in the deprivation league table. So, despite all the talk about empowerment, engagement and active citizens, the reality is that residents in such disadvantaged areas are stigmatised, defined as deficient and thought incapable of taking charge of their own destiny.

This is the disabling paradox at the heart of regeneration policy, whichever government has been in power. Regeneration policy and practice talks liabilities and needs but not assets: rarely does it look at the skills, knowledge and resources of local people. Every bid for funding requires a litany of calamity with no questions about the capacity for self-transformation and what local people can bring to the table. No wonder local residents are rarely seen as equal partners in transformation.

With public spending cuts and steadily rising unemployment, the situation is set to worsen. The recent National Equality Panel report confirmed our worst fears – the richest 10% of the population are 100 times wealthier than the poorest 10%. Having failed to eradicate inequality or these concentrations of poverty when the going was good, the government now faces an even grimmer challenge – and people living on these outer city estates an even grimmer prospect.

The risk now with long-term unemployment set to grow is that a significant section of our urban population, especially the younger generation, will be cast adrift. Community tensions will rise, engagement with traditional systems of politics and redress will fall. All the priority cross-cutting socio-economic problems such as alcohol misuse and antisocial behaviour will intensify. People who might otherwise make a contribution to society will come to be seen as a drag on development, making their presence felt through their call on the NHS and the criminal justice system.

But it seems that government finds itself in a quandary. The close targeting of new deal for communities (NDC) and the neighbourhood renewal fund has given way to the working neighbourhoods fund and the future jobs fund with their broader local authority wide focus. The government has taken a step backwards away from integrated, early intervention on small areas, and instead is concentrating on efficiency savings at a local authority-wide level.

But it doesn’t have to be like this. With a bit more imagination, less centralised control freakery and more political will, solutions could be developed. The seeds are already there in current national policy trends. The new national priority of Total Place could enable a focus on outer city estates as places needing the full panoply of holistic solutions. Residents could negotiate their own local area agreement, with all the local service providers, concretised in one of the new annual community contracts.

The cross-party consensus on community engagement might encourage efforts to unleash the potential of local residents to turn these estates round. They could elect their own town council or even a new type local strategic partnership or local development agency – emulating the most effective NDC programmes – to be accountable for all local services. Participatory budgeting might enable residents to articulate their needs and preferences and to make the key decisions on how to improve their estates. New businesses and social enterprises could focus on retaining locally more of the considerable total spend by residents and service agencies.

And by starting afresh to look at how best to make their estates local sustainable places, residents could develop solutions based on moving towards low carbon local communities – a local green new deal.

This is not pie in the sky. After all, previous ‘traditional’ top-down approaches have all failed. Sometimes moments of extreme crisis force us to think differently. If the outer city estates are not to spiral into further decline, with all the accompanying socio-economic and environmental problems, it is essential that we engage with their residents to come up with radically different solutions.