I suppose I should be flattered, BUT...

It's all started to get a bit... well, "creepy" with Exeter's Tories.

You might recall that their opening salvo in this election campaign was a leaflet all about me, suggesting I was somehow "parachuted" into Exeter specifically for this campaign. (I have in fact been working in the city for over six years, and living here for over three.) I suppose that leaflet should have sounded warning bells for me that this lot were the political equivalent of a slightly obsessive new boy or girlfriend, more obsessed with me than with their own campaign.

Off all the houses in all the world...

Next came the slightly unsettling tweeting of a photo of Cllr Thompson and her two little helpers out in Pinhoe on the campaign trail... it's just that out of all the locations in Pinhoe for their picture, they chose my home as the backdrop. Weird.

Me. (Looking fat.)

Then earlier this week they had gone to the effort of tweeting the link to my homepage on Weymouth Council's website, to demonstrate that...er... I have been a councillor for 8 successful years. (I was a bit cross about that tweet to be honest. I HATE that photo on the webpage, I look fat in it.)

Cllr Pete Chapman (on the right - as ever)

Anyway, last night was my last Full Council meeting at Weymouth & Portland. Before the meeting I went for a drink with my partner and a few friends, and that included the Conservative Briefholder for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Council, Cllr Pete Chapman. Pete and I disagree spectacularly on political philosophy, but I have a great deal of respect for him and cannot deny that he is dedicated, reasonable and knows his stuff. He's also a good laugh. Outside of meetings, we enjoy a bit of banter, and I count him as a friend. Pete is a Plymouthian originally, so he often takes an interest in how Devon is doing, and our conversation got round to how things are working out politically down here.

"That reminds me," said Pete, "you seem to have caused a stir down there."

"Have I?" I was a tad bemused.

"I had a call from our office," said Pete, referring to his Constituency Party, South Dorset Conservatives. "They had been contacted by Exeter Conservatives, apparently," he went on.

"Oh?"

"Yes, apparently they wanted to know if we knew 'any useful information' about you."

Unbelievable. 

Pete went on to say that his answer is what I thought it would be.

"I just said you were a bloody good councillor and that we were friends," and then, grinning, "and that you are good for the odd full-blown political row."

My good friend and former
Tory councillor Roger Allen

Later we were joined by former Tory Councillor Roger Allen, another good friend. 

"You'll be missed." he said. "You're one of the few Councillors who has a clue up here." Roger is well known for his forthright views, but on this occasion it was good to hear.

In the meeting, I asked the council leader, Tory Councillor Mike Goodman (who has championed housing issues very energetically for years) whether I could step down from Weymouth knowing that housing would remain a key priority for the Borough. "I am grateful to Cllr Bowkett for asking that, I know it is an issue he has fought hard on for many years. And I think he knows that so long as I am leader, housing will remain the key priority here." I disagree with Mike on a lot, but I respect him enormously, and applaud his stance on local housing issues.

It's very satisfying to know that my peers, including my political "adversaries", are happy to say that I am a good councillor, and have done a good job. It was with cross-party support that I took the Chair of the Audit committee for 4 years, was elected by a partnership of 9 local authorities to chair the regional South West Audit Partnership, and more latterly elected me to chair the Scrutiny & Performance committee. Knowing I had the confidence and goodwill of councillors of all groups, and of officers, I have been able to achieve much more than I could have done otherwise. I look forward to making a similar impact in Exeter for Pinhoe.

All of which makes me more bewildered at Exeter Tories' behaviour and wondering quite what they are up to? If they want to know "any useful information" about me, they could just ask me. Maybe they have a bored, recently unemployed News of the World journalist in their ranks? Will I have a "fake sheikh" showing up on my doorstep sometime soon? Should I be ensuring my voicemail messages are encrypted? 

So, to save them any further efforts: 

My middle name is Jonathan. My first pet was a dutch dwarf rabbit called Moppet. (After Moppet, I kept stick insects, but that got rather out of hand.) I don't have a favorite food as such, I like ALL food (except melon - long story.) I support Chelsea (yes, I know) but also try to watch a live football game in any country I visit. I read a lot, and particularly enjoy Ernest Hemingway or anything about the Spanish Civil War. Favorite movies include Mississippi Burning, Milk, Gainsburg, and Priscilla Queen of the Desert. I have a scar on the little finger of my right hand from an accident while collecting amethyst from a Cornish cliff when I was 9. My youngest son, Eddie, is actually named "Edson" after Edson Arantes do Nascimento, better known as Pele. My oldest son, Sennen, is named after my favorite surf beach. My shoe size is 11. And if you are trying to find guilty secrets, I confess - I have been a contestant on the Weakest Link (twice - another long story) and am a rather compulsive viewer of the AMC zombie series "The Walking Dead..."

Now if there's nothing else, I'm off to fit a lock to my dustbin...

The Big Society Problem...Part Two: The Social Capital Problem

As we saw in the last posting, ask Tory politicians what the "Big Society" is, and you are likely to get as many different answers as there are politicians. (If they are being very honest, they may even tell you that they don't believe in it themselves, and the Tory press and blogosphere has been equally sceptical.) In many respects, attempts at defining the "Big Society" has been hugely problematic for the government. Phillip Blond, author of the book "Red Tory" and a "guru" of the ‘Big Society’, has become deeply unhappy with whole project, complaining that the Government is ‘losing itsexpressed concern:

“We know the Big Society narrative was very badly communicated … it was insufficiently thought through, and… people now think of it as just volunteering and philanthropy - which is a disaster.”

On other hand some Big Society "purists" would argue it should not be defined at all - that each community must work out what it means for them. Lord Nat Wei, the "Big Society Tsar" tried to sum it up succinctly. The Big Society is, he said, defined by 3 characteristics:

1. The needs of different places are dealt with in different ways

2. It lets people take control

3. It leads to similar senses of community arising in inner-city and rural areas that weren't there before. (Apparently the surburbs are far more likely to have the Big Society in operation)

Lord Wei

Ironically, after less than a year in his post as "tsar", Wei resigned, saying that the 3-day-a-week unpaid role was incompatible with "having a life." Volunteering has its limits even for a millionaire, it seems.

So the Big Society was to be about empowerment for communities; public services being delivered in different ways - possibly by voluntary groups or social enterprises; "localism & decentralisation" - local communities deciding what is best for them without government interference; and a greater sense of mutual responsibility and community brought about by an increase in altruistic volunteering and philanthropic giving from individuals and companies.

Lofty and laudible aims perhaps, but to the sceptics the Big Society was a cynical attempt by Cameron to decontaminate the "toxic" brand of Conservatives as the "nasty party", or was a cover for deep and prolonged cuts that would shift blame from the government to the communities themselves. If your community lacked facilities and infrastructure now, it would not be the government's fault, but yours. Your community was simply not motivated and / or organised enough.

In some respects, the idea of communities solving their own problems may be appealing - as may be the idea that community assets might transfer to citizen-led organisations - creating a greater sense of community pride, and costing the public purse less. However, let's examine how that might happen. Let's think about two communities:

The first is a community where skills are lower than average, has lower levels of academic achievement, unemployment is higher, and those in work are often in low-wage jobs, meaning people work long hours or hold several jobs to make ends meet. Many are in rented housing, meaning the community has a high "churn" - people may not stay for long. The estate has a higher proportion of people for whom English is second language, single-parent households, and those on disability benefits.

The second community is made up of mostly privately-owned homes, meaning people are largely more "rooted" in the community. The population is made up of people from professional backgrounds - business people, solicitors, academics. A good proportion are retired, financially independent and with time on their hands. They are well-networked, and have influence.

The two communities' libraries are under threat from the local authority cuts, but the council has pointed out that they might want to think about running the libraries themselves under the new "localism" and "opening public services" agendas. The communities think about taking on the buildings as community assets, and using volunteers to staff them. Can you see the problem?

The second community will be motivated and mobilise. People know each other, and have a long-term shared commitment to their neighbourhood. Many in the first community do not know if they will still live there when their tenancy ends - and in many cases that tenancy may only be 6 or 12 months in total. 

The second community will develop a business plan, and will pull on its professional and social networks to secure pro bono services to transfer the asset. Legal advice, conveyancing services, insurance services, surveying are all accessed with relative ease. Detailed funding applications are made to social financiers, and fundraising networks appeal to well-heeled residents. The first community is advised about all it will need, and begins to cost out the same professional services. Already the scale of the task seems colossal, and many are feeling demotivated. The people on the estate have little or no spare money to invest themselves, and funding applications, without support, are badly worded or structured and are regularly rejected in the competitive world of grant funding. Social finance is hard to access as the people in the community have often had a bad experience with credit.

The second community has people with time on their hands - the wealthy retired, and people who are able to stay at home, or work part-time, because their partner's income is more than sufficient. These people are able and willing to give their time to the library project, and their level of skills, education and social skills mean that they can quickly grasp what is required of them and complete their tasks ably. The first community has people who have to work in several jobs to make ends meet. They are carers, casual labourers, shop staff. They do not know from one week to the next what their shifts and working hours will be, making it very difficult to commit with any certainty to being at the library at specific times. When they are able to make it, the job itself may feel very new and intimidating without extensive training.

And so it goes on. The communities do not start from an equal place, and in the "go and do it" world of Big Society those already most resilient and well equipped are most likely to succeed. That is where infrastructure services (like Exeter CVS) come in. In our community development capacity we can work with communities and fledgling projects to help them, support them, train them. The government might point towards investment such as the £400k Exeter CVS recently won from the Transforming Local Infrastructure Fund as an example of their adding capacity to the sector. But there's a catch. This money is designed to streamline services and maximise efficiency. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but the ultimate aim is for infrastructure "to be less reliant on state funding." Put another way, to be in a position to charge for our services. So our communities would pay us as a professional service. 


The problem is, as we have seen, that communities like "community 1" in the example above does not start with any money. Later this year, the government is proposing a fund that would see communities bidding for grants in order to buy in infrastructure services. This may seem fair enough at first glance (if a somewhat convoluted way of funding!) , but we are back to the issue that without support to start with, some communities will be in a better position to bid than others....

As someone said to me recently, "The Big Society is turning into the Everyone-for-Themselves Society where the strongest communities grow stronger still, and the poorest areas decline still further."

The Big Society Problem... Part One

I love my job. I work for Exeter Council for Voluntary Service as their Business & Services Development Manager. In a nutshell, it is our job to work with voluntary & community groups to help them to establish themselves, to work effectively, and to develop and flourish. We deliver consultancy, business planning advice, training, guidance on governance, and help with recruiting and managing volunteers. My job - if you like - is to get people involved and active in their communities, to promote social action.

On March 15th we will be hosting a showcase event at Exeter University's Innovation Centre  where people can come and be trained in social action, and be inspired by stories of local people who have got involved and made a difference in communities. Not just communities in Exeter - our "active citizens" have developed links to Ethiopia, Kenya, Croatia, Slovenia, Romania and more. So I tweeted a plug for our event, as we often use social media to promote what is going on at CVS.

A day later I had a reply from a local Tory activist who, flatteringly perhaps, follows me rather closely. "Social Action - the heart of the modern Conservative party" he said, "...glad we finally agree on something." I couldn't let that go. I live and breathe the community sector, I care passionately about it - I have worked almost all my career with community groups, and I know how the sector is faring under this government. Things are bad, and getting worse. 

So this post is for anyone else who ever believed that the "Big Society" vision was anything other than window-dressing as part of the Tory attempt to "decontaminate the brand". After Margaret Thatcher had so famously declared in the 1980s that "there is no such thing as society", the Tories were desperate to show that they could "talk community" as well as the next party. 

First off, no one within the Conservative party itself seems to quite know or understand what the "Big Society" is supposed to be, and they certainly do not seem very committed to it. For a "flagship policy", or "the heart of the modern Conservative party" as my local Tory follower would have it, it doesn't appear to have much "buy-in". The ministerial committee that was responsible for promoting the Big Society agenda and ensuring it was embedded within all levels of government hasn't met since March 2011. Almost a year.

The very concept of volunteering it is simply not understood by ministers. I attend the All Party Parliamentary Group for Volunteering at the House of Commons most months, and while there had an opportunity to have a discussion with a prominent West Country Conservative MP who mentioned the Big Society. "Interesting," I said, "tell me, how exactly would you sum up the Big Society project?"

"Well," he said, "...you know... it's people like you. Doing what you do. Your lot doing the good work you do instead of the government doing it."

"I see." I said, "And how will that be paid for?"

"Ah, well that's the point," he said, looking very pleased with himself, "it's free, isn't it?"

No. No It isn't. Volunteering and social action costs money to support. The community sector contributes a huge amount to our society and our communities, but it is not free. Volunteers need advice and guidance to find the opportunities that best suit their passions, their experience, their skills. The organisations that host volunteers need support to recruit them, to ensure they comply with the law. If the volunteer also receives benefits then they need advice on how to be active without jeopardising their benefit entitlement. Volunteers need training and developing. They need management, and management costs. 

In times of hardship the sector needs more investment, not less - not least because more people want to use our services when times are hard. Voluntary sector organisations can offer more "bang for your buck" than a profit-making company because - by definition - some of its outputs will be achieved through volunteering. Eric Pickles - the Local Government minister - made a plea to Local Authorities not to simply achieve their required cuts targets by cutting the local voluntary sector unreasonably. 

Nick Hurd

Unfortunately, Tory-led Nottinghamshire County Council made sweeping cuts to their charities. The Chief Executive of the National Association for Voluntary & Community Action (NACVA) called on the government to intervene - after all, Nottinghamshire had flagrantly gone against the advice of the minister. Nick Hurd, the Minister for Civil Society (in theory responsible for the voluntary sector) was asked whether the government would step in. No, he said - that was not the government's role. "Councils answer to their people, not the government." So it seems that perhaps the "guidance" from Pickles had no teeth when dealing with councils led by his own party.

Except, the following day, Pickles said he would intervene after all (if you call a stern letter "intervening"), so it would appear that one part of government is not at all clear or talking to other parts about what its stance on the relationship between national government, local government and the voluntary sector actually is.

If "social action is at the heart of the modern Conservative party", it might want to get that heart looked at...!

Eric Pickles. And a thumb. (The thumb is on the right.)

Next post we will look at how charities and community groups are faring under the coalition

Pinhoe Newsletter

PIN Winter 2012v2

Let's talk...

Eastern Fields: Consultations are taking
place on the 20th & 22nd February

As any Relate counsellor will tell you, the first rule of avoiding conflict (and resolving conflict for that matter) is good communication. Politics is not that much different - so often we have to find tricky balances. People rarely get ALL of what they want from political processes, and if I were you I would be deeply distrustful of any politician that can promise you everything. However, by listening, understanding the views of others, and calmly and clearly stating our own views and needs we can usually arrive at compromise where everyone gets at least most of what they want. Politics, as they say, is the "art of the possible", not the "art of the perfect."


When I was first elected as a councillor, I went to see a constituent's daughter (we'll call her Lisa) who did not actually live in my ward, but was in private rented accommodation in the neighbouring ward. Her mother was concerned that the flat her daughter was living in was sub-standard, and she wondered if I could help speed up her daughter's application for housing through the council. Lisa's partner had moved out a year before to move back in with his parents. He had a recent history of mental ill-health, and had needed spells of in-patient care on-and-off. He was clearly struggling to cope, and they agreed the best thing was for him to stay at his parents' home where he could be better supported, and their children would not have to see their father "at his worst." They remained in touch, and were able to be friends.

Lisa lived with their two children in a two-bedroomed flat that was cold and damp. I went to see them in mid-January, and Lisa showed me a broken window pane that she had covered with cardboard and masking tape to try to keep the draught out, and I pointed out that window repair was her landlord's responsibility. "I tried that," she said, "but he's in Spain for the winter. He won't be back until March." 


Lisa could of course have complained, but didn't want to for fear that the landlord would then want her out when he returned to the UK for "making trouble." One part of me wanted landlords like that challenged, yet I also knew the dilemma: we had thousands waiting for housing, and - however substandard - these were precious housing units. Then of course there was the cost. Lisa as a private rental client was paying almost 50% more a month in rent than I was paying for my mortgage on a 3-bedroom house. Housing benefit paid a lot of that, but nonetheless she had to pay a chunk of her wages and benefits (she worked part-time at a shop and a bingo hall) in topping up the rent.


I made enquiries on her behalf at our housing office, and while the officers understood and sympathised with her plight, she was simply too far down the list of "priority cases" to be housed any time soon. The council was busy at the higher end of the list of needs, urgently housing street-homeless pregnant mothers, the vulnerable elderly, and people with learning difficulties whose residential homes had been closed. It can hardly be called a stroke of luck, but some weeks later Lisa's youngest child was hospitalised following a particularly acute asthma attack. Later, we spoke to her doctor who put in writing that the cold, damp conditions Lisa and her children were living in would severely increase her child's risk of serious respiratory illness. As a result, Lisa moved higher up the priority list, and was re-housed some weeks later. It had taken a hospital stay for a sick child to achieve it.


Landlords can get away with treating tenants badly, tenants are reluctant to complain, rents are high (meaning benefit payments are high), house prices are beyond the reach of most local young people, and all but the most vulnerable have long waits for housing for the exact same reason: there are simply not enough houses in the south west to meet the demand. There are two possible solutions. Either those that require houses leave their families, friends and employment to live in areas where there IS available housing (mostly in the north) or we build more houses. 


More houses of course means more people living in an area. That means more traffic on the roads - unless we develop more roads too, or better still increase public transport capacity. It means we also need added capacity in community services too - more school places, more health centres, more parks and recreation grounds, more day nursery spaces, more community centres. Development means, well, more development. 


Fortunately, as I call on the people of Pinhoe whether on the doorsteps or on the telephone, I am relieved at how reasonable people are about the on-going need for developing more homes in the city. Despite the poor economy nationally, Exeter is thriving as a city. A thriving city attracts more people - people who are keen to study here, find work here or simply enjoy the quality of life here. (Articles like this one in the Independent will show how Exeter is seen elsewhere in the country!) However, people are understandably concerned that all this development may impact the very quality of life that is enjoyed here. The fear is that green spaces will be swallowed up, roads will be choked with congestion, housing will be cramped and dense, and views blocked and spoiled. 

Exeter has over 8000 people waiting for housing

So, back to the art of the possible. Exeter has over 8000 people waiting for homes. We need houses. Lots of houses. Preferably affordable ones. The government has scrapped the capital grant subsidy that paid councils to develop affordable and social housing, and have instead introduced the "affordable rent product" and the New Homes Bonus, both of which reward councils for building homes. In short, working with developers to facilitate the building of private homes is the only way for authorities to obtain funding to build social and affordable homes. A balance needs to be struck between the needs of those who need housing, and those of us that are already settled in an area.


Exeter has a Green City agenda. We are committed to opening up green spaces - not tarmacking over them unnecessarily. We want more sustainable transport, and less emissions in the city. Whatever the scare-mongers may say, more homes does not have to mean a poorer quality of life. 


That is why I shall be at the County Council consultations regarding the developments in Pinhoe  that are taking place this month. The events will be part exhibition (to explain the developments and their impact on the Link Road, Chancel Lane and Summerway Bridge,) and partly an opportunity for councillors and engineers to hear from you. 


The events are taking place at Pinhoe School on Monday 20th February from 3pm - 9pm, and then on Wednesday 22nd February at St James School from 3pm to 9pm. 


Please come and hear the facts, look at the proposal options (there are four, I gather) and put forward your views and ideas. This is a two-way process - communication - that I believe can lead to the right compromise and the right balance for everybody.


Two final notes - if you notice the Conservatives trying to making political capital (as they surely will) out of any unease about the Labour-led City Council's development of the much-needed housing for local people within the city, just ask them how vigorously they are opposing their Tory East Devon colleagues' developments of housing right on the eastern fringe of Exeter. People living in those developments will draw on Exeter's services, will no doubt add to Exeter's traffic etc, but will paying their council tax into the coffers of the Tory-run East Devon District Council. The only response I have received so far is that "we can't influence EDDC, they are a different authority" - despite being the same party! 


And next time you read about benefits being so high that a benefit cap is urgently needed, consider what a cap on private rents would save the country...