Where 99% is a minority

 

On the brave new dawn a year ago, the inspired new Tories introduced us to a new ugly battle cry - ‘Localism!’

No more top-down dictatorship. Ideas would rise from the grass roots. Local opinion would be supreme. They just tested this in the village of King’s Cliffe near Peterborough. They held a ballot. The turnout was 52% and their local MP reports that ‘nearly 99%’ voted to oppose a nuclear waste dump in their neighbourhood.

To Minister Eric Pickles 99% is a minority. He rejected the poll. The local MP chick-lit author Louise Bagshawe wrote a ‘Dear Eric” letter

   

“I am pleased that this Government announced its commitment to localism – giving power to local people to have a say in what happens in their communities and environment, rather than the previous approach of top-down Whitehall diktats and targets. Yet my constituents and I find myself in a position where our voice has not been heard, despite all our efforts.

I would welcome and be grateful for two things. Firstly, an explanation as to how this decision fits in with commitment to localism and empowering local communities. Second, now that this decision has been made, what assurances can be made that this site will be managed in a safe and controlled manner, given this company’s safety record? How can we be sure that company profits will not be prioritised in favour of vigilant adherence to safety measures?”

 

Exciting isn’t it. Like the dance of the seven veils-and some. The layers of bombast, bilge and bull fall away revealing the ugly hypocrisy underneath. There will be more to come.

 

Last Rites for Big Society

Some lively extracts from the PASC meeting of the 24th May 2011

Paul Flynn: If I give you a concrete example, perhaps you can tell me how you react to it.  Yesterday morning I was in my constituency, where an announcement was made that 120 civil servants are going to be thrown out of work by a Government decision.  Now, if you were to go along to them and say, “We have our salvation here in the Big Society, because in future you can go out and work for nothing,” don’t you think they would be tempted to tell you where you can shove your Big Society?

Lord Glasman:  The only caveat I would make is I will say it is not mine; I was trying to depict where it sat.  I think that there is a completely legitimate space for discussing how to deliver public services.  There are two aspects, I would say.  The first is on the one side there is a transfer of power to the work force through the mutualism.

 

Paul Flynn: With respect, we have always had that: that is going back to the guild socialist, going back to what is centuries away.  What is different about the Big Society, except that it comes at a time of unparalleled government cuts?

• Lord Glasman: It has been fatally damaged by certain ways that it has attacked fundamental public vision, but I do not want to underestimate the extent to which our provision, Labour provision of public services, was perceived by many to be bureaucratic, inflexible.  It addresses a weakness in the way that we approached it.

 

 

Paul Flynn: But is it not finished?  When Prime Ministers have ideas like the Cones Hotline, or Back To Basics, or the Third Way, someone should say, “Emperor, you have no clothes”?  There is no question the idea has been explained, launched, relaunched and rerelaunched, and the more people explain, the less people understand.  Isn’t it over?

• Lord Glasman: As the rappers say: it ain’t over.  There are two aspects to why it is not over.  The first is the success of the branding operation.  At the last election, as you noticed, the Conservative vote went up, and there is an element in which it does soften the edges of the—

 

Paul Flynn: So it is a branding exercise?  This is a way of selling Conservatism from the nasty party to the nice party.

• Lord Glasman: To a nicer party.

 

Paul Flynn: But as the idea is held in contempt by most charities, because they see the cynicism and the cuts that accompany it, and not held in much respect by the far right, the Daily Mail, who see it as nannying, what hope has he got?  At which point does someone take the Prime Minister to one side and say, “Look, forget about this.  It cannot work.  Give it up and concentrate on something worth while”?

• Lord Glasman:  Many have taken him to one side and told him exactly that, and what is interesting is that he perseveres with this.
• ********************************

 

Paul Flynn: I am grateful, Mr Bailey, for explaining to me that there are such things as councils.  I am aware of it; I did sit on one for 25 years before I came here.  Do you regard your own organisation as an example for other Big Society organisations to follow?

Shaun Bailey:  No, not at all.  What my organisation and I do has very little to do with what the Big Society does in relation to me as an employee.  I do those things, I have been doing them for years; I hope to continue to do them for years.

 

Paul Flynn: Could you answer some of the criticisms that have been made about the way you run your organisation?

Shaun Bailey:  Absolutely.

 

Paul Flynn: Okay, well, it has been claimed that 35 pence in the pound is spent on publicity, and 20 pence in the pound on activities, and this went up greatly during your period as a parliamentary candidate.  What is the explanation for that?

• Robert Halfon: On a point of order, Mr Jenkin. I think this line of questioning has nothing to do with the inquiry about the Big Society.

Paul Flynn: It has everything to do with establishing the credentials of the ambassador.

Robert Halfon: It is a political attempt to undermine a witness, and I think it is totally out of order.  I think it is a disgraceful line of questioning.

Chair: The question has been asked; I am anxious not to get bogged down into this line of questioning, but I would like to give Mr Bailey the opportunity to answer the point that has been made.

Shaun Bailey:  All of those claims came from a very belligerent, badly behaved Labour MP. He spoke about things and those figures talk about things that people like he and you do not fully understand.  We—hold on.

• Chair: Please let Mr Bailey answer.

Shaun Bailey:  Hold on.  We run a tiny, small organisation.  It had to get itself off the floor, and those things there were accounted for badly.  So things were put in different columns. People said, “What is activity?”  For instance, you are talking about things like all the travelling and stuff.  Now, they did our accounts as though that was our staff travel.  Actually, I think at that point it was over 400 children up and down the country travelling. That is where all that come from, and the detail of what went on, if people bothered to look rather than make a political attack about what we do, they would be happy about what we do.  That particular MP should really ask himself how come I am connected with so many people from his constituency and he is not.

 

Paul Flynn: Were you investigated by the Charity Commission for the loss of £16,000?

Shaun Bailey:  Absolutely not.

Paul Flynn: We have not had the answer, I am afraid, Mr Chairman, as to whether it was or not.

Shaun Bailey:  We absolutely were not.  I answered that.  We never were and never have been under investigation by the Charity Commission.

 

Comments

[Paul Flynn]

No KD, You have missed the point. The Tories promised localism, decisions would be taken by local people. A routine impossible pledge like 'choice'. If local people decisions were final there would be no more undesirable developments anywhere and modern life would come to an end. No area wants industry, caravan sites, sewage farms, windmills or nuclear dumps as neighbours.

I am old enough to remember the forties when Welsh communities were begging for pylons to bring electricity to areas without a supply. They were beautiful then.

[KD]

Simply put Paul you believe that where the dumping of nuclear waste is the issue the view of the locals is paramount and should take precedent but the same criteria does not apply when the locals oppose wind farms and pylons.Surely there is a lack of consistancy here,does local opininon count or not or should it be overuled only when renewable energy is concerned.Do you believe the wind farm scheme should go ahead despite considerable local opposition.

[Paul Flynn]

NO. It does NOT KD. it means the Government has pretended that 'Localism' matters but it is not true. The opposition in Mid Wales was quoted to me by a protester as '80%.' She said the Government can't go ahead with opposition like that. Oh Yes they can. That was the Minister's message from the debate in the Commons.

The protest is aim at the soft target the Assembly who has no power over big schemes of this kind. Why not campaign against the Tory-LibDem Junta whose policy this is?

[KD]

I agree Paul but doesn't the same argument apply to all those people in mid Wales who do not want their mountainside covered in Pylons and Wind Turbines but are being overuled by Central Govermrnt?