POWER2010 is a unique campaign to give everyone the chance to have a say in how our democracy works for us.

What is different about POWER2010 is that you’re in the driving seat. We’re not asking you to back our goals. We’re asking you to help create them.

At the next election we will work to ensure every candidate commits to the reforms you most want to see as part of a nation-wide campaign to reinvigorate our democracy from the bottom up.

Why now?

We were all outraged over MPs’ expenses. But this scandal was only a symptom of a much bigger problem. Simply cleaning up the expenses system and sacrificing a few token offenders is not enough to fix our broken politics.

The serious challenges we face today, from climate change and financial breakdown, to attacks on our civil liberties, can only be tackled with a healthy democracy that works for all of us and not just a powerful few.

But it is already too late for this set of MPs. They lack the time and the will to make the kind of changes that are needed.

With only months until the next election we must now focus all our efforts on ensuring that the next Parliament is a reforming one. POWER2010 is designed to do just that.

POWER2010 has its roots in the Power Inquiry, which was established by the Rowntree Trusts in 2005 and undertook the biggest ever inquiry into the health of Britain’s democracy.

What are we doing?

Our plan is simple. We want to identify the five key reforms that will change the way we do politics in this country – and we want you to tell us what these should be.

Together we will ensure every candidate standing for election backs these reforms so that the next Parliament delivers the change we need.

Tell us your ideas

This phase of the campaign (which ran from September 15th to November 30th 2009) was all about you telling us your ideas – the democratic and political reforms you most want from the next Parliament.

In just a short space of time it generated a fantastic response with over 4,000 ideas submitted by people of all political persuasions from across the UK- you can take a look and comment on some of the best of them here.

These ideas have been organised by academics from Southampton University and will be now be fed into a Deliberative Poll to draw up a shortlist which will be put to the public vote.

Deliberative Poll

On the weekend of 9 –10th January 2010, a scientific sample of up to 200 citizens, representative of the population as a whole, will gather in London for a two-day deliberative event. These 200 citizens will distil the many ideas we have received into a manageable shortlist of proposals which will be put to the public vote.

The public vote

The public vote begins January 18th and lasts five weeks until 22nd February. During this time we will be working with individuals and organisations across the country to meet up, discuss, and vote, ensuring as many people as possible participate and tell us the reforms they most want to see.

The five most popular ideas following the vote will become the POWER2010 Pledge and the focus for our nation-wide campaign at the next election.

Election campaign

The aim is for as many people as possible to sign the Pledge and then take it to the candidates in their constituency, by writing to them, calling them, and attending local hustings, public meetings and MPs’ surgeries.

Together we will ask every candidate standing at the next election to make a public commitment – a pledge – to clean up and reform our politics.

In this way we will ensure that the next Parliament is a reforming one and delivers the changes our broken democracy so desperately needs.

What can you do?

POWER2010 is a campaign led from the bottom up – it’s thanks to your support and your participation that it will succeed.

There are many different ways to get involved in the campaign and you can check them out here.

If you support POWER2010’s call for a new politics then a great place to start is by signing our Declaration saying that the democratic system is broken and change must come from the people.

Who are we?

POWER2010 is funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust and supported by a wide range of individuals and organisations.

Click here for more information about the POWER2010 team.

We can be contacted at:

POWER2010
Southbank House
Black Prince Road
London SE1 7SJ

Email: office@power2010.org.uk

Tel: 020 7806 6239

Author: Bob Holman

The recession has hit some sections of society harder than others.

While the affluent have generally retained their salaries and homes, those on lower incomes have been more vulnerable to losing both jobs and houses. This growing gulf between the affluent and the poor is harming our society – and it’s not only the poor who are suffering.

A Joseph Rowntree Foundation report published last June demonstrated widespread unease about the effects of greed, consumerism and individualism on our lives. Based on extensive research among 3,500 individuals, it showed most people believed that the improvements that have occurred during their lifetimes were increasingly outweighed by personal greed, lack of community involvement and excessive materialism so severe as to be termed social evils. It also revealed deep feelings of frustration and individual powerlessness to alter the direction of the trends currently shaping society.

Public reaction to the MPs’ expenses scandal was similar. Many constituents expressed anger, disgust, and also a fear that MPs’ values were damaging our country. They too felt powerless in the sense that they doubted if any of the major political parties would take effective action against senior MPs who had played the system for their own financial ends.

Another illuminating publication of 2009 was The Spirit Level. Subtitled Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, the book, by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, showed that inequality is bad for everyone – the well-off as well as the poor. Almost every social and environmental problem – from obesity and mental ill-health to violence and long working hours – is more prevalent within countries such as the UK and US, which have a large wealth gap, than in nations like Sweden and Norway, where the gap is much narrower. Politicians do nothing to tackle inequality. Gordon Brown’s government has given titles to many wealthy financiers for services to banking, yet not one honour has been presented for services to equality.

The result of all this is to make Britain an unhappy and unjust country about which many feel they can take no action. My response, however, is that we are not powerless and that, as individuals, we can still make choices which rebuff these trends. We can be socially pro-active by the nature of our individual lifestyles, as was admirably demonstrated by two very different individuals, both of whom died last year.

The first was the sociologist Peter Townsend, whose essay, You Cannot Live Like A Lord And Preach As A Socialist, I discovered as a young student in 1958, and who would later become my teacher and friend. Townsend was brought up the hard way by a lone mother who tried, unsuccessfully, to make a career on the stage. A lecturer at the London School of Economics, he was horrified at the extent of poverty and inequality. He turned to socialism but soon realised that political words had to be matched by living actions.

Once made a professor, he declared that professors were over-paid. He was one of the founders of the Child Poverty Action Group and gave much of his salary to support it. His whole life was devoted to organising and financing agencies which spoke for the most deprived. Peter never ingratiated himself with the political and social elites who could have promoted his career. He always maintained links and friendships with those who faced social and physical disadvantages. In addition, he refused the chance of a peerage, for he considered it to be inconsistent with social equality.

The second was John Kerr, who was a Glasgow street fighter until a local policeman drew him into a boxing club which made him a champion and kept him out of trouble. Married with a family, he got into debt with the “provys” (doorstep lenders). He then met a Christian community activist who ran a credit union which charged low interest rates on loans. John joined, got out of debt and saved. Moving to Cranhill, he founded a credit union which still thrives and which has ploughed over £15 million back into the community. John’s gift was for recruiting residents to run local activities. He could do so because he stayed in Cranhill and refused to move out to a well-paid job in a posh area. His life influenced hundreds of people.

As for me, in the 1970s, I left a professorship at Bath University to run a community project on a council estate. I did so because, as a Christian, I felt the example of Christ was to be close to those in poverty. As a social worker, I wanted to be in practice. After 10 years, the project was completely in local hands. With my Scottish wife, Annette, I moved to a flat in Glasgow’s Easterhouse.

I do not know what effect I have had on the community. There were occasions when I was terrified by threats of violence from drug users. I could have wept at the extreme poverty, the debts to loan sharks, and the impossibility of finding jobs. Yet I never wanted to leave and regard the Easterhouse years as the best of my life. I benefited enormously from the fellowship with local people as we strove to improve the neighbourhood. I found more loyal friendships, more altruism and more love among them than I ever did with wealthy establishment figures in my academic years. I never earned more than the average salary but Annette and I, and our children, have been content. Life is more than a large income.
It is within the power of many to change their lifestyles. But I am not calling for a mass movement to deprived areas. My wife and I, on retirement, moved to a small house on the other side of Glasgow to mind our grandsons. But we still try to live according to certain values and guidelines. I am calling for modest living.

Few people need more more than £40,000 a year for a comfortable life. My suggestion is not that high earners give up their important jobs. Rather it is that they distribute any surplus over £40,000 to those in need or to agencies serving the needy. We can reduce spending on cars, plasma TVs, the latest audio systems, expensive mobiles, electronic gadgets, holidays abroad, pricey restaurants, too many clothes and so on. This does not entail living like a monk or a nun. Rather it means not spending excessively, giving less attention to the quantity of our material possessions and more to the quality of our personal relationships.

We can also spend our money on consumer and financial institutions which do not just stimulate greed, consumerism and materialism. For instance, the Co-op Bank centres on ethical policies with customers voting on the ethical issues they want promoted. The Co-op Bank (unlike the high street banks) did not make the kind of high-risk loans which stimulated the recession. It does not pay to bankers the kind of high bonuses which reinforce inequality. It is gaining customers because it can be trusted. Recently, Which? awarded its prestigious award for Best Financial Services Provider to the Co-op Bank.
We can buy our goods from Co-op shops, not the large supermarkets which channel huge profits into the hands of directors and shareholders. I shop every day with the Co-op, where I know the staff. I get my insurance and prescriptions from them and I will be buried by them – with my wife getting the divi. For the Co-op does not have shareholders to pay and instead money goes back as dividends to thousands of shoppers.

Mutual building societies, not-for-profit agencies and credit unions exist for the good of users, not just directors. Small, independent shops are also an integral part of communities.

Particularly important is how and where we reside. Instead of seeking the largest possible home in a fashionable area, why not a smaller, cheaper one in a less upmarket location? Yes, a modest lifestyle may mean financial sacrifices. A smaller house in such an area won’t increase in value as quickly as one elsewhere. But modest living is a statement against financial greed and materialism, because it doesn’t reinforce these evils. It challenges the dominance of inequality, since it means accepting less so that others can have more. Those prepared to live in cheaper areas will counter the domiciliary fragmentation of our society, helping to make Britain a less divisive, more united country.

Finally, modest-living people who opt for cheaper communities will find opportunities for a practical contribution to improve the locality. This is not meant to imply going in as a missionary with all the answers. More humility is required. A young couple, both with professional qualifications, chose to reside in an unfashionable neighbourhood. Years later, they do not regard themselves as leaders. Their children go to the local school. They are liked and respected as good neighbours. With others, they volunteer to run a summer camp.
Living there makes a difference to community life.

As an egalitarian, I believe that more equal societies are more just, more fair, more content. But there are those who don’t want greater equality. How can those on high and comfortable incomes be persuaded to take less, to move into the kind of neighbourhoods which they consider socially inferior, to place importance on improving life for all children, not just their own? There are strong moral arguments to be considered. First, as Wilkinson and Pickett make clear, more equal societies are more contented and suffer fewer social problems than unequal ones. In short, by living more modestly we can improve life for all.
Second, the wellbeing of people in poorer countries depends on our actions. Indeed the very future of the planet may do so. The world is running short of vital resources such as food, water, fuel, power and raw materials. Already millions face dire poverty. One outcome could be war over resources. It makes moral as well as economic sense for the affluent to adopt lifestyles that both favour greater equality and also consume less. We may have to share in order to survive.

The goal of achieving a better and fairer society demands a moral response, the response of modest living. We do have the power to live in this way. If enough people do so, it becomes collective action – and that can change society.

Bob Holman is a retired professor of social policy and a retired community worker. His new book on Keir Hardie will be published in March

Author: Laurence Demarco

1. Introduction
“Democracy can only be based on tiers of autonomy- on people trusting people who trust other people- a hierarchy of trusts.  Westminster, Holyrood, Local Authority, the Community, the Citizen.  Some say more power should accrue to the Holyrood tier- (the citizens of Scotland are still deliberating)- but the most serious democratic deficit in our country is at the level of our communities.  For 50 years the Labour Party ruled Scotland like a one party state- with a centralism openly hostile to the devolution of power to communities.  It is important to realise that the Wester Hailes story happened in the context of determined Labour municipalism.” 
 
I was pleased to respond to the invitation to write about my time working in Wester Hailes (1976-1990) because it forced me to think about a period which had a major influence on my life.  What follows is not an attempted critique – but selective and subjective memories.  The passage above is the nearest I come to any theoretical perspective. 

Revisiting my text I am struck by the number of things which I have failed to express.  I have chosen not to mention anyone’s name for fear of missing out people- but this has the effect of exaggerating my own role.  I have failed to communicate emotion- yet many of us felt passionate about these events- standing with the powerless against what we perceived as arrogant bureaucracy.  I have failed to celebrate adequately the considerable achievements – how against determined opposition, local people created mechanisms which exercised real power.  And I have failed to express my appreciation for those years.  Whatever the effect may have been on the community, I know it was a profoundly empowering experience for me personally. 

2. Employed

I was born in 1940 and left school aged 15 to work in the family fish and chip shop in Edinburgh.  Apart from 2 years in a seminary, I stayed in business till I was 30- setting up several small enterprises- with mixed success.  In 1973 I graduated from Moray House with a Diploma in Community Work and during 1974 and 1975 I led the development of Panmure House, a day centre for youngsters experiencing difficulties at home or in school.  Panmure still operates.

In 1976 I was appointed by Lothian Regional Council as their lead community worker in Wester Hailes, a large new social housing estate still being completed.  As Area Co-ordinator my job was to act as a bridge between local government and the community.  My appointment had to be ratified by community activists in Wester Hailes, so I was interviewed again by 5 local women in a flat in Murrayburn.  I remember being asked “Whose side are you on?”- I had never been asked this question so directly before.  I tried to explain that things were more complex than that – but my explanation sounded like excuses – so I said “If it came to a choice between the Council and the community- I’d side with the community.”  I got the job.  That incident stayed with me.
 
I was employed by the Council but had no desire for a career in local government so felt no pressure on that score.  My pattern was to work at things flat out for 2 years- and then move on.  The reason that I stayed in Wester Hailes for 14 years is that I really enjoyed it.  The bond I formed with people during those years- residents and colleagues, made it one of the most rewarding periods of my life. 

3. First Three Basics

In October 1976 when I set up office in a flat at 16/4 Murrayburn Place, there were two local local authorities- the Region and the District.  These two Councils, and all the other statutory bodies, used between them around 30 different boundaries and names for Wester Hailes- the first task was to define the area as an actual place where people belonged.  I persuaded an artist friend to draw a map of Wester Hailes, in cartoon form, identifying every single dwelling.  This was very well received- universally adopted- amended over the years. 
Ghandi once said that one cannot unite a community without a newspaper or journal of some sort.  A local man had produced several editions of a newsletter called the Sentinel.  I helped develop this into a monthly free sheet distributed around the doors (circa 7,000).  The printed word has a surprising impact- particularly on public officials.  Over the years the Sentinel proved one of the key elements in the empowerment of the community.

In 1976, community action in Wester Hailes was already 6 years old and several neighbourhoods had formed representative groups.  The time was right for the emergence of an overall Wester Hailes coordinating body which people trusted enough to lend their authority.  I spent a lot of time in people’s houses talking and talking- trying to build concensus.  Local activists were determined that their representative body should be as independent as possible from outside influences- like the remoteness of local government officialdom- or the partisan interests of professional politicians.  The achievement of a unified independent voice was the Wester Hailes community’s most telling achievement.  This voice found its fullest expression in what eventually became the Wester Hailes Representative Council.    

4. The Venchie

The politicans and officials responsible for Wester Hailes, failed to make provision for even the most basic social facilities where folk could meet and congregate.  This lack proved a major barrier to the emergence of a community spirit.  Through job creation schemes, local people learned the skills to move and rebuild transportable units from schools around the region- and this proved a breakthrough.  The physical hub of our activities became a central vacant site in Hailesland Place (earmarked for a future old folk’s home) which we gradually commandeered.  Bit by bit it evolved as a shanty town of ramshackle buildings around a very popular adventure playground called the Venchie. 

Without fuss or bureaucracy, buildings went up- were extended- a fluid system, adaptable like lego.  If we’d waited for all the official permissions and documents it would never have happened; we depended on pockets of goodwill from free spirited individuals in Council departments- Planning, Building Control etc.  Bold and delinquent , these physical structures came to symbolise the enterprise and determination of the community to take control of its own future.  A sense of adventure – defiance “we’ll show them.”  Collectively, the encampment was known as the Community Workshop and at one stage around 40 local organisations were housed there. 

‘The Workshop’ became the gathering point for hundreds of local people – where a core culture of ‘community’ caught alight.  Sitting chatting in the Café Venchie, person by person, folk were invited to join in.  Whether volunteers or workers, most of us were looking for something to believe in – to belong to- to give our lives more meaning.  Every few weeks a new organisation started up- it didn’t much matter whether it was about child care- or allotments – or ear piercing.  People were on the move.  It is worth recording that the overwhelming majority if our recruits were women – a huge unused creativity in our communities just waiting to be released.

5. Going Local

Once the community workshop and its facilities had reached capacity our vision widened to create a similar hub in each of the estate’s 7 distinct neighbourhoods.  Clovenstone, Hailesland and the Calders already had dedicated community buildings of some kind or another, so we focused our efforts on constructing (and manning) community bases at Westburn, Park & Drive, Murrayburn and Dumdryden. 
There are stories to be told (some hilarious, some sad) about how each of these hubs evolved – important lessons at the very heart of how a shared sense of community forms- or doesn’t.  I think more than anything I learned the importance of leadership- how someone has to respresent (personify) where we’re all trying to go-  generous individuals with their ego well parked.
 
During my time in Wester Hailes I was lucky to have 5 weeks in the USA to look at similar community developments.  One of the main things I learned was that blocks of social housing with 12 thousand residents simply don’t exist over there.  People were incredulous at the scale of Scottish social housing estates.  I returned with the idea of subdividing Wester Hailes into villages- managed to convince local people and the ‘powers that be’ to invest in a pilot.  Over several years the Neighbourhood Strategy offered local residents the opportunity to define ‘their bit’ and form a neighbourhood Council. At one stage there were 30 active local groups – but this settled down at around 20.  Annual elections attracted very high turnouts.  Each of the neighbourhood Councils fed into the unifying Wester Hailes representative Councils.  It was a model of representative democracy which Professor Alan McGregor called the most impressive in the UK.   
 
6. Treasure Island

As more and more volunteers got involved the range of activities widened, eventually there was hardly any department of the statutory agencies which wasn’t working with local people on something or other.  Elected Councillors referred to Wester Hailes ironically as ‘Treasure Island.’ We were trying to put in place networks of local services truly responsive to people’s needs whatever their circumstances. 

One of my favourite examples was the Wester Hailes Management Agency which offered a large number of jobs/ training places via the Community Programme.  Managed by local people, the Agency has a deliberate policy of offering places to youngsters from families with most problems.  Through this activity, and that of the extensive Youth Programme, local adults were in touch with all the youngsters on the streets.  Street gangs never took hold in Wester Hailes.  Young people going up to court were accompanied- ‘Patient’ loans made available for fines.  The message was “you’re part of this community and we all look after each other.”

After giving a talk recently I was approached by a woman in her 30s who remembered me from Wester Hailes.  I recognised her name as one of the ‘tougher’ families- she recounted her chaotic history; kicked out of the house at 16- drugs- rough sleeping etc.  In prison she thought about skipping school aged 14- hanging around the Venchie- the Café- sharing a fag and a cup of tea with various workers.  She realised that the folk at the Venchie and the Café and the school all spoke to each other.  She understood that there was a connected supportive network watching over her.  She understood community.  She told me that she had gone on to college and was now a practising youth worker.  And so it goes on.
 
I didn’t know the term ‘social capital’ in those days but now I find it a valuable way to understand and to express what we were trying to do – to build. 

7. Doing the Business

The present attention paid by Government to Social Enterprise might suggest that it’s a new thing- but the idea of trading for social purposes has been going on in Scottish communities for as long as I can remember.  Certainly from the outset the Wester Hailes community showed a considerable appetite for developing property- for commercial as well as social uses.  Thousands of sq ft of shops and workshops were built in community ownership – some to be operated directly- most to be leased to house services missing in the estate- like solicitors, vet, tradesmen etc.   In all the TV Soaps, the heart of the community is invariably the local pub- and Wester Hailes was much diminished by the lack of such.  The social and commercial success of the community operated social club was an important symbol of the growing confidence. 

The property development operation was fairly sophisticated; an inventory was made of all vacant land with its potential for commercial development; an inhouse design unit was created with architects, planners etc; the inhouse building company, though restricted by being a training programme- nevertheless achieved impressive capacity.

The vision was of a community owning land – developing and managing property – creating trading enterprises to fill gaps in local service provision – and through these activities achieving a level of self-reliance. The main problem was that those responsible for running Edinburgh –elected members and public servants alike – were united in their opposition to this model.

Reflecting on this period I have two thoughts.  In Scotland’s housing estates the local Council typically owns every brick and every blade of grass.  Though not as bad as Edinburgh, most Councils remain to be convinced of the Wester Hailes model of development.  My second thought is that we failed to link commercial development and potential profit to the local democratic structure.  Someone said ‘let democracy be the first philanthropy.’ I would now argue that any independent income a community can achieve should firstly be used to protect its tier of democracy from the uncertainties of external funding.  We failed to connect all the bits together – so that the profit generating activities remain unattached to local democracy. 

8. The Gyle and the Sack

I lost my job as the Lothian Region’s man in Wester Hailes through opposing the development of the West Edinburgh Shopping Centre, now known as The Gyle.  The residents of Wester Hailes felt, quite rightly that the The Gyle development would be a death blow to the already weakened Wester Hailes Centre.  The Rep Council gave very strong evidence to this effect to the 1985 public enquiry – spelling out the potential damage to the local economy and morale.  This evidence is a matter of public record.  In the event the impact on Wester Hailes, of West Edinburgh retail development, is worse than the bleakest 1985 predictions.  The Reporter imposed conditions on the Council (as developer of the Gyle) to protect Wester Hailes from anticipated impact.  Some of these conditions have been disregarded and it would be interesting to raise an action against the Council as developer. 
But it wasn’t my involvement in presenting evidence to the planning enquiry which angered my employer- it was our proposal to situate the new shopping centre actually in Wester Hailes.  Although this sounds preposterous now- it was taken very seriously at the time.  In a bold move, the community purchased “a ransom strip” of land from Barretts, who were trying to develop private housing at Westburn.  We assembled a team of architects, surveyors, lawyers, planners- prepared a blueprint to develop the equivalent of The Gyle off the bypass at Westburn and submitted a planning application.  A senior civil servant came to see us- direct from the Secretary of State- to say that if we could find a credible developer- our proposal was a serious option. The Tory government’s pet policy at that time was regeneration through private sector investment and the Scottish Office led Wester Hailes Partnership was getting ready to roll.

I got a letter from my boss telling me to disassociate from this project- or else.  But I had long ago ‘gone native’ and resigned from the Council.  As it turned out we couldn’t confirm a developer in time- our bid failed but all was not in vain.  The Council agreed that if we would withdraw our application they would agree to support the ongoing transfer of land and buildings to the community through the new Land and Property Trust.  Not many people know that story, but it deserves to be recorded because it’s the reason Edinburgh Council were persuaded to support the transfer of assets to community ownership in Wester Hailes. 

9. The Partnership

When my employment with Lothian Regional ended in October ’88, I took up post as the initial CEO of the Land and Property Trust- just carried on as before; I remained in this post until the Spring of 1990 when I left Wester Hailes for pastures new.  This, my final period, coincided with the arrival of the Wester Hailes Partnership, which proved so destructive to much of what had been achieved. I’m not suggesting that I foresaw the dangers of the Partnership- I was as guilty as anyone of being seduced by the prospect of serious investment; but it soon became clear that a new script was being written- and I wasn’t in it.  I believe we owe it to what came before, to place on the record some of the real consequences of the Partnership.

For 10 years- from 1988 to 1998- Wester Hailes was one of the 4 areas chosen by the Scottish Office for its New Life for Urban Scotland Programme.  Wester Hailes was chosen because of the effective community infrastructure outlined above- a decade of pains- taking community development bearing fruit.  Over 10 years the Partnership invested £120 million in the area- and when the funding ended, the community’s independent structures were fatally damaged- have now virtually disappeared.  The local people gave their trust to a process which neither supported nor even understood community empowerment.
 
It could have been so different. What if some of the millions had been used to endow a Development Trust? – a permanent, locally owned regeneration engine: to develop property- train and employ local people- set up trading businesses to fill market gaps- dozens of community enterprises with local directors and employees- a culture of entrepreneurship and independence.  The partnership could have left a permanent legacy.  New life for Wester Hailes – instead it extinguished what life was already there. 

10. Reflections

Looking back at what was built through community action in Wester Hailes – and its subsequent unravelling- it is clear that we were doing something wrong.  If those achievements, and the values underpinning them, had truly been owned by local people- they would not so easily have disappeared.   It must be that along the way we allowed the excitement of our projects to distract us from our true task- the process of empowerment.  For a community worker like me this was a serious error of judgement which I regret.  I would do it differently next time. 

Apart from that, I believe our basic model was right.  A healthy body politic needs a tier of decision making below that of local government.  An effective community needs its own autonomous representative and operational mechanisms- to take control of its future.  Much of the Wester Hailes story remains an example of how this can be achieved. 

Over ten years community leaders built and operated a local infrastructure which engaged with thousands of residents.  The vision was of independent local democracy- supported by trading activity- developing a caring community, with first rate services.  This momentum was ambushed and destroyed by the arrival of the Partnership – an alternative vision of development led by public and private sector activity- with £100m to spend.
 
Before the arrival of the Partnership, the community was in the lead.  Gradually public sector officials and consultants took over.  When the Partnership left, Edinburgh Council (surely the most centralist in Scotland) continued the dismantling; the distinct identity of Wester Hailes- so carefully differentiated, was systematically unpicked.  The boundaries, the newspaper, the structures, the funding- merged with West Edinburgh- back into the indifference and anonymity of municipal bureaucracy.
 
Even now in Wester Hailes there are two locally owned institutions which have the potential capacity to revive local democracy.  Both Prospect Housing Association and  the Land and Property Trust (LPT) are financially independent of local government- although the independence of their governance is less clear.
 
Some commentators say that the UK is now moving into a decade of financial stringency- and that the present level of services can only be maintained with much more direct involvement from citizens and communities.  It may be that the Wester Hailes model will emerge out of necessity – and that some of the lessons outlined in this book will be helpful for those designing the future.

Urban regeneration has seen entire districts pass into the hands of private companies – and their security guards.

The Guardian reporter Paul Lewis, who fell foul of anti-terror legislation last week, is the latest in a long line of alleged miscreants stopped and questioned after straying on to private land. Lewis was stopped and searched by police under section 44 of the Terrorism Act for taking photographs of the Gherkin, one of London’s landmark buildings.

This monitoring and surveillance of innocent activities, which does not necessarily require anti-terror laws, is taking place all around Britain as a result of the growing private ownership and private control of cities. Liverpool One, which spans 34 streets in the heart of Liverpool, is effectively owned by the Duke of Westminster’s property company, Grosvenor, which leased the entire site, including streets and public places, from the council for 250 years. Cabot Circus in Bristol, Highcross in Leicester and what promises to be the biggest of all, Stratford City in London, are all owned and run by property companies.

These areas follow the model pioneered by Canary Wharf and the Broadgate Centre in London in the 1980s. Then, these districts were exceptional places, created to meet the needs of business. Now this is the template for all new development, large or small. With its 170 acres, Stratford City – one of the main sites for the 2012 Olympics – will be a private city within a city.

In their defence, politicians and developers point out that people like these places and flock to shop in them. But they also raise a challenge to the kind of public life, culture and democracy that has been taken for granted in British cities for the last 150 years. A host of seemingly innocuous activities – skateboarding, rollerblading, even eating in some places – are routinely banned, along with filming and, of course, taking photographs. So is begging, homelessness, selling the Big Issue, handing out political leaflets, and holding political demonstrations. It’s a very different and far less democratic idea of the city and citizenship. In place of the diversity of high streets we are creating sterile, high-security enclaves, policed by private security and CCTV. And rather than making us feel safer, the emphasis on security is a reminder of ever-present danger, fuelling fear of crime.

The last decade has seen more construction in Britain than at any time since the 1960s. The industrial era, with its tower blocks and arterial roads, put its particular stamp on the country’s cities, while the remarkable opportunities of the post-industrial period have seen riverfronts, docksides and former factory buildings offer themselves up for change. But just as the centralised planning of the modernist period had disturbing consequences, the regeneration of the noughties, bringing with it the private control of streets and public places, is no less concerning.

Yet few people are aware of the changes literally underfoot. The assumption is that because the streets have always been public, they will continue to be so. In fact, during the early 19th century, before the advent of local government and local democracy, cities like London were owned by a small group of private landlords, mainly dukes and earls. Their old estates include some of the finest Georgian and early Victorian squares, but what we don’t see today are the private security forces that were employed by the estates to keep out those who did not belong there – and the many gates, bars and posts.

After growing public outrage, which paralleled the rise in local democracy and was reflected by two parliamentary inquiries, control of the streets passed over to local authorities. Since then it has been common for local authorities to “adopt” the streets and public spaces of the city, which means whether or not they actually own them, they control and run them. Now this is being reversed, as property firms assume control of entire districts. Photographers may be among the first to notice, but they are far from the only ones affected. But as people start to wake up to the consequences of these enclaves, can anything be done to reverse the trend? New thinking, from a perhaps unexpected quarter, may be at hand.

It seems ironic that the headquarters of the Greater London Authority, the seat of democratic government in London, is in More London, another privately owned and controlled enclave. However, last month mayor Boris Johnson published his “manifesto for public space”, in which he explicitly states his opposition to the private control of streets and public spaces. He also points to the development at King’s Cross where, unusually, the local authority is retaining control of the streets. “This has established an important principle that should be negotiated in all similar schemes,” he says.

The mayor has considerable planning powers, and can direct boroughs to refuse permission for new schemes that do not meet these criteria. Given that virtually all new development is quietly allowing the control of streets to pass into private hands, this is a significant policy statement. It is up to us to make sure he acts on it.

Latest rebirth of Raasay House begins following destructive blaze in January

The historic Raasay House is about to be stabilised to allow it to rise from the ashes for a second time.

A blaze left the Grade A-listed mansion house a smoking ruin in January, after it had been taken over by the local community in 2007. It was in the final stages of a £4.5 million upgrade.

It was due to re-open in the spring, providing upgraded facilities for its tenant Raasay Outdoor Centre and as a key community asset.

The project’s funders were Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE), the Big Lottery Fund and Historic Scotland. HIE has been working intensively with Raasay House Community Company (RHCC) since the fire to get the building back on track.

Last week, the contract for works to stabilise the building was let to allow reconstruction to start next year. The cost of the work will be recouped from insurance.

David Westgarth, chairman of RHCC, said: “To see the house literally go up in flames in January was devastating for the whole of the Raasay community. To get the house so nearly fully restored in ­January was an enormous achievement for a small ­community and to see all that work destroyed overnight was a terrible setback.

“However, there was no question of us being deterred from our original intention and, with the help of HIE, we are now in a position to see work beginning on site again.”

The original Raasay House, which was home to the Macleod chiefs of Raasay, was burned to the ground by Hanoverian troops in 1746 after the Battle of Culloden, along with islanders’ homes.

This was retribution for coming out for Bonnie Prince Charlie, who crossed briefly to Raasay while he was on the run. It was rebuilt in time to receive diarist James Boswell and essayist Samuel Johnson during their celebrated Tour of the Hebrides in 1773.

Building the Local Food Movement for Scotland

The past year has seen an explosion of interest in local food, as climate change, poor health, community development, allotments, gardening and organics have collided into a fertile agenda of grassroots change. For the first time different strands of this movement are working together in a conscious way to try to reflect and move forward. These include groups from Skye to Ayrshire from Fife to Fairlie from Moray to Toryglen, as well as Edinburgh, Linlithgow and right across the Borders. They all came together in Dunbar at the end of October for a weekend which was filled with talks, discussion and debate which concluded in what has become known as the …

Declaration of Dunbar

We are working towards a sustainable Scotland in which, in every region we produce more of what we eat and eat more of what we produce.

We believe a more localised food system would be better for the environment, health, community and economy of our country. We are building a movement to create a food system that:
• Is locally based with shorter supply chains.
• Promotes and respects seasonality.
• Is resilient.
• Is fair and accessible to all.
• Creates and maintains a sustainable livelihood for producers.

These steps are essential in order to ensure a fairer more equitable food system appropriate for a low carbon economy.

Dear First Minister

Communities have a key role to play

The ambitious targets contained in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 have propelled Scotland to the fore in terms of how and what countries must do in order to tackle the global challenge of climate change.  And now, with the publication of the Climate Change Adaptation Framework, we have a mechanism to drive forward a programme of actions.

However we are very concerned that the Adaptation Framework appears to seriously underestimate the crucial first step in tackling climate change – namely harnessing the potential of communities to drive the required changes in behaviours and attitudes at a local level and to provide the necessary local traction for national policy implementation.

In particular, this weakness is reflected in the composition of the recently formed 2020 Delivery Group where there is not one voice that could realistically be described as coming from the community sector. The collective memberships of our combined networks currently extend to well over 1,400 different communities across Scotland, many of which are already directly involved in action to reduce carbon emissions. 

We believe that there is enormous potential from within the community sector to increase the scale and scope of this contribution in the future.  However this potential can only be fulfilled if the community sector’s contribution is formally acknowledged and supported by government. Therefore we urge you to give proper consideration, as a first step, to adjusting the membership of the new 2020 Delivery Group so that it reflects the key role that communities have to play in this crucial area of activity.

Yours sincerely

Angus Hardie (Director)
Local People Leading –
the campaign for a strong and independent community sector
On behalf of:
Community Energy Scotland
Community Recycling Network for Scotland
Community Retailing Network
Community Woodlands Association
Community Transport Association Scotland
Development Trusts Association Scotland
EVH- Supporting social employers
Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens
Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations
Holyrood 350
Scottish Allotments And Gardens Society
Scottish League Of Credit Unions
Senscot
Time Banking Scotland
Transition Scotland Support

The 2020 Delivery Group members are:
• Ian Marchant, Chief Executive, Scottish and Southern Energy
• Richard Ackroyd, Chief Executive, Scottish Water
• Lesley Ballantyne, Chief Executive, John Lewis Partnership Glasgow
• Prof Jan Bebbington, Vice Chair, Sustainable Development Commission, Scotland
• Jo Bucci, Chief Executive, People’s Postcode Lottery
• Brendan Dick, Director, BT Scotland (represented on December 8 by Anna Steven)
• Dr Campbell Gemmell, Chief Executive, Scottish Environment Protection Agency
• Gordon Grant, Grangemouth Works General Manager, INEOS
• Ronnie Hinds, Chief Executive, Fife Council
• Nick Horler, Chief Executive, ScottishPower
• Graham Hutcheon, Operations Director, Edrington Group
• Josh Kane, Scottish Youth Parliament (represented on December 8 by Iain Fleming)
• David Lee, freelance writer and media consultant
• John Mason, Director, Climate Change & Water Industry, Scottish Government
• Ian McKay, Scottish Director, Royal Mail Group
• Dr Simon Pepper, climate change adviser
• Lady Susan Rice, Managing Director, Lloyds Banking Group Scotland
• Mike Robinson, Chairperson, Stop Climate Chaos Scotland
• Nicola Shaw, Managing Director, FirstGroup
• Grahame Smith, General Secretary, STUC (unable to attend on December 8)
• Brian Souter, Chief Executive, Stagecoach
• Michael Tracey, Managing Director, William Tracey Ltd
• James Withers, Chief Executive, NFU Scotland
• Jane Wood, Chief Executive, Scottish Business in the Community

The working remit for the 2020 group, to be discussed at today’s meeting, is to:
• build on the work of the Climate Change Business Delivery Group and other climate change alliances to provide strong, visible leadership to Scotland’s business and non-governmental communities to inspire them to do more to reduce carbon emissions
• help drive innovation through partnerships and synergies between members
• advise on, and aim to make early progress towards, achievement of the outcomes and targets of the Climate

Change Delivery Plan
• identify relevant action and opportunities, and collaborate, to bring benefits to the Scottish economy
• identify where the group can best target its resources and expertise to accelerate the development, investment and action required across the following areas: Heat, Electricity, Waste, Transport, Rural land use & forestry, Consumer behaviour & attitudes

Author: Community Transport Association Scotland

Since its inception, the Scotland-wide Free Travel Scheme has been a welcome boon for many of Scotland’s older citizens. It has brought people together, given them greater independence and transformed the opportunities available to them.

The 12 organisations behind the A Fare Deal Campaign have supported the scheme since its inception, and we continue to do so. However, the benefits it has brought are not equally available to all of Scotland’s older and disabled people.

At present, many of the most frail and vulnerable people entitled to free travel cannot use their entitlement because they are unable to access conventional bus services. They may be too frail or disabled, blind or partially sighted to get to a bus, or may live in an area where bus services are sparse or non-existent. Instead, they can use Demand Responsive Community Transport Services, such as Dial-A-Ride or Ring-A-Bus, often at a cost to themselves, to travel around. This serves as a disincentive against ‘nonessential’ trips such as social occasions and adds a financial burden to ‘essential’ trips such as hospital appointments.

Many local authority operated demand responsive community transport schemes are delivered free to people who hold the entitlement card, but a significant number levy a fare. We believe that there should be equity across Scotland so that people who hold an entitlement card under the free travel scheme can access their local authority operated transport schemes for free no matter in which of Scotland’s 32 local authorities they live.

Many local community transport schemes are operated by voluntary organisations who have found themselves vulnerable with their current funding running out in March 2009. These voluntary schemes also often have to charge to keep their schemes running. We believe that the community transport schemes should be a part of the free travel scheme.

To address this inequality, we believe that the Scotland-wide Free Travel Scheme should be extended to cover Demand Responsive Community Transport and we need your and your friends’, families’ and neighbours’ support to help make the case to the Scottish Government.

Why Extend the Scheme?
The Scotland-wide Free Travel Scheme recognises the importance of both ‘essential’ and ‘non-essential’ journeys to the well-being, health, social inclusion and social activities of older and disabled people. Indeed, this forms a large part of the rationale behind the scheme. For example, two of the scheme’s key objectives explicitly state that it is to:

• “Allow older and disabled people (especially those on low incomes) improved access to services, facilities and social networks by ‘free’ scheduled bus services; and so promote social inclusion”
• “To improve health by promoting a more active lifestyle for the elderly and disabled”

As these important objectives apply to all older and disabled people, there can be no justification for excluding those who, for whatever reason, cannot use scheduled bus services.

The Scottish Executive’s “Review of Demand Responsive
Transport (DRT) in Scotland (2006)” highlighted this inequity. In addition, a 2006 Report from the Scottish Parliament Equal Opportunities Committee recommended that “the Scottish Executive make current and future DRT services eligible for concessionary fares in line with the concessionary fares scheme introduced in April 2006”.

In addition to establishing equality for all of Scotland’s older and disabled people, extending the scheme would help towards achieving the Scottish Government’s five Strategic Objectives and other aspects of the National Performance Framework. In particular it would help meet the National Outcomes of:

• “living longer, healthier lives” –
• “tackling the significant inequalities in Scottish society”; and
• “living in well-designed, sustainable places were we are able to access the amenities and services we need”. Community transport enables people who experience social exclusion to sustain and improve their health and gives them better and faster access to health care. Having good, reliable, accessible transport also enables people to live independently for longer, reducing the burden on care in the community and residential care budgets.

How much would this cost?
A survey conducted by the Community Transport Association (CTA) in July 2007 showed that community transport (which does not include all forms of DRT) provided 2.6 million passenger journeys in Scotland the previous year, i.e. 1.3 million return journeys. CTA estimate that these journeys would have been made by around 100,000 passengers. Return fares on community transport services in Scotland average around £4. Given this, the cost of extending the scheme in 2007 would have been £5.2m.

This would be the cost to government if all community transport services, including dial-a-ride, dial-a-bus, and car schemes, were included in the free travel scheme. Even allowing for a degree of variance in future and the additional journeys from people who currently cannot afford to make non-essential trips, the cost of extending the scheme would not therefore be prohibitive to the public purse.

Research carried out by Leonard Cheshire Scotland has shown that 32% of people with disabilities who had a scheduled medical appointment in the last 12 months had missed it due to lack of accessible transport. A missed appointment results in a significant cost to the NHS and a conservative estimate shows that over half a million hospital appointments were missed in Scotland at a cost of £50.7 million. Extending the Free Travel Scheme to include demand responsive community transport could therefore lead to substantial savings to the NHS.

Set against this, as many as 100,000 people who are currently entitled to free bus travel will be able to use their concession to access the services and opportunities they require through demand responsive community transport services. They will benefit socially and financially and there could be significant savings to the public purse.

Civil Society in Scotland Conference. 18th Feb

Outline concept

Aims:
• To bring together different parts of civil society together to explore specific challenges and the role of civil society in tackling/ addressing them
• To connect together what is already happening on the ground to face the multiple crises affecting our society
• To establish where/ whether we have a shared set of core messages to offer to the challenges our society faces within the overarching principles of sustainable development, good governance and sound science.

This conference should be seen as a staging post along the process of developing a shared civil society response to these crises.

Whose event?

• This should be a joint event owned by all those in civil society that seek a shared identity in responding to the current crises. This would involve civil society in its widest form from local community champions/activists all the way to large formal organisations.
• Given civil society’s diversity and to provide an overarching cohesion, the conference is being organised by “institutional” civil society (i.e. large formal organisations or networks), as they can offer the resources or leverage to do so.
• The organisers of the conference comprise a Planning group of institutional partners from across civil society, building on the Civil Society Roundtable hosted by SCVO in June 2009.
• Beyond the planning group, the conference publicity literature would be branded with the logos of as wide a range of civil society networks and organisations as practical, thereby enlisting their support in reaching deep into active civil society.

When: At the first planning meeting, it was agreed to hold the event at the Gathering 2010 (18th February, Edinburgh International Conference Centre), an annual voluntary sector collection of conferences, seminars and exhibitions but which also has attendance from trade unions, co-operatives, and wider civil society. Footfall has included the wider general public – on average 4000 to 5000 people have attended each Gathering event between 2004 and 2007.

Audience: target of roughly 200 participants could include trade unions activists, leading members of co-operatives, church leaders, non-church faith groups, leading academics, representatives of professional associations, social entrepreneurs, voluntary sector movements, journalists, trusts/foundations and community champions.

Speakers – leading experts on these topics, who will hopefully come from different parts of civil society. We would not seek public sector officials or government ministers to address this event.

Chair – A leading respected figure in Scottish civil society, based on his/her contribution to society rather than position.

Suggested approach:

• Advance briefing to delegates
• Introduction/ context setting keynote speech
• Speeches could be on the broad concerns of: Poverty and economic democracy (UK and global), Equalities and Human Rights, Climate Change
• Discussion groups on these topics to follow speeches, looking at where/ whether we have a shared agenda. Carefully selected facilitators invited from a cross-section of civil society
• Facilitators of the discussion groups feedback main points from their discussions
• Plenary discussion on our role as civil society partners in dealing with the challenges identified, and ideas for moving forward on the issues.
• Networking – wine and nibbles.

Current institutional partners
STUC
Church and Society Council
Local People Leading
Carnegie UK
Faith in Community Scotland
Scottish Interfaith Council
Senscot – Social entrepreneurs network
SCVO (playing a secretariat role)
Royal Society of Edinburgh (To be Confirmed)
Co-operation and Mutuality Scotland

Feedback on application process
Big Lottery Fund Scotland
03.12.09

The Big Lottery Fund Scotland office  is currently working hard to develop a range of new funding opportunities, which we will launch next year.

We’ve already heard the message that our stakeholders want us to give clear decisions early in the process so that we can reduce the number of unsuccessful applicants, but we also know that sometimes we haven’t made ourselves clear about what we need to hear from applicants during the application process.

With this in mind, we’d like to hear people’s feedback on the application materials we used last time around, and our application processes in general.  We want to hear peoples thoughts on:
– What were the strengths of the way BIG works compared to other funders?
– What best practice can we copy from elsewhere?
– In terms of our application form, were there any questions which were unclear, or any parts where we could improve our guidance?
– What sort of questions would help us to understand your project better?
– Which questions didn’t help you communicate your project to us?

Respond to the survey here http://www.bigblog.org.uk/