Westbourne by-election: update after the first weekend of campaigning

I think I have just seen the first flower of spring, one usually hears in late February. Today’s version is who has seen the first poster of the Westbourne by-election. Both Greens and Labour make the claim, but I am yet to see evidence in the form of a photo on Twitter or one emailed to brightonpoliticsblogger@googlemail.com.

But the troops have been out, both Labour and the Greens, and did I see a Grizzly?

Caroline Penn reported Labour posters up in Westbourne at lunchtime today, but the first report of a poster going up came at 14:29 yesterday (Saturday) from Green councillor Christopher Hawtree, who wrote: “Former Peace Messenger Brian Fitch looked daggers when he saw me giving a resident a poster which went straight up at noon.”

Any advances of 12 noon on 19th November?

The Tories recognise that the “by-election looks like a three way marginal… Bring it on and keep it blue!” says The Estate Agent (Rob Buckwell) on Twitter. Is this an indication that he might be the Tory Party candidate?

Both Labour and the Greens have been out on the knocker and delivering leaflets. The Greens, according to Luke Walter, have put a Greenleaf through every door in the Ward. Tim Sewell reports that there has been a good “doorknocking and delivery session” with Caroline Penn, Warren Morgan, Lis Telcs and “many others in Westbourne. Will be hard one to call.”

I assume he means that it is a genuine 3-way marginal. Labour’s Spiritual Leader in Brighton, Lord Steve Bassam, does not think the same. On Twitter he wrote: “Feel a bit guilty as I think I ought to go canvassing in local council by-election. We all need to get out there it’s a R Tory/Labour fight.” I don’t think so, and nor do I imagine that Lord Bassam thinks so either. The Greens are the ones to beat but I admire the old campaigner’s instinct in talking down the Greens so to consolidate the anti-Tory vote with Labour.

Steampunk draws attention to an omission in my posts and comments by others: “Is Paul Elgood planning a come-back? I was going to say, nobody’s commented on the Lib Dems’ chances yet.” I have no knowledge about Mr Elgood but I think that the Lib Dems’ chances of winning are as likely as two of my regular readers, Biker Dave and Doris, eloping to Gretna Green.

Harris Fitch is full of bravado, the same bravado that led him to predict a win in Rottingdean Coastal in May: “It won’t be a futile course, we shot off the starting line months ago. We have so many keen members there compared to the Greens that we probably could man the election campaign with locals. Of course outside help is always welcomed though!” That is a remarkable claim, that Labour “shot off the starting line months ago”. I doubt it, but if that is the case (and I have seen no evidence of it in Westbourne Ward) it should make it a more even fight.

One welcome entry to the fight is the report from The Pepperpot Post that the shy and retiring Paul Perrin will be standing for UKIP.

Dr Faust has said that the issue of school places will be a key issue in the by-election. All parties will claim that they are the one who are most keen on a new school. The reality is that this by-election will not ultimately influence such provision.

Daniel Yates agrees that education is an important, but not the sole, issue: “the Labour and Co-operative vision for first class education with true community engagement really does appeal across a very wide political spectrum. Of course, there are also many other issues where this is true and we wont be sucked into believing that everyone is Westbourne is going to vote purely on schools.” If that is the case, how come education is in such a poor state after 13 years of a Labour government. Education is one reason why voters in Brighton and Hove have lost faith in Labour.

Keep reports flooding in. Either email me on DM @BrightonPolitic.

Some of my favourite things about politics in Brighton and Hove

The Greens: Thank goodness we live in a city that has the variety of politics and an openness to new ideas that allows a party like the Greens to thrive and enjoy electoral success. As a tribal Labour loyalist who voted Labour in May, I can’t imagine how very boring politics would be if we were still locked in a two-party dog fight, year in, year out. The Greens are forcing Labour and the Tories to rethink their strategy and policies, and (who knows when) both the old parties may just one day change for the better!

Warren Morgan: Warren will hate to be included in this list but he represents the fighting spirit that remains in parts of the local Labour Party. I can rely on Warren to spill his Sugar Puffs each time I post my latest take on the Greens. For him, it is the Evil Princess and All Her Works (i.e. Caroline Lucas) that personifies everything that is wrong with Brighton politics. Without the likes of Warren, Labour’s decline would be almost terminal.

The Young Tories: Rob Buckwell, Michael Ireland, Mike MacFarlane, George Dore, Kerry Underhill, Robert Nemeth and the incomparable Momma Grizzly, Rachael Bates. The Tory Party needs ‘modernising’ but not in the Blair/Cameron sense (which are no more than a cover for the worst traditions of paternalistic old-fashion politics). This new breed of young Tories will help the Tories break with their past and will challenge Blue Labour, sometimes from the left. Momma Grizzly is an enigma: a right wing, anti-monarchist, pro-Palin, capitalist. Other than her anti-monarchist tendencies, she represents much of what I oppose, but at least she has a sense of humour and passion, but that could make her all the more dangerous.

Community Gardeners: These groups represent the free spirit of campaigning that has long existed in Brightn and Hove. They are bottom up campaigners that genuinely ‘shape place’ to use the jargon of the City Council. Co-operative and communal, they bring forward a model of how things can improve, without consultants and council officers.

Christopher Hawtree: Chris is the latest in a long line of characters that have graced and enriched the political scene in Brighton and Hove over many years: Dennis Hobden, Ruth Larkin, Doreen Radford (the lady who it is said wore a new hat at every Council meeting), Richard Stanton, Sheila Hall, etc. Christopher’s election sent greater shockwaves around senior officers of the Council more than any other result on the night. It is said his election sent shockwaves around the Green Party as well!

The Blogosphere and Twiteratti: My life was sad, lacking in focus, days passing into weeks and weeks into years. I am the shy, retiring type. But then I discovered a whole new world and made loads of new friends: The Ghost, Zombie, Doris Day (she never returns my calls), Baron Pepperpot, Momma Grizzly, Rosa’s Lovely Daughter, Dr Faust, etc. Social media has enriched the political world locally, although no party has yet worked out how to make the most of it. When one party fully utilises Twitter, they can expect to reap electoral success.

The future: I don’t mean the young Tories (see above) or even the impressive young activists in Labour (Harris Fitch, Clare Calder, etc.) or in the Greens (Luke Walter, Allie Cannell, Alex Phillips, etc.) but those who active in their early and mid teens, such as Pearl Ahrens. With committed young activists like her, we can take courage for the future health of the political process.

Jason Kitcat is condemned as a Dopeydrawers for his comments on Ania Kitcat

Some silly stories have done the rounds in the days since the Greens became the largest party on Brighton and Hove City Council and more will no doubt follow after they formally take over on Thursday. The Argus ran a sensationalist headline about traveller sites. Reference has been made about congestion charges (which, sadly, was not in the Greens’ manifesto and they are not, so I understand, intending to introduce such a charge).

This blog, though I hope not this Blogger, is guilty of scare stories, as this comment from Dr Faust shows: “The Green Party is committed to running services ‘internally’ whenever possible. Voluntary organisations and charities should be worried about that.”

But Green Dad is more measured: “I don’t think any charities or voluntary organisations need to worry about the Greens’ decision to review the Tory budget. The whole point of this is to avoid cuts to such organisations, who I believe have been invited to contribute to the review, as have Labour.”

I would imagine that the Greens, under the leadership of Bill Randall, are determined not to score any own goals, particularly in these first few weeks and months. Inevitably, mistakes will be made, but that is true for all parties. In fact, the Greens have made a misjudgement in their choice of Cabinet members, as pointed out by a new correspondent, Rosa’s Lovely Daughter: “I’d like your opinion. Unlike you I voted Green in the end, but I’m beginning to wonder whether I did the right thing. I like the fact they’ve got a female leader and a good one, but what do you think about this new cabinet? Ten cabinet places, with seven places for men and only three for women. And there’s only one woman in the three person leadership team. Amy Kennedy may be very competent as a deputy, but in a setup like this she looks like a token female. And why isn’t Alex Phillips there? She’s the one who won Goldsmid.”

Well Rosa’s Lovely Daughter (what on earth am I meant to call you, I can’t call you Daughter, nor Lovely, and you aren’t Rosa! Perhaps BPB will just call you RLD), my view is that Amy’s appointment is more that token, certainly there on merit. Alex Phillips’ omission is surprising, though not because she was the first Green councillor in Hove. That was an achievement in itself, but her omission is surprising since she is extremely bright and able. The gender balance is a disappointment and one that I would hope the Greens will reflect on.

RLD has a lovely take on Jason Kitcat: “He’s in the cabinet, but his wife Anya isn’t.. It wasn’t because she is a new councillor – new blokes were included. I’m told he appeared with her at the count clutching her hand like a Stepford husband. Anya got more votes than Jason did, but when the Argus asked him why he said it was because she is better looking. News for you Jason – we voted for Anya because we thought she’d be an excellent councillor…..sexist dopydrawers.”

I have no idea what a dopydrawer is, but I am sure that councillor Christopher Hawtree will enlighten me.

Fall out from local elections continues

As you would expect, a very robust and coherent defence of Labour has been received from Warren Morgan in response to my post yesterday. Reglar readers will know that I am an admirer of Warren. He is a very able politician, and one who is able to organise well. However, before the election I repeatedly told him (when he was predicting greater success for Labour that materialised) that his views were influenced by the excellent organisation in East Brighton, something replicated in just a few wards elsewhere in Brighton and Hove. As the Greens have advanced, Labour has become more marginalised. ‘But we polled almost the same number of votes as the Green’s, I hear the Labour Deniers plea. But you didn’t win the seats. In the first year of a Tory-led government that is slashing public services across the board you should have been able to pick up more than a handful of seats from the Tories.

In fact Warren himself talks about how close it was: “Labour scored the same number of votes citywide as the Greens – a fact. It didn’t get those votes where they were needed to win the seats, admitted. Labour was 150 to 200 votes short of winning additional seats in seven wards. It didn’t, but had it done it it would have been the largest group, just. Labour finished a relatively close second in all three parliamentary seats in the city last year, and level with the winners in terms of votes this year. Labour’s vote went up in every ward, most by 350, some by 500, one by 700. That does not paint a picture of a Party in terminal decline.”

Warren does reveal something I have called for, that there will be a wide and open review of what went wrong: “Of course lessons need to be learned both in terms of policy, organisation and message, but any debate is painted as dissent and division. Over the coming weeks and months Labour will be consulting, meeting, listening and debating, not just within our membership but with voters, organisations and others to determine what we can do better.” I welcome that open debate although having seen some comments by various activists (for which I am criticised when quoting them on this blog) I am aware that there is a wish for greater control to be put in the hands of a smaller number of individuals at the expense of ward branch organisation. Very dangerous. But good luck in that debate, Warren, and if I can be of any assistance ……!

We get an interesting Green insight from Luke Walter, one of the most able campaigners in Brighton and Hove who was unlucky to have missed election in Hollingdean and Stanmer purely on the grounds of the alphabet (something he identified several weeks ago was likely): “We understood our demographic better than Labour, we understood the kind of people who vote in local elections, we even understood their motivation for voting. In nearly all of these, Labour and the Tories got it wrong. Labour were saying ‘if you vote Green you get the Tories.’ The Tories were saying ‘if you vote Green you get Labour.’ I think we were the only ones saying ‘if you vote Green you get Green.’ The truth is, Warren and his councillor colleagues in the Kemptown constituency need to try and understand why 1000 or so voters in EB and M&B voted Green in the locals with no obvious campaigning and with the continuous message ‘Greens can’t win’ or ‘voting Green only helps the Tories here.’ ”

What is impressive about Luke (something not that obvious in other parties) is his ability to be self-critical about the Greens own performance: “We Greens are also at fault. We greatly underestimated our vote in those wards, as well as Westbourne in Hove. This mistake won’t be repeated again. Reading the comments from Labour councillors and Labour supporters, it is clear the party is in a pickle, as I’m sure the Tories are as well. Weatherly should be sweating in Hove and Portslade losing six seats last Friday. The same for Kirby in Kemptown, who was beaten into third by the Greens in two sizeable wards in his constituency. If the Greens political opponents are waiting in the dark until we slip-up, they’ve got another thing coming. From now on, they can expect a more confident, more slicker and bolder Green machine in Brighton AND Hove.”

Dr Faust reprimands me, that I “need to develop a more even handed approach with your critisisms of parties.  You ask for an apology from Labour about ‘misleading’ material (which I would contest), but don’t ask for the same from the Green Party.  You say the same about claims made over recent elections, but again don’t expect any contrition from the Green Party who did exactly the same.  In both cases I consider the material put out to be par for the course tactics in trying to win votes and seats. Consistancy would be welcome.”

My dear Doctor, I have never pretended to be consistent or even-handed. A hint of bias has occasionally come through in my writings on those two-faced, yellow-belly, snake-in-the-grass, rats sometimes known as the Lib Dems. I was SO sad to see them wiped off the face of the political map in Brighton and Hove on May 5th. As for being even handed in my criticism, I don’t dish it out for the sake of it. I am critical of Labour’s use of misleading graphs in two elections in a row and the poor organisation in the City and of party HQ. Last week I did criticise the Greens for their use of a graph but their use was less misleading because of a simple factor – they WON. Labour’s claims were misleading as they claimed that, in 2010, they were the only party who could beat the Tories in Brighton Pavilion (horribly misleading and unforgivable, as would the Greens claim had they not won) and, in 2011, that they were the only party that could form an administration. With just 13 seats out of 54 that is a big ask!

(In case there is any doubt amongst those other than my four regular readers – Warren, Christopher Hawtree, Momma Grizzly, and Doris Day – I am not anti-Labour. I voted Labour on May 5th. I just want to see Labour get its act together. I am also aware that there is a suggestion that there is a ‘snitch’ in Labour’s ranks, someone who is passing me information. In fact, there are almost a dozen Labour activists with whom I am either in regular contact with or who DM or email me regularly, along with several Tories and several Greens. No Lib Dems, alas).

Condemning the Greens for their bar chart but recognising the Greens are on the up

Imagine the scene – Warren Morgan reviewing this blog while having a sneaky second bowl of Sugar Puffs. Seeing the condemnation by Dr Faust of my failure to criticise the bar chart used in the latest Green leaflet, he is compelled to write: “Dr Faust – yes, still no defence of the Green ‘last citywide poll’ bar graph from 2009, funny that.”

Faust himself had written: “BPB – don’t forget your over the top condemnation of Labour leaflets with far less contentious contents. You said Labour had lost one of your votes at the time – if you were going Green with it, then surely you should take it back – or maybe go Lib Dem?”

All I can do is coin a phrase: “Calm down, dear”. The bar chart used by the Greens is almost as bad as that used by Labour – which recorded some votes cast in Lewes District. At least the Green chart used only votes cast in Brighton and Hove. But apart from that, it is a dishonest chart in as much as these local elections are being fought on ward boundaries. No direct comparisons can be drawn and the Greens should not have used it.

What the Greens can legitimately claim, and this will have Warren spluttering over his Sugar Puffs, the “Greens are on the up” and “Labour are in decline”. Apart from poor grammar (it should read “Labour is in decline”) this claim in the Greens’ leaflet is correct and will be seen to be so on Friday when the real votes are counted.

Which brings me on to Geoffrey Bowden. He writes: “What lovely fun all this speculation is. However, for my part and the rest of the Green Party candidates in Queen’s Park, the canvassing goes on till the last moment and nothing will be taken for granted.  Its been a great contest cleanly fought (for the most part) on all sides, but in the end it is the electorate who decide and not the sephologists.”

Clearly the Sussex Square doesn’t think it is fun at all. Lighten up, Geoffrey. This blog is provided as a social service, to help otherwise stressed candidates to let off stream. All four of my regular readers (Warren, Grizzly, Christopher, and Doris Day) know what is being written is speculative fun.

As we enter the last few frenetic days of the campaign, I encourage all candidates to enjoy themselves. Some wards are so close that a final push might make all the difference. Give it your all, and best of luck to all, even Grizzly and the Estate Agent!

Constructive criticism of Labour or uncritical support for the Greens?

Dr Faust says that my “uncritical approach to the Green Party, and willingness to accept any observation (often from Green Party candidates) about the shortcomings of Labour is quite tiresome”. I thought I would confuse the Good Doctor by sharing a little insight into my sad little world.

First, in the ward where I live, it makes sense (to me, anyway) to vote Labour. A vote for a Green candidate would make little difference.

Second, I am not altogether opposed to what Baron Pepperpot has said, that it would not be too bad if “the old guard” of Labour was removed (although in Jeane Lepper Labour has one of te most active and most effective ward councillors).

Third, I am, by inclination, Old Labour. I am not a Green and it is unlikely that I would ever join the Greens. I am more likely to rejoin Labour if I thought they had regained any semblance of competence and campaigning ability.

Fourth, Labour also has to learn from Caroline Lucas and move on from the 2010 defeat. At the moment the most attractive thing about Labour is Warren Morgan’s choice of breakfast cereal.

For too long Labour thought it had the right to be the party of government in Brighton and Hove. It became arrogant. Two election defeats in a row, and the likely hammering at the polls in May, should be cause for a fundamental review by Labour. As a former Labour Party member, nobody has ever bothered to ask me why I left and whether I might rejoin. (The reasons I left include T. Blair, New Labour, Iraq, privatisation, etc.). Blue Labour is hardly going to help rebuild the “broad church” that once defined Labour, and Labour activists’ obsession with the Evil Princess and All Her Works is so unappealing.

The Green Party has become the “broad church” in Brighton and Hove, providing a home for environmentalists and Socialists alike. But I am unlikely to join the Green Party as it is unlikely to define itself as a socialist party, but then, what chance is there of Labour doing so?

Labour activists seem to go on the attack every time I criticise their party, question their prospe ts, or point out the reality of their ongoing decline. This is half the problem. Labour still can’t tolerate dissent – a legacy of Kinnock and Blair. The Control Freaks remain in charge of the asylum. What Labour should do is allow dissent, welcome diverse opinions, and allow control to be devolved to branch level.

That is probably a big ask given that the branch structure in Brighton and Hove is largely moribund, but it is where Labour’s success in the 1980’s sprung from and this has to be rediscovered if Labour is to be revived in Brighton and Hove.

So Dr Faust, there you have it. Constructive criticism is what I offer. Uncritical approach to the Greens? Not really, it’s just that they are basically right about the strength of its campaign and the weakness of Labour’s. On May 5th we will see if I am right or whether I will be eating humble pie!

Why I will be voting Yes for the hopelessly inadequate Alternative Vote

Dr Faust suggests that I should write a post on the AV referendum. The was a debate last Friday evening in Brighton on the merits or otherwise of AV. Starring for the No campaign was the formidable Chuck Vere. I, sadly, was unable to be reunited with Chuck but from all accounts she has learned from year’s general election campaign and was the model of reasonableness and good humour.

But no matter how charming was Chuck, I will be voting Yes on May 5th, not because it is a great step forward in democracy. In fact, I think it is a very poor imitation of electoral reform, another sell-out by the dispicable Lib Dems. I don’t hold with the argument that it will make politicians work harder – most work incredibly hard already. I will hold my nose and vote Yes for the following reasons:

A Yes vote will indicate that electoral reform is possible;
AV when implemented will be inadequate and the call for proper voting reform will have gained momentum;
A No vote will be interpreted that people don’t want electoral reform and the chance of electoral reform will be lost for a generation;
A Yes vote will set Tories against Cameron, the Coalition and the Lib Dems – worth it watch the in-fighting;
A Yes vote will require politicians to reach out beyond their core vote and ensure that they don’t alienate supporters of other parties by attacking their political opponents.

Hardly a ringing endorsement for AV, I know, but a micro step forward is better than none.

Naming names and ‘outing’ people

I’m sitting in Pavilion Gardens reflecting on a comment left on this blog yesterday. Tom Matthews wrote of ‘greenpartymember’: “If you’re going to pretend to be a Green Party member, don’t make your username ‘greenpartymember’”.

This has forced me to think about the number of people who engage with this blog but who hide behind made up names, such as Baron Pepperpot, Steampunk, Hove Lawn, Dr Faust, The Ghost of Nobby Clarke, the Tory Tipster, and Christopher Hawtree.

Others have been masquerading with names such as The Estate Agent, Momma Grizzly, le Toothbrush, Bishop Brian, and The Buddha. Rumour has it that these people are, in reality, Rob Buckwell, Rachael Bates, Mike Macfarlane, Brian Oxley and Bill Randall.

What is it about these people who make comments but not in their own names? I think it is nothing short of a disgrace!

Doorstep Brighton 15: Websites, Patcham, and denying Christopher Hawtree a famous victory in Rottingdean Coastal

There has been a great deal of interest in the new Labour Party website. And even Green activists have applauded its launch. Luke Walter, for example, said:  “A few kinks, but fair play. A big improvement to the last one.”  So, too, have a number of new readers (and now probably ex-readers) who were attracted to the last post having searched ‘lap-dancing club Brighton’.  Probably the same ex-readers who were no impressed with the picture of me dressed in nothing but a sheet!

Warren also answers some of the gaps in the new website: “Thanks for all the comments and for pointing out the glitches/omissions, all being corrected. …. Yes, Celia Barlow was selected to stand in Central Hove (her bio will be changed), and Brian Fitch in Hangleton & Knoll. Their experience – and that of Simon Battle and all 13 Labour councillors running for re-election – is balanced by the new talent we have in Queens Park, Regency, Goldsmid, Hanover, Wish, St Peters, Preston Park and elsewhere.”

Dr Faust criticises me for hypocrisy: “On the ‘Thumper principle’ you seem to be failing yourself with your rather snide comments about Brian Fitch and others. Your respondants have followed suit as well – but I think that’s OK. Say what you like about candidates, preferably let it be true, but if not someone will hopefully point out your error.”

Tom Matthews says that this is a fair point, points out that I can get away with making snide comments because “(s)he’s not running to be a councillor, or IS (s)he??”. Thank you, Tom, I’m a sensitive soul, finding criticism hard to cope with! As for standing for Council, I wont confirm or deny rumours that i might be standing as an Independent Green in Rottingdean Coastal inspite of accusations that I will split the anti-Mears vote, thereby denying Christopher Hawtree an historic victory.

But Dr Faust is wrong. I wasn’t being snipe about the People’s Brian. I said he was a legend and that he would save the No 5 bus to Hangleton. I couldn’t be fairer.

‘Andy’ points out that the new website seems to suggest that one of “Labour’s candidate for Patcham seems to also be standing in Brunswick. That’s a good start!”.

And talking of Patcham, Serenus Zeitblom said: “You can tell it’s getting close to election time in Patcham because we’ve just had a flyer through the door advertising Messrs Theobald, Theobald and Pidgeon’s surgery times … however in the seven years I’ve been living in the ward I don’t think I’ve seen any evidence of Labour activity ever.

But I’m not wholly convinced by the new Labour website. Smart and slick at first appearance, it appears to be full of slips and errors – almost as if the webmaster has been filling in a template. And here in Brighton where you’re never more than a few yards from a web developer you expect slick digital campaigns.”

Two points regarding Patcham, “Messrs Theobald, Theobald and Pidgeon” surely refers to councillor Geoffrey and councillor Carol Theobald” as well as councillor Pidgeon. And secondly, there has been practically no reports on the campaign in Patcham, not even a convincing opinion from the Peter Snow of Brighton politics, Christopher Hawtree, that with a swing of just 187%, Patcham will fall to the forces of the Greens.

On the Big Society and a recommendation for a much better blog than this one!

In response to my challenge to local Tories to explain the Big Society, and to say whether they share their Great Leader’s enthusiasm for the idea, a couple of brave Conservative candidates have raised their heads above the parapet. 

One comment comes, of course, from Rachael Bates who comments in true Momma Grizzly fashion: “The Big Society is about encouraging a resurgence of the volunteer sector and rightly saying that the state is not, and should not, be the answer to everything. It is about cutting red tape, decentralisation and allowing people to take proper control of their own lives rather than being dictated to by central government. There are many fantastic examples throughout Brighton of the Big Society in action and David Cameron is completely right to allow this to grow and flourish. It is about time we said goodbye to Big Government and hello to the Big Society.”

Clive asks Rachael: “Could you explain how you are promoting ‘a resurgence of the volunteer sector’ by cutting their grants? The Standard yesterday ran a short piece about a London-based voluntary network which had been excluded from a Big Society promotional event because it supports the ‘living wage’ campaign. Perhaps Rachael and her friends can explain how this squares with not ‘being dictated to by central government’?”

When reading what Momma Grizzly says, I begin to lose the will to live.  Rachael, you’ve just turned 22, for goodness sake.  Go out, have some fun, get a life.  If I can find the strength to respond, if there are so many examples throughout Brighton (any in Hove?) of the Big Society in action, why do we need Big Government to tell us we need to do it? It is about time we said goodbye to Big clichés and hello to a bit of Original Thinking.

The other Tory to comment was Peter Booth, one of the ill-fated candidates in East Brighton, who says that it is “making little people big! It is that simple. Ideas should start from individuals, work up to groups and then influence government (local and national).”  So, if I get this right, the Big Society that little people have worked in groups and then influenced the government to launch the Big Society?  I thought that it was an idea conceived by David Cameron and forced on an unsuspecting Conservative Party and nation.  Silly me.  But Peter says that “the ‘left’ don’t get it because their only answer is to pour money into everything.  That has proved not to work.”  Pouring money into everything has proved not to work?  I thought the Tories supported subsidising the banks, bankers, etc.  Finally, Peter suggests that the government should “let people decide how their own lives work.”  I DO get it, the Big Society allows Boots, Vodaphone et al decide for themselves how their own tax lives work.

‘Clive’ rejects Peter Booth’s explanation: “Money is generally quite handy if you want to set up some local project or other, that’s the problem. Shame their aren’t some lefties in government to pour some out. What tickles me is that the right generally accuse the left of being utopian and silly and blah blah blah, yet here we have a notion – lots of people working voluntarily, for nothing – that knocks all that into a cocked hat for daftness. People pay their taxes and expect to get something back, not to be told to go away and do it themselves.”

Paul Perrin (UKIP activist par excellance) thinks I am ‘simple’ minded to ask what ‘big society’ is. He says that “the government should be looking at *PROBLEMS* and then thinking about solutions.  But yet again we have a government vanity project ‘Big Society’ looking for problems to solve. Only the state can afford such stupid indulgence, because they don’t need to justify it to anyone other then themselves. Cameron announced his passion for ‘Big Society’ a month after the EU announced 2011 as ‘The year of the volunteer’. The EU required each member to design and deliver a programme to support this idiocy, and Cameron obliged. What is ‘Big Society’? A label that costs us a fortune and gives us nothing.”

Clive congratulates Paul by observing that when he managed 4 sentences before mentioning the EU and asks if this is a record.

There is more of the Clive / Paul Perrin love in in the comments section of this blog.  If you don’t have a life, you might enjoy the exchanges

Dr Faust has a problem with the Big Society (surely not!).  He writes: “The problem with ‘Big Society’ for me is that I think its a great idea – if it means that we help and support each other simply because we share the same planet, and that we are stronger when we work together. The trouble for Cameron and the Tories is that it is fundamentally a socialist principle, and so they don’t believe in it, and will never convince us that they do.  The danger for Labour (in particular) and the Green Party is that they think the kind of services and strutures to bring this about need to be provided by the state – rather than focus on the outcomes that are being sought and harnessing local, voluntary activity. At least the Green Party have more of a recent tradition of community based initiatives. They must resist the move to statism that would undermine this.”

Christopher Hawtree’s view will resonate with many: “I suspect that the dreadful title of ‘Big Society’, which means nothing, was the result of a ‘brainstorming’ session. If people are doing something voluntarily, they do not want David Cameron to come along and hijack it for his own purposes.”  If you are right, Chris, I imagine it was a brainstorming session of one, DC himself. 

The best comment, I feel comes from ‘Dani’.  (Great to have you on board Dani.  I have been a long term admirer of you and your politics).  She writes: “How exactly is David Cameron “allowing” voluntary activity to grow and flourish? It takes zero effort on the government’s part for ordinary people to get on with organising community activity as they always have. But the government can easily shut down a lot of the fantastic community work that is happening in Brighton and around the country, by slashing funding to local government with the inevitable knock-on effect on the grants that sustain community and voluntary organisations. Voluntary organisations can’t run on thin air, even those who rely heavily on volunteers.”  Spot on.  Rachael Bates should listen and learn from your experience in Brighton politics over the last 20 years or so.

And finally, Serenus Zeitblom writes eloquently on the subject.  “I immediately thought of the Cones Hotline, the Citizen’s Charter, John Major’s Back to Basics campaign – all of which seemed to me to have the same roots and all of which became objects of ridicule.”  Serenus has written a great blog of his own Notes from a Broken Society which I commend to you.  A great read, in fact a must read.  Much better than this blog!