Coldharbour Lane, Brixton - news and updates

[thatguyhex]

Nope. Whole thing is dead. But you can get upset about it if you like!

Not so... it's still very much alive. There was obviously a decision made at some point that Cameron and his gang should stop making speeches about it because that was generating enmity from the public. But I think describing this new thing as a "front" for it is putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Gramsci]

I think to accuse BASSAC of being a tory driven thing is a bit misguided.

Have you looked at my links? Locality were chosen by Government.

I did not know the BASSAC/ Locality were involved until yesterday when , after seeing CH1 post, I did a bit of digging around the internet.

 

[Gramsci]

Not so... it's still very much alive. There was obviously a decision made at some point that Cameron and his gang should stop making speeches about it because that was generating enmity from the public. But I think describing this new thing as a "front" for it is putting the cart before the horse.

Looked at that link. "Big Society" is a load of bollox. No better than Labours "Coop Councils". Do these politicians really believe in it or is it just cynical exercise?

 

[CH1]

Had a look at there website "London Community Action". In it "Locality" were mentioned.
It all started to sound like the Tories "Big Society".
It is a front for Camerons "Big Society"
Cameron Tory government has hammered the less well of in Coldharbour. Now he sends in his "Community Organisers" to help solve problems caused by this government.

More company information on London Community Action:
Company Number: 08980044
Company Name: LONDON COMMUNITY ACTION C.I.C.
Registered Office: 68 DORCHESTER COURT HERNE HILL LONDON SE24 9QY
Company Type: Community Interest Company
Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)
Next Accounts Due: 04/01/2016
Last Return Made Up To:
Next Return Due: 02/05/2015

Two of the directors of London Community Action are representatives on the Organisers Council of "Community Organisers"
They are Jonathan Butcher of Cohort 7 and Lee Baker of Cohort 9

Community Organisers Limited is also a limited company:
Company Number: 08180454 Date of Incorporation:15/08/2012
Company Name: COMMUNITY ORGANISERS LIMITED
Registered Office: 33 CORSHAM STREET LONDON N1 6DR
Previous Names: COCOLLABORATIVE LIMITED
Date of Change: 21/09/2012

I'm intrigued by companies within companies - and two "cohort leaders" leafleting us to know what we think we need.

One local says she was told by the organisers it is "non-political"

So what is it then?

P.S. In my book a cohort is a body of 600 men making one tenth of a Roman legion.

If these people are genuinely progressive surely they should have "cadres"
Cohorts has a Neo-Fascist ring as far as I'm concerned.

 

[CH1]

From London Community Action website:

We run community organising projects of all sizes - from one block to large neighbourhoods, from a minimum of 32 days, spread over four months.

That sound like a lift from an American project. "one block" to "large neighbourhoods"

This manual from the Center for Study of Social Policy may be descriptive of what these people are seeking to do.
http://www.cssp.org/community/const...-the-Lives-of-Children-Youth-and-Families.pdf

I'm not suggesting they are directly related - just that this idea seems to be another fad from the USA. Identify what people want improved in their neighborhood (oops) and then get paid mobilizing (oops) them to do it.

 

[Tricky Skills]

Brixton buzz piece here. Thanks for the heads up and ideas explored in this thread.

 

[Gramsci]

Brixton buzz piece here. Thanks for the heads up and ideas explored in this thread.

Good article.

I see from Lees twitter ( he is one of the organisers on the leaflet) that he has a blog.

There are a couple of interesting entries which cover some of the issues raised on this thread and in your Buzz piece.

A read a couple. "Locality" and "Citizens UK" both bid for the 15 million programme to deliver this Big Society project. Locality won the bid.

As Lee comes from the Locality programme he defends it.

From his blog he acknowledges that there is criticism of it:

Some trainee community organisers in the Locality-run national programme express their incredulity that any Government would want power to be shifted to communities, least of all a Conservative-led government.

The fact that many COs believe that they are doing good work, and know that a party they dislike promised this programme, and has made this work possible, creates a disturbing cognitive dissonance. A way of resolving this jarring of incompatible beliefs for some is advancing a belief that the form of organising the Government opted for is not radical enough. It’s more about bringing people together and planning alternatives to state provision, less about holding power to account, this theory goes.

And just in case anyone is not clear what this means here it is from the government:

The Community Organisers programme is about catalysing community action at a neighbourhood level - ‘igniting the impulse to act’. They will help their communities to take advantage of other key Big Society initiatives such as ‘Right to Buy’ community assets, and the ‘Right to Bid’ to run public services.

Nick Hurd, Minister for Civil Society, said:

I am pleased to announce Locality as our partner in delivering Community Organisers. The Organisers, who will be driven by local communities needs, will encourage social action and enable individuals to shape the services that matter most to them. The Big Society is about empowering people and the Community Organisers will play a key role by giving people a chance to improve the community in which they live.

 

[Gramsci]

Lees blog also mentions a critic of Locality programme from an American

As CH1 has pointed out the theory behind community organizing comes from US so its interesting to see critique of the Big Society community organizers from the other side of the pond.

Its in three parts and well worth a read.

He is saying that this government funded Locality programme which we are just getting in CHL is a distortion of the principles of community organizing as he understands it.

For all of the talk about these community insertions... it seems that we should really translate the language of “building social capital” into “achieving social control.” ... This is about tamping down trouble, creating pressure values for hopelessness, rage, and malaise, and effective use of soft power to achieve great social control in poor localities. Community organizing is at risk of undergoing a total perversion of program and purpose ... Given the evolution of this type of organizing methodology in Britain, perhaps this evolutionary aberration was inevitable and intentional.

 

[CH1]

Good article.
"They will help their communities to take advantage of other key Big Society initiatives such as ‘Right to Buy’ community assets, and the ‘Right to Bid’ to run public services".

Regarding your quote above does this imply that the Big Society and Community Organising etc are in the business of exercising the "Right to Buy" and "Right to Bid" for council services, such as libraries, parks etc.?

We seem to be part way there with friends groups etc. Are friends groups and community organisers a 2-edged sword?

 

[CH1]

Lees blog also mentions a critic of Locality programme from an American
He is saying that this government funded Locality programme which we are just getting in CHL is a distortion of the principles of community organizing as he understands it.

Intrigued that Lee mentions Wade Rathke in his blog. He is obviously into the theory of what he is doing. I wonder if anyone has had any contact with either of these two Coldharbour organisers yet?

 

[Gramsci]

Regarding your quote above does this imply that the Big Society and Community Organising etc are in the business of exercising the "Right to Buy" and "Right to Bid" for council services, such as libraries, parks etc.?

We seem to be part way there with friends groups etc. Are friends groups and community organisers a 2-edged sword?

It looks to me that the Government hope that the community organisers will push there ideas of Right to Buy etc.

I do not agree we are part there with friends groups etc.

Friends of groups , Brixton Rec Users Group, Brixton Society are all independent pressure groups. They are part of Civil Society. We live in a representative democracy not a direct democracy. Once elected the representatives are no longer part of Civil Society. There is a split in the body politic.

I know some "Friends Groups" have been asked by the Labour "Coop" Council to take a part in management of facilities. BRUG were asked about this (without pressure ). I advised to say no. As BRUGs role imo is as a lobby group not a management group.

There is nothing wrong with the idea of community organisers. It comes from US which is a different political society. US did not develop a Welfare State after WW2. There is no Labour party in US. Community organising is how deprived and neglected communities, in particular African American, organised to fill the gaps which would have been dealt with in a Welfare state. What I mean is that this was necessary bottom up organising.

Both the Tories "Big Society" and Labours "Coop Councils" both smack of top down initiatives.

When Red Ken was in power the GLC did fund community groups and attempted to to further a popular left programme. Forgotten now.

 

[buscador]

Forgotten now.

Some of us remember.

 

[shygirl]

I tried it last night. Slightly unexpected but friendly enough door / security system with a short wait inside but I think it is because all punters are given tables or a seat at the bar. Other than that it was very good.Tried two cocktails which were unusual and excellent, beautifully made and presented. The owner came over for a chat and was impressively enthusiastic about all things cocktail and the staff also seemed "into" it. I thought they'd be in the £9 or £10 region but they were £6 and £7. I only like cocktails every now and again but I'd definitely go back.They have a 2am licence.

I should add that I was fairly twat faced when I arrived and presumably more so when I left around 1, so take no responsibility whatsoever for any glaring inaccuracies in my review...

I wonder why they need a door man? And who they might block?

 

[colacubes]

I wonder why they need a door man? And who they might block?

Probably not their choice tbf. Increasingly it's being imposed as a licence requirement. In fact I think the only place that doesn't have one on Fri/Sat night on that stretch is The Albert.

 

[Tricky Skills]

Some clarification from Lee and Jonny on what they are trying to achieve as Community Organisers for Coldharbour.

 

[Rushy]

I wonder why they need a door man? And who they might block?

When I turned up it was very full and I got the impression that they were being particularly selective. Luckily, despite my southern roots, I am both handsome and errudite and was welcomed with open arms.

 

[editor]

When I turned up it was very full and I got the impression that they were being particularly selective

That would fit in with the kind of place it is.

 

[Rushy]

That would fit in with the kind of place it is.

Handsome and errudite (with two rr's just in case I wasn't being obvious enough).

 

[editor]

I don't like bars with 'discerning' door staff. Yuck.

 

[boohoo]

When Red Ken was in power the GLC did fund community groups and attempted to to further a popular left programme. Forgotten now.

I've been in the GLC archives recently -fascinating stuff. Their work should really not be ignored.

 

[shygirl]

When I turned up it was very full and I got the impression that they were being particularly selective. Luckily, despite my southern roots, I am both handsome and errudite and was welcomed with open arms.

Any indication on what they based their pickyness? Class, race, posh, poor?

 

[ddraig]

It looks to me that the Government hope that the community organisers will push there ideas of Right to Buy etc.

I do not agree we are part there with friends groups etc.

Friends of groups , Brixton Rec Users Group, Brixton Society are all independent pressure groups. They are part of Civil Society. We live in a representative democracy not a direct democracy. Once elected the representatives are no longer part of Civil Society. There is a split in the body politic.

I know some "Friends Groups" have been asked by the Labour "Coop" Council to take a part in management of facilities. BRUG were asked about this (without pressure ). I advised to say no. As BRUGs role imo is as a lobby group not a management group.

There is nothing wrong with the idea of community organisers. It comes from US which is a different political society. US did not develop a Welfare State after WW2. There is no Labour party in US. Community organising is how deprived and neglected communities, in particular African American, organised to fill the gaps which would have been dealt with in a Welfare state. What I mean is that this was necessary bottom up organising.

Both the Tories "Big Society" and Labours "Coop Councils" both smack of top down initiatives.

When Red Ken was in power the GLC did fund community groups and attempted to to further a popular left programme. Forgotten now.

ah, some of this sounds like "co-production"
a nice cosy term for getting decent caring people to provide services for free
even a small industry growing around advice/consultants etc trying to cream some of the funds availabe

 

[Gramsci]

Some clarification from Lee and Jonny on what they are trying to achieve as Community Organisers for Coldharbour.

They still do not acknowledge that the training by Locality was funded by this government as part of the "Big Society".

I do find this bizarre as Lees Blog does discuss this issue. ( see post #97)

 

[Gramsci]

I've been in the GLC archives recently -fascinating stuff. Their work should really not be ignored.

Can you expand on this post? Be interested to know what u found about GLC work.

I know the anti nuclear murals in Brixton were part of GLC funding of popular culture. Also I remember that Lambeth had a police monitoring group which I think GLC funded.

 

[boohoo]

Can you expand on this post? Be interested to know what u found about GLC work.

I know the anti nuclear murals in Brixton were part of GLC funding of popular culture. Also I remember that Lambeth had a police monitoring group which I think GLC funded.

I've been looking at the Arts and Recreation Committee grants. They focused their funding on black, gay and women's groups - positive discrimination basically. It's would be interesting to note how many organisations are still with us thanks to the support of the GLC. Their archives is at the London Metropolitan Archives. They also funded anti-racism murals.

This article is also of interest: http://www.amielandmelburn.org.uk/collections/newformations/01_103.pdf

 

[Gramsci]

I've been looking at the Arts and Recreation Committee grants. They focused their funding on black, gay and women's groups - positive discrimination basically. It's would be interesting to note how many organisations are still with us thanks to the support of the GLC. Their archives is at the London Metropolitan Archives. They also funded anti-racism murals.

This article is also of interest: http://www.amielandmelburn.org.uk/collections/newformations/01_103.pdf

Not positive discrimination- its to do with the politics of GLC and the left of that time. There is an important difference.

They were influenced by my cat Gramsci, an interpretation of his work. So there funding of these groups and murals was about creating a hegemonic block to counter Thatcher. It was about fostering a politics of the left that was open and not old school Labour. It all went when New Labour came along. Though interestingly enough New Labour also were influenced by it in ways that Ken and the rest did not foresee.

Good article on the difference here

Take anti racism:

. New Labour is as much as anything a socio-political coalition which seeks to consolidate a solid centre-ground — socially, economically, politically, culturally — by excluding both the radical left and its natural constituencies and the radical right and its. So overt symbolic racism is attacked as it never was under Thatcher, but radical anti-racist groups get none of the support they did from the GLC (for example, and not untypically, the pioneering anti-racist group Newham Monitoring Project actually had its funding cancelled following a Blairite take over of the council’s Labour group).

So I would say Brixtons 3 anti nuclear murals were part of a leftist project by GLC to use culture to develop an opposition to the Thatcherite political project. It was more than just "regeneration". It was a politics that saw culture in the broadest sense as important.

 

[SpamMisery]

I've had a few beers so I may have misread that, but did you say they were influenced by an interpretation of your cats work?

 

[Gramsci]

This article is also of interest: http://www.amielandmelburn.org.uk/collections/newformations/01_103.pdf

Just looked at this article. Its very good summary of the issues. Its sad that all this has been ignored by New Labour.

 

[Gramsci]

I've had a few beers so I may have misread that, but did you say they were influenced by an interpretation of your cats work?

See my avatar.

 

[Winot]

Gramsci you're the only person I know who can spell "hegemonic" correctly and "their" incorrectly in the same post.