Surely everyone knows the score with these "social fund" type things by now? Government wants to sort out "social exclusion" so they set aside a bunch of money to throw at the problem, which is far easier than stopping and asking themselves how their own policies are causing these problems in the first place.
They then pass the issue of what to do with this money this down to a £100k super-dooper strategic head of department at Lambeth Council, who then shunts it down to te muggins medium-to-low-level bureaucrat who is entirely insulated from any kind of openness or public accountability. Locally elected councillors don't have to sign off the money because it comes in under a certain amount, and many of them are party-clone-people in any case (if not then they are dissident loners, with massive 'serious problem' caseloads anyway).
The service-level officer is then expected to get rid of this money somehow in the target wards, despite the fact that the very problem in the first place is that part of the original probelm is that there exists very little in the way of the kind of middle-class people with the training, skills, knowledge and time to swan around and talk the gobble-de-gook, make fancy business plans, register companies and charities, invent fancy spreadsheets showing forward cash projections etc. and hob-nob down at Brixton Town Hall and other funding bodies to grab various funding, all the while supporting themselves off their trust-fund etc.
What then happens is that the bureaucrat is so desperate to get rid of the money (or be judged to have 'failed' and not get their contract renewed) that they will throw the money at *anything* that manages to tick the right boxes on their checklist, regardless of merit or any realistic chance that it will help local people at all. They will also want to show that these projects are successful so when they come with their checklist each year to see if it is "delivering on targets" they will want to see that it has. Typically they will tell people exactly what kind of "feedback" they are going to need to produce a 'success'.
The upshot of this is that any canny "business-person" who fancies milking this source of funding can come in and take the money. They will typically set up a project that benefits themselves, has a glossy brouchure and a newly painted premises that people can go and look at and take photos of. They will do a minimal amout of work - typically indulging themselves and their mates and using the place as an extension of their front room and social life. They will justify their dictatorial style and absolute control on the grounds that the funding can only be given to "properly constituted" bodies and that they need to be entirely responsible for insurance and accounting purposes.
The typical life-cycle of these projects is that the "entrepreneur" will stay long enough to fill in their next set of funding applications for even more moolah - probably somewhere else in London or the country, and after milking the money for three or four years they will shut up shop and piss off, having basically pissed thousands of pounds of public money on their own salary and career advancement. If they manage to somehow achieve anything they will continue with the scam, but typically the level of local dissatisfation and dissent between the users, the locals, the other 'minor' employees and so forth builds up to the point where they feel it is safer to start another scam somewhere else before enough evidence of their total uselessness can become apparent, although people who are so used to being fucked over by the government (eg Capita, benefits, housing etc) will often not get themselves organised into an angry and indignant bunch of citizens who will have it out with the council, unless thyey happen to have a strong tenants group in the first place. Thje thing is that these projects are typially aimed at "excluded groups" in the first place so the users who get fucked over either never even get throught the door in the first place or they are not in the position to organise and complain or read the small print or realise that their money is going on paying for the tosser in the suit who never turns up or never does any work and never provides any meaningful training or work.
To be fair, none of this is actually the fault of either the local council bureaucrat or even the organisations and individuals who have seen an opportunity to effectively "sign on" for a few years and have a cushy job. It is actually a system of government funding that is predicated on there actually being sufficient social capital in the area to take advantage of the money. However, in Lambeth and other inner city areas there simply are not enough "middle-class" (or well established "working class") people or communities that are able to jump through the hoops of matched funding etc, and the very "business" structures that are required for accounting purposes militate against the very kind of low-level, members-based, voluntary, grass-roots groups that really could form the basis of "regeneration" and building up and empowering communities in Lambeth.
No-one in the whole sorry chain really has any advantage in saying that the whole thing is failing, since this would mean being a 'dissident' and 'causing trouble', and people would simply say *they* were failing. Everyone keeps quiet takes their money and moves on in their career, and the poor people just watch it with total disgust and resignation since it has always been thus.
I have to admit that it is a bit of a cheap shot if I try to blame Steve for this situation, but it really sticks in my throat when I see the latest chancer milking the funds in the same old way, and then trying to make grand claims for it on Urban75 (rather than just tryiong to bullshit the council et al). This has been seen time and time again with supposedly well-meaning projects in Lambeth - divorced from local people, led by relatively 'middle-class' people, or at least 'professional-fund-chasers' or the virtual 'del-boys' of the charity world (work in the community as a 'business proposition').
Like I said, South London is a veritable pig-tough for consultants, public employees, fund-chasers and wide-boys to basically gobble up as much money as the government cares to pour into an area that they are incredibily conflicted about - as they gaze from the House of Commons across the river and and feel their hearts bleeding about the waste zone where they have there London pad (Oliver Letwin style) within cycling distance, and maybe only occasionally wonder why their cheques are totally failing to make a single dent in any of the statistics.
OK - here's the message to them all: WAKE THE FUCK UP PEOPLE! Start asking some questions and don't just come down to Lambeth for a shirt-sleeves photo-op with your tongue-up-arse councillors a week before the elections, and brag about your 6 million pounds you just pissed down the drain in front of some of the most deprived people in Europe. Cunts!
(nb I have a lot of ideas of exactly how you could redesign the whole process of allocating the £6 million etc to local community based projects etc, but basically it is pissing in the wind until people realise that the current system is a total and utter con. The best thing would be to get rid of the fucking useless Lambeth councillors. Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour alike (maybe with the exception of those who have actually shown they are in touch with local groups and will admit that the pig-trough system - as well as the so-called 'consultation exercises' is an insult to local people, and to justice, democracy, openess and accountability) and vote in a Green Party council, along with a whole load of local membership-based, long-term groups and organisations. Why - because they don't deserve any more chances at screwing the thing up.)
) but what power do members have, should there be any? 
