Uncategorized » DMU Policy Exchanges

Localism and Equality

Equality and Diversity, Localism, Uncategorized No Responses »

Oct 192011

An important element in the Coalition Government’s platform, the Localism Agenda is based on four main strands:

1. New freedoms and flexibility for local government;

2. New rights and powers for local communities;

3. Reform to make the planning system clearer, more democratic and more effective; and

4. Reform to ensure that decisions about housing are taken locally.

The Department for Communities and Local Government asserts that the Bill has ‘the potential to effect a significant change in national life, passing power to a local level, creating space for local authorities to lead and innovate, and giving people the opportunity to take control of decisions that matter to them’.

In general, it is difficult to argue with the goals of the Bill (although, the specifics of how they will be achieved have been challenged by several sources). However, local authorities must ensure that delivering the Localism Agenda does not have a detrimental impact upon meeting the needs of all residents. Whilst communities of place and communities of interest may sometimes coincide (ethnic/religious conclaves), local communities are diverse and often people may find that the community they feel more connected to is a geographically dispersed community of interest, e.g. LGBT community. Hence a narrow focus on meeting the needs of a local majority must not ignore the needs of a disadvantaged minority.

It is easy to recall examples of tension between the interests of local communities and those of minority groups. The proposal to construct a large mosque in east London was met by opposition from residents in Newham Council. Similarly, Basildon Council has been involved in an ongoing controversial legal battle to evict the gypsy and traveller residents of Dale Farm.

While there is no quick and easy solution to these disputes, local authorities must remain mindful of their responsibility to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and promote good relations between different groups of people. A myopic view of localism can easily give way to an “us against them” mentality. Local authorities must carefully balance the needs of local communities while guarding against NIMBYism.

Equality simply must not be sacrificed for localism.

Heather Cover, Equality and Diversity Management Analyst, West Lindsey District Council and Centre for Local Policy Studies, Edge Hill University

Performing governance

Uncategorized No Responses »

Aug 042011

I have spent recent years researching various aspects of collaboration in public and social policy and have been struck by a number of observations which seem puzzling. Partnership, collaboration, integration (or whatever we currently call it) seems to continue to be a central aspect of policy reform across a range of different areas (health and social care, education, regeneration, child protection, criminal justice…) regardless of the fact that we have little evidence that these ways of working improve outcomes for service users. Collaboration has long been seen as a kind of public good that is beyond criticism and individuals, institutions and organisations still continue to engage in collaborative activities despite often being bruised from previous attempts. What is it then that is so compelling about collaboration?

In an attempt to get to the bottom of this mystery I started to think about the nature of performance. Collaboration is often predicated on the notion that it should improve performance; yet what isn’t always clear is what types of performance it should improve. Generally it is supposed that collaboration will make things quicker, safer, more innovative and a number of other rather abstracted and optimistic aims but with little specificity of what or how or why. Yet we also accept that collaboration changes working practices, organisational structures, roles, patterns of communication, rules of engagement etc, meaning that it has a wide range of impacts beyond these broad types of aims across a number of different domains.

Therefore in thinking about the performance of partnerships we need to go beyond traditional measures of organisational performance such as efficiency and effectiveness and also delve into issues of identity, legitimacy and prevailing norms and rules. The sorts of measures which have traditionally been used to evaluate the performance(s) of partnership seemed to be incapable of capturing the complexity and the dynamism of a number of the collaborative initiatives that I had researched. Nor did any of them manage to explain the enduring appeal of collaboration in its broadest sense.

At this point I came across the work of an English professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (USA) called Jon McKenzie. Jon has broad research interests encompassing performance theory, new media, and civil disobedience. He also heads a major initiative in digital humanities involving media studies, studio-based practices, digital learning, and quantitative humanities research. In 2001 Jon wrote a book called Perform or Else: From Discipline to Performance and this really resonated with me in thinking about performance and partnerships.

Jon argues that in addition to more traditional measures of performance, cultural performance (efficacy) has emerged as an important force within contemporary society. Cultural performance incorporates a whole field of human activity; in all cases a performance act, interactional in nature and involving symbolic forms and live bodies, provides a way to constitute meaning and affirm individual and cultural values. McKenzie argues that a focus on cultural performance allows us to go beyond rationalist models of policy analysis, to consider policies as more than instruments for bringing about particular ends, but rather to explore their social and cultural impacts. This is particularly important when applied to the field of public policy where policies are made in relation to some sort of notion of the “public good”.

With this in mind, Helen Sullivan and myself decided to put together a seminar and invite Jon McKenzie to address the assorted collection of academics who had gathered together at the Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham. We invited Jon to set out his thesis about cultural performance and then followed up Jon’s paper with our own attempt to apply these notions to collaboration in health and social care. McKenzie defines performance as the ‘embodied enactment of cultural forces’. As such it offers a new way of examining the enactment of policy and identifying the “additional value” of particular policy terms. This can tell us much about why policies do – or do not – work and how these might be developed more effectively so that they influence practice. Not only does this provide value in terms of a new theoretical perspective on policy analysis but there are also practical implications which may be transferred across a range of different policy domains.

This certainly seemed to be borne out by the experience of the participants who provided a number of fascinating contributions and insights during the course of the day. Some of the conversations focused on the operationalisation of the notion of performance. So, for example, if we understand performance in a wider sense then is everything a performance? Is there anything outside of performance? Should we only look at what is being performed or should we look at what isn’t being performed? The issue of emotion and the affective realm was also a core component of conversations and the how emotions interplay with performance in policy enactment was of interest to a number of contributors. Although most present agreed that a different type of performance that goes beyond the traditional efficiency and effectiveness was a helpful analysis there was less agreement over whether this “additionality” was efficacy as outlined in McKenzie’s work. Many of the discussions centred around how we might define what these other types of performance are, whether this is one type of performance and whether it is appropriate to intervene in these types of performance.

Although we didn’t find any definitive answers to the puzzles set out above we did seem to get closer to the issues during the day and this type of theoretical framework seemed to have resonance with others. So much so that we hope to organise another event building on the success of this first meeting, a second seminar will be held at DMU in early 2012, if you are interested in the seminar please get in touch with me (h.e.dickinson@bham.ac.uk) or Catherine Durose (cdurose@dmu.ac.uk).

Helen Dickinson, Lecturer at the Health Services Management Centre at the University of Birmingham.

Housing: Bricks or Bubbles?

Big Society, Co-ops and mutuals, Community Action, Uncategorized No Responses »

Jun 102011

No longer seen as ‘safe as houses’, there has been a recognition following the financial crisis, that the housing market is inextricably linked to the health of the wider economy. When the bubble bursts for housing, the effects are felt widely. A recent report: Forever Blowing Bubbles, by the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) makes the link between the fate of the housing market and the fate of the economy very clear. It suggests a number of solutions:

Increase the supply of housing – ‘clearly necessary…, but alone it is insufficient and slow to take effect’
Explicit consideration of house prices in monetary policy
and fiscal policy too – ‘but arguably tangential,… and politically highly fraught’
Regulation of credit – is suggested by IPPR as the key area of focus (and they state this also what IMF and OECD want to focus on).

IPPR does also suggest ‘improving the strength of substitutes to owner occupation’ through, for example, reform of the private rented sector, improve market pricing, and to prevent ‘moral hazard’ (e.g. the assumption that house prices can only go up).

But is there another way? The IPPR suggestions are still framed in the discourse of ‘market knows best’ and that we should tweak the regulation of markets to mitigate the effects of housing bubbles and the after-effects of them bursting. This persistent orthodoxy of the markets (in addition to suggesting a collective amnesia of the banking crisis that preceded the recession) prevents more radical solutions being mooted.

In her blog, below, Adele Reynolds, also seems frustrated at the pervasiveness of the orthodoxy that the principles of private sector markets still rule the discourse of local government. Adele’s analysis of KPMG’s concept of what a ‘Brilliant Council’ should look like demonstrate the need for us to boldly offer alternative ideas.

An idea that is worth examining in more detail in the provision of housing and the avoidance of overblown bubbles, is the idea of de-coupling the vagaries of the market and the provision of affordable homes. One example of this is the Community Land Trust (CLT) model in the United States of America. At a recent National Housing Federation conference the example of providing homes through CLTs was provided by Dev Goetschius and John Emmeus Davis who urged us to “take a stand on the land”.

In the USA, and very important to the success of the CLT approach, the value of the property is not linked to value of land, it is independent of the market. It is linked instead to average income and earnings in the area. In a number of schemes the leasehold of the home is available to the occupier, but the freehold of the land is retained by the Trust – the land itself always remains debt free and detached from market prices. There are varying models in U.S – but the key is that the resale value of homes is independent of land value.

There are some excellent examples of CLTs closer to home, at High Bickington in Devon affordable homes are being provided’ and at Lyvennet in Cumbria the model is being expanded to include a village pub and other community resources. In the U.K these CLT models share many of the values of their U.S counterparts, but the value of land and property is still wedded to the market. Successful CLTs in this country are dependent on generous landowners gifting land, charitable organisations providing start-up capital funding, or public sector agencies providing land and support for projects.

CLTs are an exciting part of the solution to provide affordable homes following a recession. There are some excellent home-grown examples. However, perhaps it is time to think more radically about how we value land and property – there may be some scope for the model from the U.S.A where the value of the home is linked to average incomes, rather than over-inflated market prices which have a tendency to balloon and then burst.

Written by Jo Richardson. Editor and contributing author of the policy press book (2010): From Recession to Renewal.

Impact of Planning Circular 1/06 on Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision

Uncategorized No Responses »

May 072011

Over the past five years I have undertaken research on the impact of planning guidance Circular 1/06 on site provision for Gypsies and Travellers. This blog summary outlines the key findings and recommendations in a fuller research report, which examined the impact of Planning Circular 1/06 on the delivery of sites for Gypsies and Travellers. It is part of ongoing analysis of planning appeal data gathered over three tranches of research activity. Initial findings and thoughts are published early in this report as part of a quick response to the draft National Planning Policy Statement – Consultation on planning for traveller sites – which was published by Secretary of State Eric Pickles on 13^th April 2011.

The research involved examination of 100% planning appeal cases during three tranches and four distinct research periods:

	Time frame	Number of cases
Period 1	1^st November 2005 – 31^st January 2006 (Tranche One – pre Circular 1/06)	75
Period 2	1^st February – 30^th April 2006 (Tranche One – post Circular 1/06)	54
Period 3	1^st February 2007 – 20^th January 2009 (Tranche Two – ‘embedded Circular’)	231
Period 4	27^th May – 31^st December 2010 (Tranche Three – post revocation announcement)	45
		405

Findings

Although a wide range of factors was considered across all cases, which were decided upon by a number of different Planning Inspectors, three key areas seemed to be discussed most:

Unmet evidenced need and lack of alternative sites
Weighing up impact on the Green Belt
Health, education and other personal circumstances

The Planning Circular 1/06 research found that the number of permissions given at appeal increased substantially (from 40% prior to implementation of Circular 1/06 to 70% during the ‘entrenched period’ of implementation of the Circular).

The majority of permissions given during this ‘entrenched period’ were temporary permissions. Inspectors’ discussion on reasons for decisions showed that weight was given to evidenced need for more sites and lack of alternative accommodation. Appeals were being allowed on a temporary basis to stop the gap.

Since the Secretary of State’s announcements to revoke Regional Strategies and Planning Circular/ 1/06 there has been an impact on number of temporary permissions allowed at appeal. Inspectors’ decision reports show that the revocation announcements were considered and in some cases, weight was given to this.

Whilst there is clear evidence that Circular 1/06 did have a positive impact on the number of permissions (albeit temporary) given for Gypsy and Traveller sites, this should not be seen as a system skewed to advantage Gypsies and Travellers. Instead the Circular levelled the playing field for this traditionally disadvantaged group.

Key Recommendations

Equality Impact Assessments should be undertaken on the cumulative effect of the combined loss of Regional Strategy targets for pitch requirements, together with the withdrawal of Circular 1/06 and the reduction in available government grant funding for site development.
Government should consider retaining the word ‘normally’ in the guidance on consideration of site applications in Green Belts. This would allow decisions to be made on a case by case basis and where it is the most appropriate and least contentious location for a site: Green Belt could be considered as an option.
The Government should not remove the obligation for councils to undertake GTAAs specifically from the Planning Guidance, as this may mean councils do not update and use this source of evidence but instead rely on other sources – such as count data – which are not so robust.
Government should retain the imperative for Planning Inspectors to give ‘substantial weight’ to unmet evidenced need and lack of alternative accommodation, in Planning Guidance.
Whilst cuts to Government grant for sites fall within a wider context of cuts, the Government should be mindful that there is a business case for funding sites to negate spend on dealing with unauthorised encampments and developments. There is a social case for facilitating sites to enable Gypsies and Travellers to access healthcare and education.
Alternative approaches to site provision, where appropriate, should be supported and facilitated by the Government through matching development funds from charitable organisations, for recyclable grants for schemes such as Community Land Trusts. Currently applications for funding are made through the Traveller Pitch Funding Stream of the HCA National Affordable Housing Programme; it may be appropriate to make additional funding available for this innovation.
Care should be taken in political debate on Gypsy and Traveller issues to avoid stoking contentious and discriminatory rhetoric in the popular press and in community debates on site provision.

Written by Jo Richardson

Getting in touch with your practice

Uncategorized No Responses »

Apr 282011

For the seasoned observer of public policy, it is perhaps surprising to open any discussion with such a radical admission that we know very little of the everyday practices, routines and activities of policymakers.[1] You might expect policy analysts and researchers to have a detailed knowledge of what policy-makers actually do on a day-to-day basis in their offices and wider working environment. Yet, we tend to approach the study of policy armed with pre-existing models, patterns and guidance into which we then try and force the ‘messiness’ of the daily twists and turns that punctuate the multiplicity of norms, rules, and objects that we call ‘policy.’[2] Too often, as John Law suggests[3], we try and mobilize the ‘mess’ out of our own accounts of policy, acting, to use the very apt expression of Helen Sullivan, like ‘truth junkies’[4]. So, what if we were to try and do the opposite? What if we were to try and capture the ‘messiness’ of the practice of policy-making, of what practitioners do? What might we learn if we started from there?

It was these very questions that a recent ESRC seminar series on policy as practice sought to answer.[5] In generating a dialogue between researchers and practitioners, the series confirmed in many ways the continuing difficulty faced by social scientists in formulating concepts of policy and practice that make sense to those we think of as policy-makers. For those involved, which included this author, it made us newly aware of the difficulty practitioners themselves – especially those at the local level – have in recognizing that what they do is to make policy. At the same time, we were exposed to ‘thicker’ conceptions of agency; accounts of making policy that surfaced the social, meaningful and affective dimension of the practices of policy-making. We rediscovered the institutional purchase and political nature of often very mundane policy instruments and artefacts of policy-making, such as white papers, meetings and minutes, and commissions of inquiry, as well as the importance of understanding the construction of particular policy ‘personages’ and their associated roles, be it the policy consultant, the evaluator or the civic entrepreneur.

What this all suggests is that we require a new way of thinking about how we study policy – one which through its focus on the practices of policy making re-engages with the benefits of empirically-driven ‘thick descriptive’ case studies and the value of practical wisdom or judgment.[6] In so doing, we need to break down long-held distinctions between academics and policy-makers so as to generate new ways of co-producing knowledge in, and for, policy. Such shifts in our approach hold out the prospect of developing ways of ‘talking’ policy that not only speak to, and resonate with, the daily activities of policymakers, but also begin to rebuild our trust in practitioners as collaborative partners for innovation and improvisation.[7] Rather than continuing to proclaim the new public management mantra which views practitioners as instrumental agents seeking to defect from external regulation, perhaps we might be better off appreciating practice as an active and potentially positive ingredient in the world of policy making.

See also

Should you wish to read more on the findings of the ESRC Policy as Practice seminar series, you can find a collection of articles from the series in a forthcoming special issue of Evidence & Policy put together by Richard Freeman, Steven Griggs and Annette Boaz. This blog draws heavily on this collection.

Notes

[1] Wagenaar, H. (2004) ‘’Knowing’ the rules: administrative work as practice’, Public Administration Review, 64 (6):643–56.

[2] Freeman, R., Griggs, S. and Boaz, A (2011) ‘The practice of policy making’, special issue: approaches to practice, Evidence & Policy, 7(2): 127-35.

[3] Law, J. (2006) Making a mess with method, version 19^th January, available at www. heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2006MakingaMesswithMethod.pdf.

[4] Helen Sullivan uses this expression in her forthcoming article ‘‘Truth’ junkies: using evaluation in UK public policy’, see Policy & Politics.

[5] ESRC Seminar Series Policy as Practice, Award no. RES-451-26-0613. Award holders: Steven Griggs (De Monfort University), Richard Freeman (Edinburgh University), Michael Farrelly (Open University), Tim Freeman (University of Birmingham) and Mark Bramah (Association for Public Service Excellence).

[6] Flyvbjerg. B. (2001) Making social science matter. Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[7] Laws, D. and Hajer, M. (2006) ‘Policy as Practice’ in M. Moran, M. Rein and R.E. Goodin (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

If you’re happy and you know it….

Big Society, Spending cuts, Uncategorized No Responses »

Apr 142011

The movement Action for Happiness launched earlier this week with members buying cups of coffee for strangers and giving out ‘free hugs’. With 4,500 initial members across 60 countries it has big aims to become a mass global movement.

Anthony Seldon (one of the three founding members of the movement) writing in an article for the Telegraph[1] recognises the challenges to happiness and provides examples of depression in young people, closing post offices and the impact of the wider economic pressures. However, he suggests that there is scientific evidence that ‘happiness’ can be taught and it increases productivity. Action for Happiness teaches 10 steps and Seldon summarises these ideas in his newspaper article. In addition to keeping physically fit, we are encouraged to ‘do good to feel good’, to ‘go out on a date with one’s partner at least once a week’, and to ‘take time to bond deeply with one’s children’.

10 steps to happiness

Do things for others
Connect with people
Take care of your body
Notice the world around
Keep learning new things
Have goals to look forward to
Find ways to bounce back
Take a positive approach
Be comfortable with who you are
Be part of something bigger

Basic human needs and wellbeing

To position oneself in opposition to the general notion of happiness would be miserly, however there are some difficulties in accepting the notion of ‘self-help’ in the happiness stakes without some of the fundamentals being in place. Maslow, in his (1943) Theory of Human Motivation, referred to a hierarchy of needs where the most basic needs such as food, water, shelter, safety and security had to be in place before social, ego and self actualization needs could be met. Seldon says that happiness is not about materialism, but there must surely be some basis on which happiness is built. Glimpses of happiness are perhaps possible without access to water and a safe place to live, but these glimmers dwell in spontaneous fleeting moments and cannot have permanence as a state of mind for those who are without stability and security. How does someone who is homeless, or jobless, follow the 10 steps to happiness?

In line with the idea that happiness goes beyond materialism, Wilkinson and Pickett (2009)[2] looked at wellbeing in rich countries in their research, and they found that it does not grow exponentially in line with economic growth and individual income. They suggest that economic growth has largely done its work in rich countries, instead they find that lack of wellbeing – whether social, health or some other measure – is dependent more on inequality than overall levels of poverty. This also echoes Sen’s (1999)[3] notion that it is the freedom of opportunity to achieve wellbeing, rather than well being itself which is a more appropriate measure in the study of inequality.

Sandel (2009)[4] has called for a new public debate about the moral limits of markets and a more robust public discourse engaging with moral issues. In making a case for a ‘politics of the common good’, Sandel suggests that this would help rebuild institutions and the structure of civic and public life. He suggests that altruism is not a scarce resource, but that this and moral guidance are characteristics that, like muscles in the body, can grow stronger with exercise.

The tyranny of positive thought

In her book Smile or Die, Ehrenreich (2010)[5] discusses this notion of individual responsibility to be positive. In her particular study, the encouragement to be positive is in order to secure a successful outcome in the context of illness, specifically cancer. She suggests that there is a ‘tyranny’ of positive thought which means that an individual can secure health, wealth and happiness if only they themselves are positive. Ehrenreich goes as far as to suggest, in a different context, that unfettered positivity could have in part led to financial institutions and governments ignoring the warnings of individuals that the financial system could not be sustained, because their views were not ‘positive’. Ignoring the negative could possibly have ultimately led to the banking crisis. Equally, she suggests that if individuals are held responsible for their own destiny (if you’re positive then redundancy is an ‘opportunity’ rather than a threat) then it negates the need for the state or private employers to support those who find themselves out of a job due to the current economic climate.

Support happiness

There is of course value in happiness, wellbeing, altruism and other notions discussed, not just by Action for Happiness, but thinkers such as Sen and Sandel. Optimism must surely beat pessimism and happiness has to be better than unhappiness – very few people would want to position themselves in opposition to these aims. However, the warnings of Ehrenreich and others should be heeded – the instructions to ‘take happiness seriously’ and to follow the 10 steps to happiness should not rest solely on each of us as individuals with the assumption that we have ultimate control over our own destiny. The wider context and the impact of inequality must be considered. In the current economic climate, there are real barriers to happiness – cuts to local public services are seeing communal neighbourhood spaces closing. If you live in an area where the local swimming pool has closed, it makes it that much more difficult to follow step 3 (Take care of your body) and if the library has shut nearby then step 5 (Keep learning new things) may also be a challenge. If we are to follow the 10 steps to happiness then there is still a need for government to lead and support communities to enable the very institutions and facilities that might help increase welfare and happiness. We need to support happiness, not leave it up to individuals and blame them for their own unhappiness when they have been failed by the market and the state.

Written by Jo Richardson

[1] 12^th April, Action for Happiness: why tackling the nation’s depression is long overdue, www.telegraph.co.uk (particular page offline at the time of blog publication).

[2] Wilkinson, R and Pickett, k (2009) The Spirit Level, why more equal societies almost always do better, London: Allen Lane

[3] Sen, A (1999) Commodities and Capabilities, New Delhi: Oxford University Press

[4] Sandel, M (2009) Reith Lectures 2009: A New Citizenship, Lecture 4, BBC Radio 4, 30^th June 2009

[5] Ehrenreich, B (2010) Smile or Die: How Positive Thinking Fooled America and the World, London: Granta Books

More bang for your green buck: green income generation for local government

Uncategorized 1 Response »

Mar 082011

The outlook for the public sector at the end of 2010 was not good: the UK has slid into a serious recession, which combined with the banking crisis, has led to a budgetary crisis in the public finances not seen for many years. This has caused morale in local government to dip: people worry about their jobs, the services they provide and the potential to continue to deal with an ever-increasing workload. There is very much a need for some light at the end of the tunnel.

Climate change is a pressing new agenda. It has existed for some time but has come to the fore because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions targets (both nationally and internationally) and the creation of new financial incentives by the Government. Local authorities need to be part of this agenda but few chief officers in local authorities seem to have switched on to its significance. One of the reasons why it is so important is that it offers huge local opportunities, as well as new burdens. To be well organized, each local authority should develop a holistic climate change strategy, setting targets and goals, building a route map towards them, and coming up with projects that form the steps on that path. A corporate approach is vital.

Solar photovoltaic panels to generate electricity are now one of the leading areas of renewable technology and this solution has been proved commercially successful around the world. Solar PV works in the UK, despite its cooler climate than Europe. The government has introduced new financial incentives for qualifying PV schemes, whether public or private sector. Local authorities have everything that they need to make the most of this agenda: buildings to convert, workforces to undertake the work and the capacity to borrow money to fund such works. This is a chance to create a new opportunity and make changes that benefit your areas and are self -funding. It is literally a ‘once in a lifetime’ opportunity.

In any major renewable energy project, the two major risks are obtaining planning permission and achieving a connection to the National Grid. Fortunately, a grid connection is not a problem with buildings; although planning permission is likely to be required.

Smaller PV schemes are also subject to the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS), which is an internationally recognized quality assurance scheme that demonstrates to customers that companies engaged in PV installation work are committed to meeting rigorous and tested standards. Obviously for a local authority direct services team to undertake this work, it needs to become an MCS certificated installer and to use products also certificated under the MCS.

None of these hurdles should present a problem to a local authority team already undertaking substantial building maintenance work. It was mentioned above that there are significant benefits to any local authority that engages in renewable energy generation. These include:

Community leadership;
Energy security;
Carbon benefits;
Effectiveness and efficiency;
Economic benefits;
Income generation;

The best way of doing it is the ‘DIY option’ where the authority literally does it itself. This means it recruits and trains the people who will do the work, both preparatory and delivery; obtains the supplies and equipment itself, using its existing sustainable procurement processes; and gives active consideration to how the local economy can benefit at every stage.

But even so, the authority still wants to get the maximum value out of its project. To achieve this, it needs to create a revolving fund, where the original capital investment is recycled time after time to achieve maximum effect. Here is how such a project might be structured:

The Council starts the revolving fund by depositing an amount of capital into the new buildings PV account. It is up to the authority how much this is;
The Council would recruit a manual workforce and get it trained to the MCS Accreditation standards;
The Council needs to develop a schedule of its buildings and work plan;
Arrangements need to be put in place to procure the solar panel kits and other equipment necessary for the work to go ahead;
The work plan needs to determine the priority of buildings, although this is up to the authority;
As installations are completed and linked to the grid, the feed in tariff income would start to accrue to the Council’s PV account. The occupants of the buildings (whether the Council’s officers or members, schools or tenants) would get the electricity created by the PV panels free;
As some stage, the income coming into the revolving fund will be sufficient to continue to fund the operation of the team moving forwards; in other words, the operation becomes self sustainable;
Calculations need to be undertaken as to the value of the initial capital investment, as opposed to the size and speed at which the teams would exist and operate;
Once the operation becomes self sustainable, it can simply carry on until all the Council’s buildings have been fitted with solar PV installations and thereafter offer services to other public bodies and to the public at large. In this way work for a number of additional years may be obtained for the highly trained, skilled and experienced workforce that has been created;

It is mentioned above that this is a ‘once in a lifetime opportunity’. I have been involved in direct services for 25 years and, most of that time, those services have been under threat. It is a very long time indeed, since an opportunity to create some new ‘family silver’ has come along. An opportunity to enjoy growth as opposed to cuts; to create new skills, as opposed to a skills drain; to have a wider and wholly positive impact on other areas of the Council’s operation, rather than being just a recharged central cost. This proposal offers all of those things.

Stephen Cirell is a Consultant with the Association for Public Service Excellence

Contact: stephencirell@me.com

Alistair Campbell talks to the DMU Politics Society

Big Society, Localism, Spending cuts, Uncategorized No Responses »

Feb 232011

Alistair Campbell came to De Montfort University last week to talk to the Politics Society. He was keen to promote the latest edition of his Diaries (1997-1999) as well as two novels – both of which have been nominated on separate occasions for the ‘Bad Sex in Fiction’ award! However, beyond the book promotion and declarations of love for Burnley football team, there were some key themes in his answers to students’ questions.

On Localism and Big Society

There was a sceptical back-drop to the discussion, with Campbell suggesting Big Society was ‘dreamt up’ without really thinking about the implications. It was suggested that the Prime Minister should consider the need for expert advisers in the wake of ‘idiotic policies’ such as selling off forests, which showed the centre didn’t know what the departments were doing. Insofar as there is a philosophy to the Big Society, it is about people ‘sorting themselves out’.

On the Coalition Government

‘We’ve got a Tory government now’…

Whilst recognising that Conservative politicians like Osborne are on a completely different part of the political spectrum he seemed to show some respect for clear political agenda. Osborne, like Thatcher, has an ideological agenda to retract the state and Campbell seemed to respect politicians who have a clear vision.

On NHS Reform

Campbell suggested that if the government went through with reform that in, say, two years they would come to regret it – ‘it’ll become their poll tax’.

On Deficit Reduction

‘There are always alternatives…’

Whilst there is criticism in some of Campbell’s answers to the DMU Politics Society, on the current Government’s ideological and practical responses to the economic situation; some of the issues are not new to Coalition policies, but an extension of what was already happening under New Labour. The lack of co-ordination between departments and with the centre, for example, was something consistently targeted at New Labour, in spite of the former Prime Minister’s expert advisers.

So, Alistair Campbell came to answer students’ questions (and sell some books). The nature of the event meant that there was not a speech with a coherent focus, but instead a series of responses to a set of disparate questions; but nonetheless, this was a lively and entertaining peek into the mind of the former government spin doctor. We should also not forget that Campbell has moved on from the front-line political fray and so does not speak directly on behalf of Labour politicians any more.

The strength and speed of the Coalition government’s policies on Big Society, health service reforms, Localism and public spending cuts have perhaps taken the wind out of Labour’s sails in mounting a coherent opposition to the proposals. Let’s hope that the DMU Politics Society can get Ed Milliband to come to talk later in the year with a stronger message in the face of such sweeping Coalition government changes to our public services.

Opening up politics: diversity in representation

Uncategorized 1 Response »

Feb 072011

Despite some progress over the last thirty years, following the 2010 General Election, national politics remains highly unrepresentative of the population with only 22 per cent of MPs are women and 4 per cent from an ethnic minority. The ‘archetype’ of a politician remains a white, middle class, middle aged man.

Recent research commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission conducted by De Montfort University and the University of Manchester has considered why diversity is so limited in national politics, questioned why this matters and explored what can be done to make national politics more representative.

The research looked across UK national political institutions from the House of Commons to the devolved assemblies considering the shared and different experiences of individuals from a wide range of under-represented groups looking at factors such as age, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, age and social class; and including those who were selected by political parties, elected andalso those who failed to achieve these goals.

The research found that certain groups are disproportionately disenfranchised through a series of mutually reinforcing factors: ‘prevent’ factors which serve to exclude individuals through discriminatory practices or prejudice; an absence of ‘push’ factors facilitating access to politics, for example university education and transferable professional skills; and a lack of action from political parties and institutions to ‘pull’ individuals into politics, for example through positive action or mentoring.

The researchers identified three implications which came from these findings. The first implication highlights the need to re-frame the debate about diversity; the second, emphasises opening up politics to encourage a wider range of candidates; the third, the need for radical debate.

The recent Speaker’s Conference on Parliamentary Representation argued that the case for widening representation of diverse groups in national political institutions was a matter of urgent concern for reasons of justice, to encourage greater effectiveness and legitimacy in decision making and to connect politics to a wider constituency. However, the purchase of these arguments in UK politics, which is dominated by party and most importantly, electoral concerns, needs to be questioned. A potentially more effective framing of the arguments about diversity would explore the potential electoral advantage - for example, through looking more progressive, relevant or modern - of fielding more diverse candidates and supporting under-represented groups.

For those individuals from under-represented groups who try to get involved in national politics, the barriers to difference are high, the pathways available are narrow, and the support they receive from institutions is limited. Significant change is needed to have an impact. While the composition of the House of Commons has become more diverse, those elected still conform closely to the model of the ‘archetypal’ politician. In order to encourage a more diverse range of candidates which will subsequently provide more diverse representation, it is important to widen the tolerance or acceptability of difference. One important way of doing this is to draw in candidates from a wider pool and encourage civic and issue-based activists into politics.

The recommendations put forward by the Speaker’s Conference focus on altering the existing political culture rather than transforming the structures which facilitate and perpetuate it. But the political system needs to be perceived as a whole in order for transformational change to take place. A debate about the scope and pace of change is required; arguably radical political change is needed to kick-start improvements in diversity.

Unfortunately the current proposals for electoral reform put forward by the Coalition government continue to neglect an explicit focus on diversity proposing a referendum on the electoral system and equalising of constituencies, but ignoring many of the reform options suggested by the Speaker’s Conference around opening up politics and supporting under-represented groups to become involved in politics and arguably more radical options, such as equality guarantees.

This research was commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and is published here and conducted by Catherine Durose (DMU), Francesca Gains (University of Manchester), Liz Richardson (UoM), Christina Eason (University of Sheffield), Ryan Combs (UoM) and Karl Broome.

DMU Policy Exchanges

Localism and Equality

Performing governance

Housing: Bricks or Bubbles?

Impact of Planning Circular 1/06 on Gypsy and Traveller Site Provision

Getting in touch with your practice

If you’re happy and you know it….

More bang for your green buck: green income generation for local government

Alistair Campbell talks to the DMU Politics Society

Opening up politics: diversity in representation

Blogroll

Our Archives

Admin Stuff

Blogroll

Our Tags

Our Archives

Admin Stuff