Brixton Green

[Jonti]

Very good point jonti, in other words a vehicle - for so-called 'community' purposes - to transfer what is publicly owned land to the control of which ever wide boys take an interest, who will of course feel free to award themselves 'fees', 'expenses' etc.

In the wonderful world of business, directors get to set their own pay, and may also charge fees for business services outside their responsibility as a director. Theory being, they can only do that if the make the business work.

The way I see it, there's simply no need for the Brixton Green project to have entrenched directors. So people wonder why the Community Land Trust model has been chosen. I imagine the company says something about its choice of model somewhere, but it may've been a practical reason as simple as not knowing local people to work with, and playing safe.

The brixton voluntary sector has some hair-raising stories, as I'm sure other readers can testify!

 

[Gramsci]

Eh? No it isn't, Somerleyton Road becomes Loughborough Park at the end...it's a right angle, not a dead end....got to say this thread contains more than one myth about where I live
It's also got immeasurably less dodgy over the last decade. I do wonder when the last time was that some peeps last walked around there.

The temporary school on Somerleyton road has made a big difference.

 

[Gramsci]

To my mind, a Community Land Trust is a very good vehicle for easing privately held land into social use. If one is thinking of letting go of a few acres from the family estate for the benefit of the local peasants, the entrenched position of the founder directors makes a lot of sense.

However, that's not the position here: the land is *not* being supplied by the founder directors. They are asking for it to be transferred to their control, from public ownership. It seems to me this would effectively transfer the public land into a kind of quasi-private ownership, to the immense benefit of the founder directors.

Good point the land is already community owned.

 

[Gramsci]

For interest here is Tessa Jowells recent speech on "Mutualism" and interview on same subject where BG is mentioned.

http://www.labourlist.org/mutualism-next-stage-new-labour-tessa-jowell-interview

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/320131/mutuals.rtf

Seems "Mutualism" is the latest hot topic amongst the political classes.

"Red Tory" Philllip Blond reckons he started the debate:


http://www.respublica.org.uk/articles/ownership-state

Interesting ideas.Some of the comments at the end of the Tessa Jowell interview are worth looking at.

 

[editor]

The temporary school on Somerleyton road has made a big difference.

Definitely. Sadly, that meant that some of the oiks wandered up to the other end of the block instead.

 

[Gramsci]

There are some interesting comments at the end of the Jowell interview in Labour List.

They raise the issue of what is this new "Mutualism"?

For example:



"So why is Labour busy inventing a half assed form of cooperation in the form of 'mutualism'? Something which is not governed by the global rules of cooperation agreed by the International Cooperative Alliance. Which is unlikely to promote real democratic control but will repeat the errors of past cooperative models.

Our European colleagues watch in astonishment as 'socialist' politicians in the UK try to stave off popular demands for democratic control of services with ever more bizarre compromises rather than doing what almost everyone else does and go down the cooperative route. They have social cooperatives. We have 'social enterprises','trusts' and fat cat third sector chief executives. It's just another gravy train.

In 2001 Tony Blair described the cooperatve movement as the third leg of the labour movement and then froze us out and supported managerialist social enteprises as his Third Way instead. Now we have his successors cobbling together something else, anyhting other than materially supporting democratic self-help by the people i.e cooperatives and cooperation."

And also this comment,

"That way, we can move beyond the position where we regard ownership as neutral; that the effect is what matters, not the nature of the ownership. It’s particularly important because of the evidence that different patterns and styles of ownership have an impact on the performance of organisations – and indeed have an impact on public preference and public confidence in different kinds of organisations." (From Tessa Jowells speech)

The persons comment on this:

That's exactly what Socialists (including the co-operative movement) have been saying for 150 years. New Labour's intiial and key point of importance was that it departed from that paradigm.

It's also wrong to describe mutualism as 'the next stage of New Labour'. I supported mutuals against models like those Tessa Jowell proposed in the last parliament for precisely the reasons she now advocates."


This comment I think says that the original Third Way believed the kind of ownership didnt matter as long as the results were beneficial.If the private sector was believed to provide a service better and efficently then there was no old Labour ideological objection to private ownership or deliverly. "What works" I think it was called.

 

[Gramsci]

Before i get accused of being negative there is a debate to be had here. I notice the "Red Tory" Phillip Blond says he started this debate on Mutualism.

http://www.respublica.org.uk/articles/ownership-state

Tessa Jowells speech can be summarised in this section of it:

"Not only are the principles of mutualism right for the public mood – based as they are on trust and reciprocity, common ownership and co-operation, and the premise that ‘everyone has something to contribute’.

They also mean that mutualism is uniquely placed to deliver real practical benefits in three critical areas: accountability, individual empowerment, and community responsibility.

By bringing users, employees, and other stakeholders together as members of the same establishment, mutualism transforms the organisational culture and embeds real democratic accountability."



The idea that everyones contribution should be valued and that cooperation should replace the now discredited Casino Capitalism/ Dog eat Dog world of UK plc is to be welcomed.

 

[Gramsci]

http://mutuals.fsa.gov.uk/SocietyDetails.aspx?Number=30774&Suffix=R

Had a chat with someone today and it does appear there is also a Brixton Green ltd registered on the FSA Mutuals Public register.

Not much detail here on the website of how the organisation is set up.

 

[boohoo]

Just been googling this - very limited information about what it is and how to contact them or find out more. All seems a little elusive.

 

[editor]

Updated thread continues here: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...nity-led-development-quot-on-Somerleyton-Road